Anything you'd like me to ponder over the weekend?
« By Request: AFRICOM | Main | Lapsed Catholics »
Weekend Requests
20 Jun 2008 03:03 pm
Comments (74)
How big is your RSS Feed? How many stories/webpages do you view, job-relatedly, in a given day or week?
Human mortality.
Has your experience with HITS taught you anything about the process of writing, publishing and promoting a book that would be entertaining to your readers? Any funny stories?
What would need to happen for Texas to turn blue this cycle?
If Noriega took Cornyn's senate seat I think the Governor spot would stand a much better chance of going to Houston Mayor Bill White sometime soon and a sea change could occur there that could shift national momentum for quite a while.
But the state needs a nudge - ideas?
Human mortality.
Maybe he should save that for the three-day weekend next week.
The artistic naming skill that goes into stamping "Ferguson Jenkins" on your son's birth certificate.
Also - what on earth Democrats can do to protest the capitulation of so many Democrats on ridiculous Republican-supported bills like FISA, when the most obvious alternative (voting against the Dem and voting in yet another disaster of a Republican) is a poor option. Quite a catch 22...
Which branch of the military have you volunteered for to serve in Afghanistan? Because we need 400,000 troops there!
How about some reflections on Europe:
Today the EU agreed to lift sanctions on Cuba. Europe, apparently, does not have a florida.
Thoughts on the Lisbon Treaty?
Sarkozy has a White Paper out on modernizing French forces--downsizing and upgrading, and makign them compatible with NATO.
Maybe missed it but I've yet to see you comment on Obama opting out of campaign public financing. Brooks has a scathing column in the NYT. —MS
You did miss it. Check the link.
And Matt actually alluded to Brooks' predictable, "scathing" column in the post about how McCain flipflops on immigration depending on who the audience is.
Maybe missed it but I've yet to see you comment on Obama opting out of campaign public financing. Brooks has a scathing column in the NYT.
yes, it's interesting how easy it would be to write almost exactly the same column about McCain -- how he has managed to maintain a reputation as a straight-talking maverick, but is actually an incredibly ruthless cynical politician.
Like I asked way at the bottom of the previous thread, I'd love to see something on how to balance out (or justify) the initial regressiveness of a carbon tax.
I doubt you're a hockey fan, but this has larger implications:
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/446583
Is Nancy Pelosi a Republican in San Francisco women's clothing?
Why should I continue to vote Democratic, since they are just like Republicans on key issues, and they do the job of hiding their cowardice so poorly?
How wicked awesome Boston is!
On this recent post, you came out for "reform". I pointed out that "reform" would give even more power inside the U.S. to racial power groups as well as the MexicanGovernment.
I'd like MattY for once to opine on that issue. Should we worry about a neighboring government having PoliticalPower inside the U.S.? If so, what should we do about it? How specifically will that power be reduced should what MattY supports be enacted?
I realize this is a difficult topic about which MattY knows little or nothing, so let me suggest doing as much research as possible first.
This is a major issue involved in something MattY supports, so if he's going to continue to support that then he should first learn what he's talking about and then tell us how we're going to deal with one of the massive downsides.
Agribusiness! Mostly, is there such a thing as a "progressive" agricultural policy?
Boston is a blight on the Earth.
Reject and denounce Ambinder.
Suck. On. This.
I second Gregor's thought ...
Though you wrote below that a contingent of Democrats voted against ...
Nancy Pelosi spoke in favor of the bill, so the whole top layer of House Democratic leadership supported the (FISA) bill.
So, the Democratic Party pushed the FISA bill through.
The question is why?
It appears to me that the Democrats don't value civil rights. Why should I believe otherwise - when the Democratic Leadership pushes this bill through?
(thx Glenn Greenwald)
I echo the need for analysis of Obama/McCain's campaign finance decisions, especially in light of the FactCheck.org observation: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_lame_claim_about_mccains_money.html
Matt,
Please consider the following question: who is cooler, David Lynch or Thomas Pynchon?
Why don't you update your blogroll?
I second the request for your views on Europe--especially the failure of Lisbon.
