What "I Voted" Stickers Actually Do

On Bill Maher's latest show, while lamenting that more people in our society don't vote, he lampooned the idea of the "I voted" sticker as bragging about performing a relatively minor civic duty. I see it differently. When you wear an "I voted" sticker in a culture with low voter turnout, the sticker serves as a reminder to others that it's election day. The stickers also have some potential to create social or peer pressure to vote.

Why Bill Maher is the Wrong Target for a Commencement Speaker Protest

As part of the fallout from Bill Maher's comments about Islam, comments from which he finds no room for retreat, some individuals and groups are arguing that Berkeley should withdraw its invitation for Maher to speak at its fall commencement. On the issue of Islam, Maher relies almost exclusively on the spotlight fallacy and hasty generalization, plucking examples of horror from around the Islamic world and arguing that they prove that Islam is somehow worse than other religions. He stubbornly refuses to consider challenges to his position -- people pointing out that he conflates regional, cultural practices that arose and exist independently of Islam with the teachings of Islam, people pointing out that he draws his primary examples from Islamic nations without regard to whether those nations reflect what is typical in other Islamic nations or populations, or the practices of the majority of Muslims. He'll present Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwah against Salman Rushdie as if it reflected -- and reflects -- the views and wishes of every Muslim in the world.

On the most recent episode of Real Time, Bill Maher quoted his friend Reza Aslan, on the issue of whether or not he's a bigot, emphasizing that Alsan is Muslim and says he's not a bigot. Here's the larger quote:

I've done [Real Time] every season for four or five years. I love being on the show. And listen, I've said repeatedly that Bill Maher is not a bigot. I know him. We are friends. We hang out with each other, backstage. He loves having me on the show despite the fact that he disagrees with me on a lot of things and that shows the kind of person that he is.

What I have said, however, is that if people are constantly saying that the way you are talking about something is coming across as bigoted, you might want to stop and think about how you’re saying these things. Bill Maher says he's not a bigot, I absolutely believe him. So maybe he needs to reexamine why people keep talking about him as a bigot.

Aslan has also pointed out that Maher is not very sophisticated in his views of Islam. What I think Aslan is trying to say, in a somewhat gentle way, is that Maher is not advancing his position out of animus or intolerance, and thus is not guilty of that form of bigotry, but is instead advancing his position because he does not have a sufficient body of information, and has not applied a sufficient amount of thought to the subject. I believe Aslan is suggesting that if Maher were to do so he would likely reconsider his position. [Insert maxim about leading horses to water.]

From my perspective, Maher's position on Islam and the Arab world, notably including his positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, reflect a cognitive insularity on those subjects, epistemic closure. At times he ridicules conservatives as living in the bubble -- these subjects are his bubble. He appears to have held consistent views on Arabs and Islam for much of his life, he's quite comfortable with those beliefs, and he sees no need to let facts get in the way. That doesn't mean that he completely avoids the facts -- to the contrary, as his mode of argument suggests, he is inclined to search for, interpret, and prioritize information in a way that confirms his existing beliefs -- confirmation bias. Maher is clearly more than smart enough to take a step back, review the evidence, and see what people like Aslan are trying to explain to him -- but, as occasionally happens to all of us, he isn't ready to let go of his preconceptions.

The funny thing is, all of Maher's leading critics, including those who were or are Muslim, share his perspective that there is something wrong with the practice of Islam in the Middle East and in some other parts of the world. They see Islam as being abused in the same manner that other religions have been historically abused, and in which they continue to be abused in some nations and cultures. It's an argument that Maher, an avowed atheist and critic of all religions, should find quite consistent with his other views -- it's not that there's something special about Islam that makes it particularly vulnerable to fundamentalism and extremism, but that there's something wrong with the political, cultural and economic contexts from which the fundamentalism and extremism emerge. Islam is a problem not because it's special, but because it's the dominant religion in those regions, and thus the one most easily exploited by fundamentalists and extremists. You speak the language of your audience.

Like Maher, his critics also rely heavily on the spotlight fallacy, plucking quotes out of Maher's past performances, speeches and monologs, where he has made some pretty outrageous statements. But what else would you expect? The man is a comedian who loves to jokingly scold his audience for groaning at the less outrageous of his jokes. He has made a career out of being politically incorrect, a term that you may recall was the name of the T.V. show that made him famous. I recently read one of his monologs in which, his sarcastic tone of voice being invisible on the printed page, he appeared to be endorsing birtherism. You will have absolutely no trouble finding quotes with which to condemn him, even if his presentation of the quoted material might suggest that he held a different opinion than the one he was ostensibly voicing. He's not Sarah Silverman, but he does sometimes go for the punch line that's going to shock, rattle, or even offend his audience -- and it's all too easy to inadvertently or deliberately misinterpret that sort of punch line.

If Maher were invited by Berkeley to participate in a panel discussion on Islam, where a variety of voices could be heard, I would hope that the students that are offended by the prospect of his giving a commencement address would welcome his participation. (Or perhaps criticize it from the standpoint of, "Can't we find a scholar instead of a comedian" -- although back when Bill Maher frequently had comedians participate in his Real Time panels, sometimes the comedians provided more interesting and thoughtful commentary than the experts.)

