1. The Moustache of Understanding
A piece from Salon that slams what it refers to as “bogus centrism,” a movement peopled by the likes of Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Michael Bloomberg, and Howard Schultz that is based solely on sounding conciliatory and reasonable but is, in fact, vapid, condescending and platitudinous. Salon indicts the movement as swiping the Left’s, and specifically Obama’s, policy positions and rebranding them as moderate compromises. I have to say I think they’re correct. Rather than a genuine “fusion” or “big tent” movement, akin to the Ron Paul revolution, this seems more like an inside-the-beltway marketing ploy to keep some careers solvent during times that are decidedly unkind for liberals or establishmentarians… or progressives, or centrists, or No Labelers…. or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves this week.
2. Herman Cain Takes the Lead
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll shows Cain surging to first place in the GOP primary with 27%. Romney follows closely at 23% while Perry somehow clings to third with 16%. Ron Paul hovers just beneath the three front-runners with 11%. I’m personally not sure if Cain’s ascent is based more on his performance or on Perry’s lack thereof, but one can’t help but wonder whether Paul can break into third if he performs well in the next debate and raises the energy level of his campaign.
3. The Iranian Question
The recently uncovered plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil strongly implicates Iran. But this isn’t even close to the first such discovery demonstrating a clear link between the Iranian government and terrorist activity aimed at the US, nor the most provacative. The question is, what can we do about it? And it’s a real brain-buster. Endless sanctions have been leveled at Iran for decades. Russia and China, strategic allies (read: customers) of Iran, sit on the UN Security Council and would likely veto anything too drastic, even given this dramatic revelation. This article talks about using this incident to win the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East and unite them against Iran. Huh? Military action seems impossible given our current overextension, not to mention Iran’s well-developed network of proxy militant groups capable of launching punitive strikes on American soil, the country’s challenging (to put it mildly) terrain, and its not inconsiderable conventional military capability. So all we’re left with is our own clandestine methods: fanning the flames of discontent among Iran’s highly organized opposition movement, continued acts of sabotage and perhaps, if we’re smart, an extremely comprehensive and very public expose of the full measure of what we know the Iranians have bankrolled or planned in the past decade in the way of terrorism.
4. Phoenix Jones Unmasked
Thanks to this gentleman, cliched dialogue straight out of a Batman or Spider-Man script is being spouted by people like me. Is Phoenix Jones (aka Benjamin John Francis Fodor) a hero or a menace? Well I don't live in Seattle (thank God) so I don't know. The minarchist in me likes the idea of a private citizen with the physical prowess to literally fight criminals taking to the streets of his local community to protect his neighbors (though ideally those neighbors would all carry guns and be lethally trained with them). But the intensely private neighbor in me wonders what the hell kind of person puts on (let alone buys) a rubber superhero costume and leaves his son alone at night to go and pepper spray pimps in the face. I'd rather he just walk around at night in street clothes with a gun on his hip, his identity plain, beating the living daylights out of any remaining criminals that don't know yet to stay the hell away from him by reputation.
13.10.11
Early Edition
1. Clinton continues to look good in a three-piece suit while undercutting the president’s proposed tax policy.
It’s abundantly clear that Bill Clinton either doesn’t care if President Obama wins re-election or is currently engaged in a passive-aggressive strategy to aid in his defeat. What isn’t necessarily as clear is why. Is Obama too liberal for Clinton? Has Obama been too ruinous for the Democratic Party? Is it retaliation for the Obama campaign’s (temporary) fracturing of the Clinton bloc within the DNC? Or retaliation for dashing both Clintons’ hopes of a return to the White House? Perhaps least likely of all: does Clinton have a primary challenger in mind?
2. Romney’s Mormonism won’t cost him the critical evangelical vote.
Of course it won’t, because there’s a difference between Mormonism and Mormons. Mormonism is religious slapstick. Mormons are sober, socially conservative, family-focused and successful business people actively involved in their communities and politics.
3. Reports of al Qaeda’s demise may be greatly exaggerated.
Assuming the key leadership of al Qaeda™ is eventually eradicated in its entirety, there is an essential debate that needs to happen as to whether that constitutes a victory in the now rebranded War on Terror that will allow us to bring our troops home. A critical aspect of that debate will, of course, be that destroying al Qaeda’s leadership doesn’t equate to a destruction of the Fort Hood and Umar Farooq-Abdulmutallab brand of low-cost, low-tech Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I suppose that’s another compelling reason for Congressionally-declared war against a clearly defined enemy with pre-defined victory conditions.
4. “My poverty but not my will consents.”
This is one of many examples of a clear confusion of bioethicism and social policy that has resulted from the broadening of the scope of bioethics itself. What caught my eye was the assertion by Ellison and Meliker that paying women for their eggs might induce a disproportionate number of poor women (under duress, seems to be the inaccurate and underlying presumption) to put themselves at risk of health problems. This whole notion that the impoverished may somehow be less responsible for entering into an agreement after being made fully aware of the risks to their own health, apart from being baseless, doesn’t seem to have any place in bioethics.
It’s abundantly clear that Bill Clinton either doesn’t care if President Obama wins re-election or is currently engaged in a passive-aggressive strategy to aid in his defeat. What isn’t necessarily as clear is why. Is Obama too liberal for Clinton? Has Obama been too ruinous for the Democratic Party? Is it retaliation for the Obama campaign’s (temporary) fracturing of the Clinton bloc within the DNC? Or retaliation for dashing both Clintons’ hopes of a return to the White House? Perhaps least likely of all: does Clinton have a primary challenger in mind?
2. Romney’s Mormonism won’t cost him the critical evangelical vote.
Of course it won’t, because there’s a difference between Mormonism and Mormons. Mormonism is religious slapstick. Mormons are sober, socially conservative, family-focused and successful business people actively involved in their communities and politics.
3. Reports of al Qaeda’s demise may be greatly exaggerated.
Assuming the key leadership of al Qaeda™ is eventually eradicated in its entirety, there is an essential debate that needs to happen as to whether that constitutes a victory in the now rebranded War on Terror that will allow us to bring our troops home. A critical aspect of that debate will, of course, be that destroying al Qaeda’s leadership doesn’t equate to a destruction of the Fort Hood and Umar Farooq-Abdulmutallab brand of low-cost, low-tech Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I suppose that’s another compelling reason for Congressionally-declared war against a clearly defined enemy with pre-defined victory conditions.
4. “My poverty but not my will consents.”
This is one of many examples of a clear confusion of bioethicism and social policy that has resulted from the broadening of the scope of bioethics itself. What caught my eye was the assertion by Ellison and Meliker that paying women for their eggs might induce a disproportionate number of poor women (under duress, seems to be the inaccurate and underlying presumption) to put themselves at risk of health problems. This whole notion that the impoverished may somehow be less responsible for entering into an agreement after being made fully aware of the risks to their own health, apart from being baseless, doesn’t seem to have any place in bioethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)