Failing that, given the recent PHR report, 'Broken Laws, Broken Lives' (tip of the iceberg that it is), do you think that enough has come to light that Congress has an obligation to at least censure the President? Shouldn't there at least be some minimal form of consequence for an Administration that has acted against the foundational principles of this country so blatantly? Can we reestablish our commitment to those principles and our claim to some moral high ground in the world if we fail to impose such consequence?
What will happen if Israel bombs Iran?
Another thought is to have your IT folks address your comment-posting software ... horrible horrible.
- and please - no more talk of "caving" when the Democratic leadership is behind a bill ... they don't cave to themselves.
Can you explain what the big deal is on the telecom immunity bill? A lot of bloggers seem to be very worked up about it, but I can't see why. If the telecom companies were really following orders, that seems to be a problem with the people giving orders rather than the companies themselves. At the very least, immunity doesn't seem like the end of the world here, since the harm involved is diffuse and mostly unknowable.
btw - I say this as someone who generally believes that most members of Congress are corrupt pussies, so I have no interest in standing up for them.
Ok, I'll cross-post: in one of the earlier FISA threads, I suggested that holding the TelCo's accountable for giving the executive branch what they asked for is putting them in the very difficult position of deciding which branch of government to obey.
I can easily imagine it working the other way: they hold firm against the executive, some terrible event occurs, and they then have to worry about being legally liable for some sort of negligence or obstruction.
So, set me right: basically, didn't they get caught between two branches of government? Should they really be punished for capitulating to White House demands?
This is just a random point I've been thinking about for a while which I haven't heard mentioned by anyone in the media (I assume someone has, I just haven't seen it) so I thought I'd run it by you.
Defenders of President Bush inevitably site the fact that no terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11 as one of the great accomplishments of his presidency. If you give him credit, however, for not "allowing" any more terrorist attacks since then shouldn't you, by that same token, blame him for 9/11 happening in the first place?
Personally, I do not blame him for 9/11 at all or give him credit for the fact that no such attacks have taken place since. To me, to live in a free, open, and pluralistic society that respects the civil liberties of its citizens like the United States is to acknowledge and accept the possibility of a terrorist attack occurring at any time.
Still I find it hard to comprehend why this point is not mentioned more often in the media since one of the Republicans' supposed "trump cards" in this election is the claim that they can "keep you safe." When in reality the worst terrorist attack in American history occurred under a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
Once again, I do not think that this point should be used for partisan advantage. I cannot help but think, however, that - given what we've seen from the Republican Party over the past 7 years - if such an attack had taken place under a Gore administration, the Republicans would not have hammered home this point explicitly and without remorse.
Just thought I'd throw it out there.
I second the request for your views on Europe--especially the failure of Lisbon.
Failing that, given the recent PHR report, 'Broken Laws, Broken Lives' (tip of the iceberg that it is), do you think that enough has come to light that Congress has an obligation to at least censure the President? Shouldn't there at least be some minimal form of consequence for an Administration that has acted against the foundational principles of this country so blatantly? Can we reestablish our commitment to those principles and our claim to some moral high ground in the world if we fail to impose such consequence?
I second the request for your views on Europe--especially the failure of Lisbon.
Failing that, given the recent PHR report, 'Broken Laws, Broken Lives' (tip of the iceberg that it is), do you think that enough has come to light that Congress has an obligation to at least censure the President? Shouldn't there at least be some minimal form of consequence for an Administration that has acted against the foundational principles of this country so blatantly? Can we reestablish our commitment to those principles and our claim to some moral high ground in the world if we fail to impose such consequence?
The proposed development at Poplar Point.
Go AWOL from public affairs until Monday morning. Go see "Get Smart." Buy something at Ikea and build it. Go to a yard sale. Get some sweet corn and see if it's fit to eat yet. Read a Carl Hiassen novel. Ride your bike with no particular place to go.
Here's one:
The Democrats, behind Obama, will be able to bring the word "liberal" back from epithet hell. Will he bring a little backbone into Congress with him, or will the others remain spineless?
Here's one:
The Democrats, behind Obama, will be able to bring the word "liberal" back from epithet hell. Will he bring a little backbone into Congress with him, or will the others remain spineless?
Why in the 21th century is American still trying to prevent flooding with earthen levees...that fail?