A compelling argument made about commencement addresses is that they're not like other forms of on-campus speech. If you want to participate in commencement, you are a captive audience for the commencement speaker and are expected to act with appropriate decorum. Also, commencement speakers are often paid very large sums of money for their presentations, money that is drawn from the students. It is fair to say that students should have a larger voice when it comes to objecting to the participation of certain controversial figures in their commencement ceremonies than in other campus activities, where in my opinion the focus should be on debate, not exclusion.

If Bill Maher were going to address graduating students with an exposition of his views of religion and Islam, the students would be justified in objecting to his speech. He's not an expert in those areas, his commentary on Islam is deeply flawed, and it would be an abuse of his platform to speak about his views of religion. However, it is more than safe to say that Maher has no intention of using his commencement presentation to speak about religion, gender relations, or any of the other issues that occasionally land him in warm to hot water. He's already said as much:

But let me say this to those students worried about that: I promise this will be your day. This is a commencement speech. The issue is you. My speech was, is, I hope, going to be about you and whatever tips I thought that could actually help you in life because I already lived through it. That and my funk about how Jewish women hate to have sex.

That last sentence, of course, is an example of the sort of punch line I previously mentioned. I'm not arguing that Maher's punch lines and groaners don't reflect his political views -- but I am pointing out that some of them quite obviously do not, and many others fall on a spectrum between what he believes and what he believes will generate the loudest laugh or groan -- with his being one of the nation's wealthiest comedians -- one of the nation's wealthiest people -- by virtue of his knowing how to go for the laughs and groans.

I am not sure that the students opposed to Maher's appearance ever thought that he was going to address religion in his speech. I think that their primary concern is that he is hostile to Islam, and that students should not be compelled to sit through a speech by somebody whose views they find troubling, or even odious. Ibraham Hooper of Cair pointed out that nobody is going to suggest that the Grand Wizard of the KKK is an appropriate commencement speaker -- that is, we can reach a point where there will be near-universal agreement that an individual should not speak at a college commencement even if he promises not to touch on subjects that his audience might deem offensive -- but there's an enormous distance between Maher and a KKK Grand Wizard. Inviting Maher to speak doesn't open the floodgates.

The exchange with Cooper illustrates how opportunists and demagogues can take a quote out of context to use it to bash the speaker. During the exchange, Cooper's debate opponent jumped on the reference to a KKK Grand Wizard, chortling, "So Bill Maher is the Grand Dragon of the KKK? I can’t until Bill Maher hears that. I think Bill will have a heyday with that." The host immediately pointed out the obvious -- that no such comparison had been made -- but that didn't stop hacks like Eric Bolling of Fox News or Alex Griswold at the Daily Caller from plucking the statement out-of-context and lying about what Hooper meant. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that after making his false characterization, Griswold quotes the exchange and thereby makes plain that his characterization is false.

Why let Maher speak?

• Protesting Maher reinforces his position - When Maher argues that Muslims don't do enough to object to the actions of extremists who claim to be acting in the name of their religion, he's not really being fair -- people have the right to live their ordinary lives without having to comment to anybody willing to listen, "That wackaloon you read about on the news doesn't represent my views." But when Muslims loudly protest Maher, they risk perpetuating the stereotype that Muslims want to shut down any criticism of their religion, while fueling the argument that "Those people find the time to protest Maher, but have nothing to say about the wackaloon I heard about on the news." I'm not arguing that Muslim students should never try to have an anti-Muslim speaker excluded from giving a commencement address, and it is appropriate to object to those who for example argue for the forcible conversion of Muslims to other religions, advocate bombing Muslim holy sites, advocate suppressing the speech and religious rights of Muslims. But when you target somebody like Maher, the more effective way to get your point across is not to try to shut him up, but to avoid playing to his stereotype.

• If You Look Hard Enough, You'll Find Something Offensive About Your Commencement Speaker - In the YouTube era, with news archives at students' fingertips, and with the long memory of the Internet, we're in an era in which it will be difficult for any celebrity to give a commencement speech, as if you look hard enough at any person you're likely to find a quote that can be presented (or misrepresented) as offensive to somebody. Finding offensive quotes is easy with somebody like Maher, as they're literally his bread and butter, but pretty much every famous person is going to have a gaffe or misstatement, or a political position they've long abandoned, preserved somewhere.

• You lay a foundation for exclusion of other speakers - Once you create a context in which a person can be excluded from giving a commencement speech based upon views that some students find offensive, even though those views will not be shared in the commencement address, you open the floodgates. It is far better to set a high standard for exclusion than to create what amounts to a heckler's veto. Sure, a great many commencement speakers may end up falling into the gray area between the tiny number who have immaculate public records and those virtually all would agree to be villanous, but free speech will fare better if we keep the line for exclusion as close to pure black as comfortably possible.

