Greenwald Versus Klein

I’m late to this. Here’s Joe’s blog-post correcting an error in his Time column. Here’s Glenn’s long, impassioned response. I remember reading Joe’s column and being a little surprised by this:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that — Limbaugh is salivating — would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans.

This was the gut of the column and it was wrong. We all make mistakes and the intricacies of the FISA law are mind-numbing. I think Joe’s correction is fine, although I do think the online version of the column needs to have a correction attached pronto. But my main issue is with the reflexive fear centrist Democrats have in the face of shameless demagogues like Limbaugh. This is Clintonism writ large. The argument for judicial safeguards on wire-tapping is popular and important. It’s a vital and simple precaution against abuse of government power. Until Democrats and traditional Republicans stop being craven in the face of the far right’s bluster – until they get angry at the idiocy and un-American authoritarianism of the Hannity-Limbaugh-Giuliani right, they will lose, and deserve to lose.

Beneath this war between new and old media, there is a deeper and more important battle: to regain our collective nerve against the bullies of the authoritarian far right. The difference between my position and Joe’s is minuscule on this war, and, unlike Glenn, I admire and like Joe Klein as a journalist and friend. But we need more Greenwaldism and less Clintonism in the fight for American freedom. Bullies see a defensive crouch as an invitation for more bullying. It is time to fight back.

The Science Of Ecstasy

Another demonized "party drug" is getting a new looksie, as its potential as a medicine is explored:

MDMA’s partial rehabilitation is largely due to the efforts of Rick Doblin and his Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. MAPS has raised the money for the Mithoefer trial and other studies aimed at testing the medical or psychotherapeutic value of currently banned substances, and it has led the way through the bureaucratic maze that must be traversed to obtain legal approval for such research. Its ultimate goal is to make Schedule I substances such as MDMA, LSD, ibogaine, and marijuana available by prescription.

But some sick people could get better! MDMA, of course, began life as a medical psychiatric therapy. It was only when it gave people pleasure and helped them think through and resolve their emotional problems that the government decided to ban it.

Face Of The Day

Baqubagianluigiguerciaafpgetty

A US soldier from Bravo company, 1st Battallion, 38 regiment infantry goes down the stairs as he searches an Iraqi house for weapons and suspects during a morning patrol in the streets of Baquba, 27 November 2007. Seven Iraqis, among them three women and a child, were reported killed today by the US military, a day after Washington and Baghdad agreed to keep American forces in Iraq beyond 2008. By Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty.

The Market and The Environment

Why are Romney and Giuliani promising massive new government spending on alternative energy sources? Don’t conservatives understand that the best solution is for government to provide market incentives for new technologies, rather than trying to come up with the solution itself? Sure, some basic research support – but then leave it to the private sector to generate new ideas, and the market to see which ones will fly. James Pethokoukis draws the obvious parallel:

Think about stem cells. The apparent breakthrough in stem cell technology—it appears skin cells can be reprogrammed into stem cells—is not-so-good news for some half-dozen states that have invested in embryonic stem cell research, including California, which has committed to spending $3 billion over 10 years. Essentially, what those states decided to do was engage in a bit of industrial policy. They decided to let government rather than private enterprise and the market decide what the most promising stem cell technologies were. And now they appear to have bet on the wrong technological horse.

One good yardstick. Find out which politician is promising a Manhattan Project for some technological innovation. If you want real progress, vote for his or her opponent.