Buy something at Ikea and build it.
And then go back to IKEA next weekend to get the small but vital $4 cross-brace that was poorly labeled or impossible to find in the warehouse during your first three-hour trip to that godawful nightmare of a store. Then, swear off ever going again. And really mean it.
And then go again next year.
I'd like your thoughts on the Joe Klein FISA opinion that Andrew Sullivan linked to and the implications of this deal for Obama.
He came out, more or less, in complete support. Is this the correct decision on the merits of the legislation? Is it the correct decision from a political/election standpoint?
I would like for you to ponder this horrific scenario: Imagine one day large groups of people in certain locations, say major cities, begin killing themselves for no apparent reason. Imagine this begins in the Northeast. This event- let's call it a happening- begins repeating itself in different locations, inducing nation-wide panic. Not knowing quite what to do, you get your family together along with John Leguizamo and just take off running for nowhere in particular. Along the way you meet other people who kill themselves. You think it's terrorists at first but it's not. You know this because you're a science teacher. I think you end up running through fields with groups of people for a long period of time. A few of them might kill themselves too, but you're okay. None of this is terrorist related.
This weekend I'd like you to consider giving me $100 million to make this into a movie.
I would like for you to ponder this horrific scenario: Imagine one day large groups of people in certain locations, say major cities, begin killing themselves for no apparent reason. Imagine this begins in the Northeast. This event- let's call it a happening- begins repeating itself in different locations, inducing nation-wide panic. Not knowing quite what to do, you get your family together along with John Leguizamo and just take off running for nowhere in particular. Along the way you meet other people who kill themselves. You think it's terrorists at first but it's not. You know this because you're a science teacher. I think you end up running through fields with groups of people for a long period of time. A few of them might kill themselves too, but you're okay. None of this is terrorist related.
This weekend I'd like you to consider giving me $100 million to make this into a movie.
I'd like your thoughts on the Joe Klein FISA opinion that Andrew Sullivan linked to and the implications of this deal for Obama.
He came out, more or less, in complete support. Is this the correct decision on the merits of the legislation? Is it the correct decision from a political/election standpoint?
I'd like your thoughts on the Joe Klein FISA opinion that Andrew Sullivan linked to and the implications of this deal for Obama.
He came out, more or less, in complete support. Is this the correct decision on the merits of the legislation? Is it the correct decision from a political/election standpoint?
How do taxi cabs fit into your transportation equation? While they provide for point A to point B transportation needs, they seem to spend a lot of time driving around with no one in them. Couldn't large cities easily reduce both congestion and pollution by reducing the number of cabs? I would think that reducing the number of cabs would create an increase in the use of mass transportation as well. What sort of taxes are imposed on cab rides? Could an increase in rates be used to both reduce demand and fund mass transportation options? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Why am I pondering politics when any normal person would be relaxing? I mean, jeeze, it's the weekend!
(Slightly) more seriously, if Defense and State ought to be filled by Democrats, which cabinet-level positions would it be appropriate or advantageous for Obama to fill with Republicans?
Why does my comment system keep crashing on my readers?
Such good manners from so many of your guests. How do you keep such polite posters coming back?
PEPFAR reauthorization.
PEPFAR reauthorization.
Given the FISA issue today, how about profiling each candidate based on their views on executive power.
For a while I was touting former Sen. Graham of Florida as Obama VP and have seen his name once in a while. One name I haven't seen is William Cohen and were wondering what your thoughts were on Cohen, Graham or pros and cons of both. Below are my brief thoughts on Cohen.
Pros as I see it:
-Republican, shows post partisanship and similar views to a conservative Dem like Nunn, etc
-Defense, covers major weakness area
-Experience, both legislative and executive
-Possible sway on nearby New Hampshire
-Down ballot help on Maine senate seat
Cons
-Republican
-Doesn't bring over bloc of supporters
-NE not a focus area
-Cohen Group business dealings to pry into
Andrew Sullivan recently had some running commentary on whether or not America was an empire. I contend that the United States is an empire, albeit not so much a military one, like ancient Rome. We face many of the same problems (overstretched military, internal corruption, mismanagement by an inadequate government, and barbarian hordes in the form of modern day terrorism). So, I'd say the U.S. is Rome, Bin Laden is Attila, Bush is comparable to Nero or Caligula, but my question to you is which Roman emperor would Barack Obama be? Trajan? Constantine? Justinian? Or, if he somehow manages to win, who would John McCain be? Incidently, I'd purpose FDR as Caesar since his leadership launched us into the role of global leader, transformed our country as we knew it, and his life was cut tragicly short.