Maher's appearance presents the students of Berkeley with a tremendous opportunity to very publicly challenge Maher's positions on Islam. Rather than pressing forward with an effort to exclude Maher from giving a commencement address, I suggest taking advantage of the fact that the eyes of the world are now on Maher and Berkeley. Organize a symposium on Islam and fundamentalist violence, bring in some knowledgeable scholars, invite Maher to participate in a panel. You can't buy publicity like this -- if you want to take advantage of an opportunity to educate the public about Islam, run with it.

Bill Maher vs. Islam

A couple of weeks ago, Bill Maher closed his show with a monologue that was primarily a critique of those on the political left who don't join him in an unequivocal condemnation of Islam.

The concept that appears to be at the root of Maher's rant is cultural relativism, not in the sense of trying to interpret actions and behaviors in light of a person's culture, but in the sense that you should not view one culture as better or superior to another, and that there is no objective measure of right and wrong that can be applied between cultures. It's a belief that few hold in theory and that is unworkable in practice, but it is associated with parts of the political left. If in fact somebody is arguing that it's awful that Mel Gibson made a sexist statement, but that Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is acceptable because we should not judge their culture, it's reasonable for Maher to argue that they're objectively wrong and that Saudi Arabia's misogynistic systems are a far greater problem than something Mel Gibson says while drunk. He could also point out that in condemning Mel Gibson they're not giving fair weight to his cultural background, and by their own unworkable standard they should refrain from judging him.

Maher also makes a valid point when he suggests that celebrities can become the victims of what amounts to a feeding frenzy, with a poorly thought-out comment, an unfortunate resort to a childish insult, or even the expression of reprehensible beliefs, resulting in opprobrium and consequence that may be disproportionate to the offense. Maher no doubt takes that type of reaction personally, given how quickly he lost his job after he made an impolitic comment on the relative courage of the U.S. in bombing foreign nations to the 9/11 bombers. However, such is the price of celebrity -- if you want to make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars as a celebrity, at least if your target demographic is not the same as Duck Dynasty's, you had best learn to guard your tongue or be prepared to apologize when you make a racist, sexist or homophobic comment.

From that foundation, Maher goes wrong: He attributes a fringe belief to liberals in general. He denies the obvious fact that it is possible to simultaneously oppose wrongs that occur both at home and abroad. He ignores that it is reasonable for people to focus on domestic issues and issues that they've actually heard about as opposed to foreign issues or problems that occur at the periphery of, or outside of, their awareness. And, in relation to his targeting of Islam, he paints with far too broad a brush, conflating offensive minority practices that have their origins in tribal society and pre-Islamic culture with Islam.

Maher opened his monologue with a criticism (and joke) about the President:

President Obama keeps insisting that's ISIS is not Islamic. Well, maybe they don't practice the Muslim faith the same way he does. But if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.

Maher is going for a laugh, and his is a comedy show, so even if it weren't Maher it would be too much to expect that the Obama Administration's position would be framed in a fair context. The Administration is going through great pains to avoid any suggestion that its attacks on ISIS are based upon its religious beliefs, and to disclaim the notion that it is waging a war on Islam or intends to defeat the Islamic faith as opposed to an extremist group that it believes distorts the faith for its own ends. The comment about Obama's practice of Islam is a decent laugh line, and Maher's intended audience understands that Maher doesn't buy into the conspiracy theories that suggest that the President is secretly Muslim, but it is important to note in a non-comedic context that the Obama Administration's positions on ISIS have a basis in global politics that has nothing to do with being politically correct.

Maher's comparison of the Muslim world at large to ISIS is an example of the spotlight fallacy crossed with the hasty generalization. The principal actions of ISIS, along with the groups history of violence against Muslims, is ignored in favor of spotlighting some positions associated more generally with radical Islam, in order to conflate the general practice of Islam with the beliefs and actions of an organization that was once deemed too extreme for al Qaeda. That type of generalization is consistent with Maher's historic commentary on Islam, and his history of (at best) indifference to the rights of even secular Arab groups in relation to non-Arab actors.

There are vast numbers of Muslims in the world, many of whom live in despotic nations with extremist religious leadership, so it's no surprise that Maher can recite that there are "vast numbers" of Muslims who hold views that are offensive to a progressive western democracy. Maher is critical of religion across-the-board, and would no doubt acknowledge that people believe odious things in the names of other religions. To the extent that he is arguing that, due to the extraordinary levels of extremist belief within parts of the Muslim world, Maher is correct that a danger exists as a result of that extremism that does not presently exist in relation to extremism in other religions. It's not that you can't find people of any faith that hold odious views or commit hideous acts in the name of their faith, or that you cannot find pockets of extremism in which most members of the community hold those odious views, it's that the ratio of extremists to non-extremists is vastly lower.

With Maher, it seems that the analysis ends right there. He may acknowledge that extremism was higher in the past, and that much of what we see in the Muslim world is not dissimilar to medieval Christianity, but he shows little interest in examining why religious extremism has faded in the other major religions, even as it has expanded in parts of the Muslim world. That is, he refuses to address the historic, military, sociological and economic factors that contribute to extremism. Is there a problem inherent to Islam, or would similar levels and forms of extremism arise in others of the world's major religions in similar contexts -- such as occurred with the Tamil Tigers, a faction that grew out of a population that is largely Hindu.

