The Dish

A reader writes:

David Brooks is twice wrong in his column, and the second of his errors is much the more dangerous. By strong implication, David urges the President not only to reach a prompt decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, but to "fixate" on the "simple conviction ['that the war is winnable'] and grip it … unflinchingly". David cites the examples of Lincoln and Churchill, but they prove the opposite. Both Lincoln and Churchill famously held to their strategic goals through thick and thin, Lincoln's being the preservation of the Union and Churchill's being the destruction of the Fascists. But both of those war leaders were just as famously completely flexible as to the measures which would lead to success. As Lincoln said: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Churchill bordered on the impetuous in trying different tactics in his determination to defeat Hitler.

Obama's task is to devise the best strategy to cope with and defeat the terrorists, but then he must also educate and persuade the American people and our allies that neither a swift nor complete "victory" is attainable in this conflict, but that "victory" lies in isolating and outlasting the jihadists. I believe America will follow Obama whatever the cost, but only if he can articulate a strategy that leaves room for treating the traditional concept of "victory" in Afghanistan as the chimera it may be, and points the way towards how best to deploy America's resources, military, diplomatic and economic, throughout the region and indeed the world. Fixating on a "simple conviction" is what mired us in Iraq and turned our attention from Afghanistan/Pakistan. We need a broader view, flexible enough to track reality – as Lincoln and Churchill taught us. David's urging would deflect Obama – and America – from this more important task.

His campaign offers a correction to one detail in this post:

1. Senator Specter did not vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004. Senator Specter voted for cloture in a procedural vote to bring the amendment to the floor, however he clearly stated his opposition to the amendment several times:

"I would not support a constitutional amendment at this time. I think the issue is being handled by the states." –Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (R), on the Federal Marriage Amendment, (AP, July 18, 2004)

2. On the merits of the bill, Senator Specter spoke on the floor on July 14, 2004 and said: "On this state of the record, it is premature to consider altering the Constitution, the most successful organic document in history which has preserved and enshrined the values of our Nation." 

Jacob Sullum discusses the hearing for the marijuana legalization bill introduced by California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano:

As a RAND Corporation analyst pointed out at the hearing, a black market in marijuana might persist if the legal product were heavily taxed. But that's an argument against high taxes, not against legalization. Several witnesses also noted that marijuana would still be prohibited under federal law, meaning that producers and sellers would still be vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. But that is exactly the scenario that needs to play out if we are going to see any serious progress in ending the war on the drugs. Will the federal government go to war with a state that legalizes the cultivation and sale of marijuana within its borders, or will it find a way to live with a diversity of state policies in this area (as the Constitution requires)? The Obama administration's move toward a less aggressive posture vis-a-vis medical marijuana, assuming it is genuine, could point the way to a federalist experiment that resolves some of the questions raised by opponents of legalization.

Juan Cole is pessimistic:

Elections in Iraq cannot be held to international standards. There typically are no big public rallies, for fear that they would be blown up by Sunni Arab guerrillas. Candidates can seldom campaign publicly for fear of assassination. For the election itself, the US military declares a curfew and prohibits vehicular traffic for three days. Everyone is reduced to walking to the store to buy bread and other necessities. You can't drive. This measure prevents car bombings of the polling stations.

So why does the US still have 120,000 troops in Iraq?

They aren't for the most part doing patrols anymore. They are just being kept in place so that they can swing into action as soon as the election date is fixed, and protect the electoral process from sabotage by bombing.

Is this rationale really a good enough reason to keep so many troops in Iraq? Shouldn't the Iraqi army by now be able to supervise a vehicular curfew on its own? And, why should the Obama administration care if the election is held or not? Saudi Arabia hasn't held any elections lately and it is our ally. The Iraqis were made by the U.S. to have several elections, and they know how to do it if they want to. Why allow their interminable parlays on basic things like an electoral law to hold U.S. troops hostage in the country with nothing much to do for a year?

A reader writes:

You said:

"Maddow is better [than Olbermann] but oozes toxic levels of smug." 

I guess that depends on the observer, because what I see and hear are unique levels of smart packaged in the most substantive discussions anywhere on teevee (except possibly Moyers but the format is different).  Her format refuses to engage in the false "balance" so prevalent in the media, she always gives guests space to object to her segment intros, she never engages in shouting matches (she got close once), and her approach, after a 20 minute, spirited debate with Tom Ridge, elicited a "this is exactly the kind of civil debate we need to have in this country" from Ridge. 

I  always feel better informed – and am better informed - after watching Maddow.  

And then there's this.

A reader writes:

This summer my son needed to have tubes put in his ears. These tubes are very small and resemble miniature shoelace eyelets, a design that enables them to stay in place mechanically once inserted. The insertion takes about 10 minutes but requires that the child be anesthetized. For this relatively simple procedure, the surgical center billed us approximately $10,000. Our insurer cut a reimbursement check to us in the amount of approximately $900. As per verbal instructions from the surgical center, we signed the check over to the surgical center who then adjusted our bill to equal the amount of the reimbursement. Aside from several small co-pays to the ear doctor and anesthesiologist, that adjustment settled our obligation to the surgical center.

While this is admittedly unremarkable, what would have happened if we did not have insurance, or if they did not decide to “adjust” our bill? We were legally on the hook for the full $10,000, a price that was clearly inflated by at least a factor of 10 in the hope that the insurer would pay more. I am no fan of insurance companies in general, and I do think that reasonable regulation is a good idea, but it does bear mention that doctors and medical facilities are gaming the system too, and gaming it in a way that could easily bankrupt a normal family. How are the proposed health care reforms proposing to remedy what I consider to be bad-faith billing?

Levi gives an interview to the Guardian. He defends her: "She's not the racist type." And he rips her: he has never seen her read a newspaper. "It's ridiculous how fake they are." Then this:

"I'm up to the point where I can't see my kid again. I'm done. I'm sure we'll end up in court. We're definitely going to court."

He repeats that he knows more things about her that would hurt her – but says he won't reveal them. Presumably this means something worse than his allegation that she routinely called Trig a "retard baby." What could be worse than that?

Musings On Iraq checks in on the country's chief resource:

Things are far from settled…with Iraq’s oil. The Oil Minister remains under attack from parliament, members of his own ministry, and the Kurds. Oil exports continue to fluctuate up and down. There are major problems with the Ministry’s accounting and metering systems, as well as corruption. Iraq has also failed to pass a new petroleum law. Because there is so much excess crude and other reserves right now, companies may not be as eager to invest in Iraq as before. All of these factors mean that new oil deals are more important to Iraq than to the oil conglomerates, so the Oil Ministry has to carefully construct its policy to appease both a strong nationalist trend in Iraq that is weary of foreign exploitation, and appeals to those same companies. This is something that the Ministry has been largely incapable of performing so far.

Another redoubt of gay culture surrenders to the straights. Dan:

I'm often asked—confronted—about gay pride parades when I speak at colleges and universities. Usually it's a conservative student, typically someone who isn't happy about my being invited to campus in the first place. We gay people like to pretend that we're all about love and marriage, the conservative student will insist, but look at your pride parades! Look at those guys in assless chaps and all those bare-chested lesbians dancing! Just look! The exchange almost always ends with this:

Conservative student: "Straight people don't flaunt our sexuality like that. We don't have straight 'pride' parades."

Me: "You should."

And it seems clearer with every passing Halloween that straight people do.