Andrew Sullivan recently had some running commentary on whether or not America was an empire. I contend that the United States is an empire, albeit not so much a military one, like ancient Rome. We face many of the same problems (overstretched military, internal corruption, mismanagement by an inadequate government, and barbarian hordes in the form of modern day terrorism). So, I'd say the U.S. is Rome, Bin Laden is Attila, Bush is comparable to Nero or Caligula, but my question to you is which Roman emperor would Barack Obama be? Trajan? Constantine? Justinian? Or, if he somehow manages to win, who would John McCain be? Incidently, I'd purpose FDR as Caesar since his leadership launched us into the role of global leader, transformed our country as we knew it, and his life was cut tragicly short.
Andrew Sullivan recently had some running commentary on whether or not America was an empire. I contend that the United States is an empire, albeit not so much a military one, like ancient Rome. We face many of the same problems (overstretched military, internal corruption, mismanagement by an inadequate government, and barbarian hordes in the form of modern day terrorism). So, I'd say the U.S. is Rome, Bin Laden is Attila, Bush is comparable to Nero or Caligula, but my question to you is which Roman emperor would Barack Obama be? Trajan? Constantine? Justinian? Or, if he somehow manages to win, who would John McCain be? Incidently, I'd purpose FDR as Caesar since his leadership launched us into the role of global leader, transformed our country as we knew it, and his life was cut tragicly short.
Andrew Sullivan recently had some running commentary on whether or not America was an empire. I contend that the United States is an empire, albeit not so much a military one, like ancient Rome. We face many of the same problems (overstretched military, internal corruption, mismanagement by an inadequate government, and barbarian hordes in the form of modern day terrorism). So, I'd say the U.S. is Rome, Bin Laden is Attila, Bush is comparable to Nero or Caligula, but my question to you is which Roman emperor would Barack Obama be? Trajan? Constantine? Justinian? Or, if he somehow manages to win, who would John McCain be? Incidently, I'd purpose FDR as Caesar since his leadership launched us into the role of global leader, transformed our country as we knew it, and his life was cut tragicly short.
Sorry that posted four times. I assure you it was an accident.
Should Turkey have gotten the extra time needed to tie the game at 1-1 in the 122nd minute in Euro 2008? The Croatian side sure didn't think so...
What are your thoughts on the new debate over Winston Churchill?
Now obviously there is always some sort of coded bigotry behind everything Pat Buchanan ever writes , but doesn't he have a point that if there had never been a war pact with Poland, Hitler would have remained Stalin's problem? Wouldn't it have been a better idea to declare france off limits and wait for Hitler's insanity to destroy himself? The obvious counter argument is that the third reich had put into practice its anti-semetic policies in the thirties, well before war broke out and that the west had a moral obligation to help. The sad fact though is that vile anti semitism was rampant throughout much of eastern europe at the time and Stalin (Uncle Joe our ally) was no friend to the jews either. The war inflamed the german psyche and actually made it harder for jews to flee west. This is not an excuse for Hitler, he needed to be done away with. However, he was not done away by America and Britain in the end anyway. It was Stalins forces that did the bulk of the fighting.
Surely all hindsight is 20/20, but there actually might be some lessons to learn from the old bigot.
Matt: You may have already touched upon this, but, I'd like you to give us your thoughts on the recent kerfuffle in domestic Iraqi politics regarding Uncle Sam's attempts to annex large portions of their country via this agreement Bush is apparently trying to shove down their throats. Also, don't you think it would be advisable for Obama to issue a public warning against the attempts of the Bush administration to bind the hands of future presidents by locking the US into long term arrangements (you know, something along the lines of "my administration will not be bound by agreements adapted without the consent of the Senate)? I don't know much about this subject (I guess that's what you're here for) but it all sounds very worrying, and I haven't heard anything from Obama on the issue. I fear if Obama doesn't make his position public, it will indeed make it difficult to assert an unwillingness to be bound by what Bush does in these last six months once Obama takes office.