Maher's next statement is simply an endorsement of progressive democracy,

There's so much talk -- you can applaud -- there's so much talk about wiping out ISIS. You can't, not with bombs. You can only expose that something is a bad idea like extended warranties. Cultures are different. It's okay to judge that rule of law isn't just different than theocracy, it's better. If you don't see that, you're either a religious fanatic or a masochist, but one thing you certainly are not is a liberal.

There seems to be some hollow manning going on in that argument -- the fabrication of a rhetorical opponent who does not actually exist, then swatting down an argument that nobody is actually making. I think it's more than fair to say that liberals should not be endorsing theocracy -- I'm simply not aware of any liberals who are endorsing theocracy. If in fact such a liberal exists, they deserve the rap across the knuckles that Maher delivers to them. But I'm not sure that any exist, and to the extent that they do they are so insignificant in number that they're unworthy of mention.

Maher is correct that ISIS won't be defeated with bombs. I've personally analogized ISIS to the liquid metal terminator from Terminator 2, and the scene in which the terminator is frozen with liquid nitrogen and shattered into millions of pieces. As soon as the pieces start to melt, they aggregate back into the terminator. The people who aggregate to form groups like ISIS are no different -- bomb them and degrade them, and you may well make ISIS less significant, but its adherents will immediately start aggregating into new groups that may turn out to be as bad or worse. That said, telling them that they're backward misogynists who have no place in a modern world, although correct, is going to be completely ineffectual.

Maher continued,

To count yourself as a liberal, you have to stand up for liberal principles. Free speech, separation of church and state, freedom to practice any religion or no religion without the threat of violence. Respect for minorities including homosexuals, equality for women. It amazes me how here in America we go nuts over the tiniest violations of these values while gross atrocities are ignored across the world.

The first response to that statement seems obvious: When you live in the United States, when you can participate in the U.S. political process, when it's your friends, neighbors and countrymen who are the targets of a wrong, when voicing your concerns could actually make a difference, you will likely be more inclined to act or speak out. Moreover, you have a greater duty to speak out when a wrong is occurring in your name. The second response to that is, seriously? This is Bill Maher, the guy whose weekly "New Rules" ridicule issues that are often among the most trivial facing society? This is Bill Maher, whose choice of a Congressman to target for defeat is based upon issues that are largely domestic, and was largely due to the Congressman's support for private colleges:

The comedian recited a litany of items that he said [Congressman John] Kline was wrong about, including voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, his vote during the partial government shutdown, denying funding for climate change research, and failing to adequately address the rising student debt. Maher charged that Kline, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, is ”the champion of for-profit colleges”

I'm not accusing Maher of hypocrisy, just of a bit of myopia, in that as a matter of routine he personally takes very strong stances on trivial issues. If you were to rank Maher's criticisms of Kline against his specified criticisms of Islam, it would be more than fair to ask, "Why are you obsessing about student debt when people are getting killed in other parts of the world for holding the wrong ideas?" Similarly, why does Maher spend so much time talking about how ridiculous U.S. marijuana laws are, when people are facing long prison terms and even being executed for possession of drugs in other nations, including decidedly non-Muslim nations like Singapore and Thailand? The quite obvious answer is that it is possible to oppose a domestic law or political agenda while also opposing worse practices overseas.

Why does Maher's show focus primarily on U.S. news and culture? Because he's speaking to his audience. Why did he make his $1 million dollar donation to the Democratic Party? Because he hopes to effect domestic political change. Nothing is wrong with any of that. It's okay for Maher to make jokes about Taylor Swift and Sarah Palin, to advocate marijuana legalization, and to close his show with a rant that in the greater scheme of things is trivial, while at the same time deploring the absence of democracy and human rights in parts of the Muslim world. It's okay for him to focus his time, attention, and political contributions on things he may be able to influence or change, rather than focusing on more serious issues upon which he can have no impact.

Maher complained,

Jonah Hill yells "suck my dick faggot" at the paparazzi and an entire nation goes into Twitter outrage until he is forced to perform that most debasing of acts -- the talk show apology tour. Meanwhile, in 10 countries actually sucking a dick can get you stoned, and not a good way.

This statement reflects one of the prices of celebrity -- if you say or do something stupid, you are apt to attract a lot of negative attention and you may have to apologize in order to protect your career. The reaction may well be disproportionate, but such is the life of a celebrity. Given the option of apologizing or retiring from an extraordinarily lucrative public life, celebrites tend to apologize. Further, as the Duck Dynasty clan has established, if you want to make anti-gay statements there is an audience that will be receptive both to your beliefs and that will applaud your refusal to apologize. Is that the audience that Maher prefers? Is that an audience he believes would be more apt to stand up for the values he hopes become established across the world?

