The Dish

Frum takes issue with this survey:

Can we take this report as definitive proof of how silly such surveys are? For any item about which people really care – their brand of toothpaste for example – opinion is legendarily difficult to move. If global approval of the United States can be swung so dramatically by an election return, does that not suggest (even assuming that the survey is valid) that global approval of the United States is a very shallow and fleeting attitude? That the movement in such attitudes is more like the swinging of the dials in a focus group than like a true change of mind? Anything that swings one way very fast can swing another way very fast – and that tells us that when we chase such fluctuating moods, we are chasing nebulous nothings.

Keep dreaming, David. The main reason for the dramatic swing is simply massive global relief that Bush and Cheney are now gone and some kind of rational discourse and diplomacy have replaced the "axis of evil" and "enhanced interrogation."

Some of us saw the potential for this a while back and hoped the inevitable burst of relief that torturers and debtors had left the building might re-position the US. Think of the way that deep depressions can lead to rapid recoveries. America was in a pit in 2008 not seen since 1979. Even originally unpopular presidents abroad, like Reagan, ended up respected. But not Bush and not Cheney. They still send shudders up most non-American spines (and plenty of American ones too).

I suspect even David is in denial as to how profoundly wrecked the American brand was after eight years of mounting debt, a bubble economy, withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions, denial of climate change, a pre-emptive war waged on false pretenses, and a president who was simply both out of his depth and wantonly reckless. We had the Republican equivalent of a two-term Carter presidency. Even America's best friends had been alienated and appalled.

Obama’s approval ratings on health insurance reform have been rising for a while now – ever since the Town Hall hysteria:

That's Michael Wolff's take on Rupert Murdoch's online strategy:

The more he can choke off the Internet as a free news medium, the more publishers he can get to join him, the more people he can bring back to his papers. It is not a war he can win in the long term, but a little Murdoch rearguard action might get him to his own retirement. Then it’s somebody else’s problem.

Wouldn't that be his son's?

Once again, his intellectual honesty redeems his network:

A reader writes:

A couple years ago I found that my productivity at work was declining and I was losing interest in doing just about anything in my life.  A friend of mine recommended I see a psychiatrist; I was diagnosed as having depression, and prescribed Wellbutrin. Within a month I was starting to feel a little bit better and was a little more productive, but there was a huge tradeoff: the medication was causing my heart to race and skip beats and was making my jaw clench.  I was afraid to continue Wellbutrin given its side effects, but I didn't want to give up on trying to treat my depression.

Being in California, I went to my doctor and got a recommendation for

marijuana.

 (I had only tried it twice in my life before then, and had never thought it could really be used for medicinal purposes.)  I visited the local dispensary, got some sativa (the uplifting, energetic, clear-headed kind of cannabis), and got a vaporizer.  Over the course of the next year I had some sativa once or twice a week (more than that is counterproductive); it made my depression go away completely.  Earlier this year I decided that my treatment had run its course, so I stopped using cannabis.  I've been doing fine since and have had no withdrawal issues.

While Wellbutrin was effective, it had dangerous side effects; for the same condition, it turns out that sativa was just as effective for me and had none of the negative side effects (and since I used a vaporizer I didn't have to smoke anything).  Bottom line: I was surprised to find that cannabis sativa was effective to treat my depression, but it really worked.  I also realized that what I had been taught about marijuana as a kid was wrong – it is less addictive than alcohol and its intoxicating effects are less debilitating.

I've done some research on it since then, and have found that studies show that cannabis sativa is effective in treating depression when used moderately (like I did – once or twice each week), but is counterproductive when used excessively (such as every day).

Marc Lynch wants new Afghanistan metrics:

For everyone involved in the debate — including me — what specific developments, metrics, or events would lead you to change your mind?  What are the things which, if observed over the next year, would lead you to support a different policy?  For me, it's perhaps the consolidation of a more legitimate Afghan political order and stronger evidence that Afghans and Pakistanis shared America's conception of interests.  For Steve Biddle yesterday, it was the opposite:  evidence that 12-18 months of sustained American efforts had not improved Afghan governance or political legitimacy.  For Nagl, it was Pakistan giving up its nuclear weapons (?).  Yesterday John Nagl said that we shouldn't think of the Afghanistan war having gone on 8 years, since COIN was only now being tried.  Well, the debate about the Afghan war has really only been going on for a couple of months.  Let's give that some time too.

The Dish spotlighted the great blog "Letters Of Note" last month, but this memo written by some guy named "Matt" is worth sharing:

(Hat tip: BF)

Karen Tumulty rounds up Republicans whto are supporting or semi-supporting health care reform (Arnold is the latest addition). As Karen notes, none of the Republicans she lists are currently in the house or senate. Ezra Klein has seen this move before:

This is reminiscent of the strategy the Obama campaign employed in the closing weeks of the presidential election. Obama had run as the herald of a new, less polarized type of politics, but he didn't have much support from prominent Republicans. So the campaign began to roll out, or emphasize, retired Republicans: Colin Powell, Jim Leach, and Lincoln Chafee among them. Obama's advisers figured that if the current political situation was too polarized to permit bipartisanship, then they could reach backward, or maybe outward, to find Republicans who weren't subject to its pressures. Then they used the presence of those retired, moderate Republicans to imply that more Republicans would be signing on if not for partisan pressure from the party leadership. Looks like they're readying to run the same play on health care, and they're helped by the fact that it's probably correct on the merits.

Reihan pulls out some choice quotes from a Ron Brownstein article.

Since we're on the subject …