I'm with jackifus and Gregor. What exactly was the Democrats' (or at least the Democratic leadership's) motivation for caving on FISA? I've never quite understood that. Is Glenn Greenwald right that they secretly substantively agree with the Republicans? Are they really bought and paid for by telco campaign contributions? Or were they really spooked by the possibility of getting blamed for surveillance warrants expiring in August (see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/06/19/how-bad-is-the-fisa-deal.aspx)
As to the last theory, I see a similarity with the Dems' failure to end the Iraq war with the "power of the purse." You had a must-pass or needs-to-pass bill (defense appropriation, FISA amendments). The White House declares, as a non-negotiable condition, that said legislation will be vetoed unless it contains something objectionable (Iraq war continues forever, telco immunity), and Repubs declare that they will sustain the veto. Dems squawk a lot but ultimately cave and pass the legislation with the objectionable provision. Are the Dems just bad at playing chicken, or do they sincerely believe they should defer to the president on such matters?
What do you think of this Chris Dodd / Countrywide thing? Nothing to see here? Smoke but no fire? Big deal?
Ponder this: WTF is Sen. Gordon Smith saying?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/gordon_smith.php
Peter K: "What will happen if Israel bombs Iran?"
I can answer that for you. He doesn't know.
Christopher G: "Why does my comment system keep crashing on my readers?
Second that, and add, "Why the fuck aren't you bitching about it to the IT staff at The Atlantic?"
Do they HAVE an IT staff at "The Atlantic"? I suppose that should be the first question.
Tel, above, writes:
(Slightly) more seriously, if Defense and State ought to be filled by Democrats, which cabinet-level positions would it be appropriate or advantageous for Obama to fill with Republicans?
On a related note:
Michael Bloomberg seems to be lobbying pretty hard for a job in a potential Obama administration--praising Obama in public, defending him against smears, etc.
Would Obama be completely crazy not to nominate the guy for Secretary of Transportation? Or is there some downside here that I'm not seeing?
How can Unfogged be Unfogged now that both Unf and Ogged have left?
Matt,
Why don't you talk about the consequences of permanently high oil for the food production business? Does the high cost of fertilizer mean a drop in productivity and some kind of malthusian nightmare? Or can we sustain a large world population of food production with permanently expensive petroleum?
I "third" the Lisbon question.
The Irish: ungrateful bastards or judicious visionaries? (Is rejection the inevitable result of a referendum question on a treaty that doesn't have any tangible benefits but that can be protrayed, unjustly, as having tangible bad consequences?)
Here's something I'm interested in. The establishment seems to have pushed back hard at any attempt to link the Iraq war with the present state of the economy. Do you think Dems will fall for it, and be too "respectable" to make the obvious connection? In particular, as the Reps promote a dubious off shore drilling bonanza, do you think Obama will draw the line between the oil barrel futures sensitivity to insecurity that has accounted for all the recent runup in the price and the warmongering of the Reps? Do you think that it is oddly inconsistent that the same establishment types that have wet their beds when dreaming of the cost of social security in the year 2050 are, to say the least, indifferent to the future effect of spending a trillion and a half dollars on a vanity war now?
Mostly I wonder if the Dems are going to be so stupid as to not run on an issue that polling tells us would truly catch fire - perhaps because they would then be forced to do something, like end the war, instead of pretend to do something.
Why is Spencer Ackerman leaving Think Progress so soon after leaving behind other homes for his internet writing? Is he the Terrell Owens of national security blogging, or worse?
In these times of momentous national events where the future of our nation hangs in the balance, I'm disappointed you have yet to address the new Girl Talk album.
I'd like to see you blog about the road not taken with Iraq. When one considers the money, blood, and political capital (domestic and international) we've expended in Iraq, what else could we have done with all of this?
Comments closed July 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Maybe missed it but I've yet to see you comment on Obama opting out of campaign public financing. Brooks has a scathing column in the NYT.
Posted by MS | June 20, 2008 3:08 PM