And that brings us to something Maher fails to mention: The nation that has received the most attention in recent years for its anti-gay laws and policies is Uganda. Uganda is not a Muslim country. Uganda's ugly anti-gay laws are driven by a Christian movement that in turn is driven by U.S.-based anti-gay ministries. Russian hostility to homosexuality has also worsened in recent years. I suspect that Maher's list of "ten countries" is the same list offered here, which includes nations that make no distinction between forms of extramarital sex (all qualifying the participants for the death penalty) and nations that could theoretically execute somebody for engaging in homosexual acts even if they aren't in fact doing so. Should a U.S. citizen be more concerned about the U.S. activists who are agitating anti-homosexual sentiments in Africa, to the point that for a time homosexuality was a capital offense in Uganda and remains punishable by life in prison, or by puzzling over whether the UAE imposes the death penalty only for homosexual rape as opposed to all homosexual acts in the absence of any actual executions?

All of that is to point out the obvious: anti-gay bigotry exists across the world, is anything but unique to Islam, and some of the worst anti-gay actions are occurring in non-Islamic nations at the behest of U.S. Christians. There is absolutely nothing wrong with condemning anti-homosexual bigotry among any particular religious or cultural group, and there is also absolutely no reason you need to rank the acts from least to most offensive, or sort them by religion, before you condemn a bigoted law, act or statement. It may not seem fair to Maher that some who grew up in an era where "gay" was a common schoolyard taunt to learn, the hard way, that it's no longer an acceptable epithet, but that's the way our nation has evolved -- and surely Maher would concede that evolution toward full acceptance of gay Americans into society is a good thing.

Maher continued his complaint,

We hear a lot about the Republican war on women. It's not cool. Rush Limbaugh called somebody a slut. Okay. But Saudi women can't vote or drive or hold a job or leave the house without a man. Overwhelming majorities in every Muslim country say a wife is always obliged to obey her husband. That all seems like a bigger issue than an evangelical Christian bakery refusing to make gay wedding cakes.

That, of course, is more of the same. Contrary to what Maher suggests, it is possible to hold that Republican efforts to roll back reproductive rights and freedoms is "not cool", and that a prominent radio host should not be calling a woman a "slut" merely because she argues that health insurance should cover prescription contraceptives, while also believing that Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is abhorrent. On a global scale, certainly the oppression of women in many other societies around the world is a "bigger issue" than whether a local business discriminates against gay people, women, ethnic minorities, Jews, or any other citizen. But as I've already pointed out, that doesn't mean it's wrong to speak out against a small or local injustice -- and in fact, that's often the place where your voice is most likely to have an impact. Frankly, the entire issue is a red herring -- Maher offers no reason to believe that those who believe that businesses should not discriminate against their customers are accepting of Saudi Arabia's oppressive laws, let alone that, if asked, they would say that discrimination by a small business against a wedding cake customer is worse.

Maher next inadvertently highlighted one of the weaknesses of his criticisms of Islam:

Ninety-one percent of Egyptian women have had their clitorises removed; 98% of Somalian women have.

That's horrible, and it shouldn't happen, but here's the thing: Female genital mutilation is a practice that exists principally in parts of Africa, and is not a mainstream Islamic teaching. It is not surprising that the practice continued with the introduction of Islam or that some proponents of FGM believe it is a religious teaching, and we do need to address the reality that the practice has even spread to the west for the most part within Muslim communities. It is certainly no surprise that FGM, a fundamentally misogynist practice, exists largely within nations that hold misogynist views. But a billion Muslims live in South and Southeast Asia, where FGM is not part of the culture or religion.

Experts say the practice stems from social pressure to conform to traditions passed down for centuries -- one that predates not just Islam but also Judaism and Christianity. (The origins of the practice are subject to some dispute, but some scholars say it may correspond to areas of ancient civilizations, in which the cutting of females "signalled controlled fidelity and the certainty of paternity," the UNICEF report states.)

In areas of high prevalence today, "this is perceived to be the normal and correct way of bringing up a girl," Moneti said. "If a girl is not cut, she may be considered impure and not marriageable, and she and her entire family may be ostracized."

While it stems from neither Christianity nor Islam, some women in Chad, Guinea and Mauritania report a "religious requirement" as a benefit of cutting. Some communities consider a clitoridectomy -- one type of female genital mutilation -- as "sunna," which is Arabic for "tradition" or "duty," according to the UNICEF report. However, it is not a requirement of the Koran and has been specifically rejected by some Muslim leaders in Egypt.

We can certainly criticize FGM, and should do so, but we can do that without insulting the majority of the world's Muslims for whom FGM plays no role in their lives or religion.

Maher continued,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in Somalia and was one of them. She was scheduled to speak at Yale last week but the school's atheist organization, my people, complained that she "did no represent a totality of the ex-Muslim experience." Meaning what? That women like mutilation? You're atheists. You should be attacking religion, not siding with people who hold women down and violate them which apparently you will defend in the name of multiculturalism and then lose your shit when someone refers to Chaz Bono by the wrong pronoun.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lost a considerable amount of support when she switched her target from FGM to Islam at large. While I can appreciate her anger, given her life story, her message was more effective when it was focused on actions that virtually all Americans agree are outrageous. The Atheists at Yale clearly don't agree with Maher's position that the role of an Atheist is to attack religion -- they appear to view religion as something that people should be free to exercise, or not exercise, consistent with their own beliefs. The Yale group penned a relatively innocuous statement,

As a diverse group of undergraduates with a membership that includes ex-Muslims and atheists from Islamic cultures, we do not believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents the totality of the ex-Muslim experience. Although we acknowledge the value of her story, we do not endorse her blanket statements on all Muslims and Islam. We believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents a sadly common voice in the atheist community that attacks and provokes, rather than contributes to constructive criticism or dialogue. We remind our fellow atheists, Humanists, and agnostics of the rich history of dissent within our community, and do not believe belonging to this community necessitates an endorsement of all community members and their beliefs.

Maher may prefer the type of atheist who "attacks and provokes", but there's room in this world for atheist who are tolerant of religious belief. Maher's appeal to ridicule being duly noted, nothing in the organization's statement suggests tolerance of FGM, or that they would not have welcomed Ali to speak to her personal experiences including her strong condemnation of FGM if she had not shifted her focus to condemning Islam in general.

Donald Sterling isn't allowed to own a team because he told his mistress not to post pictures with black guys. Okay.

With that statement, Maher took us back to the world of entertainment. The problem that caused Sterling to have to sell his team was not that he was a racist, a philanderer, or a crass individual. The problem was that with his personality and beliefs having come to light, he threatened the income stream of a multi-billion dollar sports entertainment enterprise. While it's fun to play rhetorical games about whether we should be more tolerant of intolerance, in that type of situation it comes down to money. It's not really any different that losing an endorsement deal or movie contract because your all-American image becomes tarnished by the discovery of a series of affairs, because it turns out you run dog fighting rings in your spare time, because you go on a drunken anti-Semitic rant, or anything else you should know better than to do if you want to maintain your public image and popularity.

But if we're giving no quarter to intolerance, shouldn't we be starting the mutilators and the honor killers or will that divert us from the real problem that when Mel Gibson drinks he calls women sugar tits?

It's not a question of where we start, nor is it the false dichotomy that Maher presents -- as I previously pointed out, it is possible to condemn somebody in this nation for making a racist, sexist or anti-gay comment while opposing and condemning greater evils in other nations. And here, again, Maher confuses culture and religion. Honor killings should be deplored wherever they occur, and they do occur in some Muslim nations and communities, but they're also a huge problem in India. Again we are speaking of a cultural practice that arose independently of Islam, and is not in fact part of Islamic (or Hindu) faith, even if its adherents believe there is a religious mandate. Would it not make more sense to argue that a practice should be ended not only because it is not required by religious belief, but is in fact an act that contravenes the actual teachings of a religion, than to attribute that act to a religion in defiance of the fact that most adherents to the faith already reject the practice?

As I've previously suggested, I support the condemnation of oppression, bigotry and misogyny -- but I have no illusion that my statements on one issue or another are going to change the world. My criticism of Saudi Arabia would be read by a handful of people, none of whom have any influence on the Saudi government. Even Maher's criticism, which reach millions, have no impact on Saudi Arabia. As a nation, we prioritize a cooperative relationship with the Saudi regime, one that allows us to have military bases in Saudi Arabia, one that helps to keep the world's oil flowing, over pressuring that nation to improve its treatment of women, step back from Wahhabism and the export of radical Islam, or even to step back from its support of groups that act against U.S. interests. When it comes to slowing the expansion of radical Islam, or rolling it back, I see the importance of addressing cultural, political and economic issues that provide a fertile breeding and recruitment ground for radicalism. The thirty-year transition through which Iran went from being at the extreme of Islamic radicalism to being the nation now viewed as a potential reasonable partner for the stabilization of Iraq and Syria is not a reflection of how much Iran has changed -- it's a reflection of how much worse things have become throughout much of the Middle East -- and that's certainly not a result of the recent arrival of Islam. A better approach than Maher's is to take a look at Islamic nations that are more politically inclusive and democratic, or periods of time in which the nations presently falling into civil war and increased radicalism were more secular and inclusive, and ask, "What is different? What has changed?"

When you look at the region in that light, you can see how oil wealth, the echoes of colonialism and the Cold War, the historic tolerance of oppressive dictatorship, and the ill-conceived plan to try to replace Iraq's oppressive government with a progressive democracy through the application of force, have all contributed to the present mess. Maher himself occasionally pulls out archival pictures of bin Laden's family, dressed in western garb. The question is not so much whether Islamic nations can become more western in nature, or more accepting of democracy and western values. The question is not whether Islamic nations can reject honor killing or the mistreatment of women. The question is, having seen considerable progress toward that goal, why we have since seen such profound backsliding toward fundamentalism.

Confusing Science with Magic

Arthur C. Clarke once observed that any sufficiently advanced technology can seem indistinguishable from magic. Many TV shows and situation comedies have presented time travel, where present technology appears magical to an earlier population, or even where a technologically sophisticated alien presents herself as a god. It's a fair observation.

At the same time, it can be easy to lose track of how we perceive the development of technology, particularly if we lack a sufficient understanding of the science underlying the technology. Watch an episode of the original Battlestar Galactica series and much of the technology seems antiquated - voice recognition software putting your dictation on a low resolution CRT? How about the communicators from the original Star Trek series? Why don't they upgrade to iPhones? And a separate tricorder? Why isn't there an app for that?

Quite a few years back I was involved in a discussion about food shortages and distribution issues, regional overpopulation and the like. Somebody who was reasonably well-educated popped in with the comment that she didn't worry about food shortages because it was only a matter of time before we had food replicators, as seen on Star Trek, the Next Generation. If Jean-Luc Picard could turn to a hole in the wall, say "Earl Grey, hot", and have a cup full of tea magically appear, clearly it is only a matter of time before we all have such a wondrous device creating and serving our favorite foods in unlimited quantity, right?

Well, wrong. I pointed out the physics involved - development of the device aside, the extraordinary amount of energy it would take to replicate food in that manner. My comment fell on deaf ears. "Scientists will figure it out."

There's nothing new in that attitude. Charlatans have, for centuries, promised that they can find ways (figuratively or literally) to turn common items into gold. Even in this age of modern pharmaceuticals, we're always hoping for a magic pill or potion that will allow us to live forever, to overcome the effects of inactivity, overeating, aging. We are primed to hope, and there will always be somebody looking to capitalize on that fact.

On Real Time this past weekend, Bill Maher criticized a Member of Congress, John Shimkus, for making the insipid suggestion that we don't need to worry about climate change, because God had promised Noah that he would never again destroy the Earth with a flood. Never mind that the promise wasn't, "I'll stop you from destroying the Earth."

One of Maher's guests, Will Cain, expressed skepticism that climate change was as serious as some suggest. He employed the traditional had waving defense of many climate change deniers, pretending that there's a meaningful disagreement among climate scientists about the reality of climate change. He then launched into what I expect he believes to be a discussion of science, reciting that the world had been predicted to run out of food but that the development of fertilizers proved that theory wrong.

In other words, "Don't worry about the facts. Don't worry about what science can actually do. Because, magic."

When religious people respond to criticism of faith-based argument by asserting that a lot of argument that is supposedly based on science is in fact based on faith, they can point to Will Cain as their poster child.

It was not scientifically wrong to look at the world's capacity for food production and, based upon the amount of food an average individual requires to survive, projecting a maximum carrying capacity for the planet. Although the development of nitrogen-based fertilizers did significantly increase the planet's capacity for food production, it remains possible to do exactly the same thing: to calculate the Earth's carrying capacity based upon current levels of food production. It's also possible to examine how regional or global shortages will change that number.

Beyond confusing science with magic, and adding a generous topping of faith and self-centeredness - never mind where science hasn't worked out so well for past or present populations, if Will Cain needs science to fix something it will deliver and it will do so in a timely manner - Cain demonstrates confused thinking.

The fact that the world once faced an issue that was (partially) overcome by science does not mean that the world, facing that same issue again, will experience a similar scientific breakthrough. It certainly does not mean that, faced with a completely different issue, we can count on science to provide the necessary solution within the necessary time frame.

Cain's resort to "science", really science fiction, as a solution to a real problem is scarcely more intellectually sound than Shimkus's reliance on God's promise not to again flood the world. While they practice their respective forms of faith, the rest of us need to keep working on a back up plan.

Republican Ideas vs. Republican Policies

On a recent episode of Real Time, Nick Gillespie of Reason.tv attempted to goad Rachel Maddow by accusing her of always taking the side of the Democrats, and insisted that she should name a Republican policy with which she agrees. Maddow appeared to have a visceral dislike for Gillespie and rebuffed his challenge. Maher interceded, stating correctly that the challenge was not a fair one. A better response by either, I believe, would have been to point out that the Republican party's better ideas are, at present, largely also held by the Democratic Party, by pointing out that the Republican ideas that are most attractive in principle are the ones they tend not to implement while in office, or simply to say, "You first," followed up with an explanation of why Gillespie's favorite Republican policy isn't all that special.

Gillespie revealed the weakness of his argument, that he was out to score rhetorical points rather than making any substantive observation about Maddow, when he later challenged her defense of the Affordable Care Act, contending that as "RomneyCare" is the inspiration of "ObamaCare" it's a Republican idea. As if it needs to be said, "RomneyCare" is so unpopular among Republicans - at least those outside of Massachusetts - that not even Romney supports it. Also, although I don't watch her show, I expect that Maddow has been a consistent critic of "ObamaCare" from the left. That she sees it as better to the status quo ante is something quite different from embracing its policies. And if we're going to pretend that any idea ever supported by a Republican is a "Republican idea", even if repudiated by the party at large, even if repudiated by the sole Republican who voiced support for the idea, Gillespie's challenge loses what little credibility or meaning it might have had if he chose to connect it to reality

My thought at the time was to take a look at the national Republican Party's website, or at Romney's website, and see which ideas I could endorse. I was reminded of Gillespie's challenge, though, by the low hanging fruit - the Texas Republican Party. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the government should keep its grubby hands off of my multivitamins, and that we shouldn't put aborted fetus parts in our yummy pink slime, but we're scraping the bottom of the barrel....

One of the problems with trying to find "Republican" issues on Romney's website is that he pretty much runs away from any controversy. To the extent that his website shares ideas it's to reassure corporate interests - he's very anti-Union, he has no coherent immigration policy but he favors H1B-type programs for skilled workers. He toes the insurance company line on healthcare reform, the financial industry's line on regulation (i.e., that despite almost taking down the world economy it should largely be unregulated), and the energy industry line on the environment. He's promising to slash taxes for the rich and pretend that he can still move the budget toward balance.

A lot of his ideas are magical - for example, he wants to retrain workers for the new economy, but has no idea for how that can be done either affordably or effectively. He believes that pretty much every foreign policy issue can be solved through sanctions, military posturing, increased military spending, supporting dissident groups even when to do so would be to undermine their goals or to invite reprisal, and if all else fails by antagonizing China and Russia. He likes block grants - after all, why solve a problem when you can punt?

All Romney's "platform" does is reinforce the impression of him as a vacuous man running for office, beholden to the millionaires and billionaires who fête him at their private back yard golf courses. You can find plenty of pie in the sky - stuff most people can agree with, like the notion that everybody should be able to attend a college that is both affordable and that matches their abilities - but what's the point of saying such a thing if you can't also articulate how you will achieve that end. The policies you will create, and how you will pay for their implementation?

I had hoped I might do better on the RNC's website, but their take on the issues is even more evasive and platitudinous than Romney's. Apparently the only place I can find specifics is through a resort to the low hanging fruit offered by the likes of the Texas GOP.

Really, if the question "name a Republican policy you agree with" simply entails embracing a platitude - "I agree that judges should uphold the law", "I agree that government should cut waste", "I agree that regulations that do more harm than good should be repealed", "I agree that kids should have access to quality education" - then it's easy to find points of agreement. But if we move past the surface and start talking policy, it becomes difficult to see how Romney and his party are in fact planning to advance the values they pretend to hold.

The classic example is, of course, the budget - Republicans talk up a storm about balancing the budget and the evils of deficit spending when they're out of power, but can't spend money fast enough when in power. We move immediately from "deficits are horrible" to "deficits don't matter". So I can say "I agree with the 'Republican' idea that we should balance the budget," but if I ask which party is more likely to achieve that goal history tells me that I have to vote for a Democrat.

I can similarly agree with the concept that regulation should not interfere with the efficient operation of businesses, operated in an otherwise lawful and ethical manner, but in practice the Republicans have repeatedly supported deregulation that is affirmatively harmful to the environment and which has caused numerous crises as the deregulated businesses run amok. It also wouldn't be honest to suggest that the Democrats don't share that concept, or that in recent decades that they don't share the Republican tendency to allow businesses to run amok. Agreement with a stated principle is only meaningful to then extent that you can trust the party to enact responsible policies and to maintain appropriate regulations.

I can't embrace Gillespie's conceit that any idea ever supported by a Republican is a "Republican idea" - "You support wage and price controls? Not only are you a socialist, you got that idea from Nixon!" If the endorsement of an idea is to have any significance, I also can't embrace the notion that a "Republican idea" can be divorced from Republican policy. The question seems like an anachronism - twenty, thirty years ago it was easier to both identify ideas that were associated with one party or the other, and to relate those ideas to actual policy proposals. Today it seems like the Republican Party doesn't want to let voters know what it stands for.

We support common-sense health care reforms that would lower costs, preserve quality, end lawsuit abuse, and maintain the health care that Americans deserve.

We believe in energy independence.

We believe that maintaining a world-class system of primary and secondary education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential, is critically important to America's future.

We believe a judge's role is to interpret the law.

And I expect that "we believe" that every little girl should have a pony. I expect that Maddow could agree with those "ideas", but her agreement would stand not as a vindication of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party wants vindication, it needs to stand behind its ideas - to articulate actual policies that advance the ideas.

Media Misogyny and Rush Limbaugh

Kirsten Powers, Democratic news analyst for Fox News and former Clinton Administration staffer, complains, Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist. She is, in effect, accusing the political left of hypocrisy for attacking Rush Limbaugh's decades of undisguised misogyny, because she can identify a handful of ostensibly liberal commentators and comedians who hold or have expressed misogynistic views.

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

I think Powers' heart is in the right place. That is, I think it's appropriate to bring attention to sexist comments and beliefs by powerful media figures, and to hold them to account for their statements. But she picks an odd set of examples, both in terms of substance and degree, and rather than focusing on the underlying issue - the continued acceptance of a certain level of misogyny by the nation's media and population at large - she implies that the worse problem is hypocrisy by those who are outraged by Limbaugh but either didn't know about or didn't express similar outrage in relation to the ostensibly left-wing figures she lists.

My position on Limbaugh is pretty simple: If people wanted to be outraged by his sexism, race-baiting and inflammatory banter, they have decades of examples to choose from. The difference between then and now is not that Limbaugh has suddenly made a statement that's materially different from his more outrageous statements of past years. The difference is that he built himself a juggernaut, and advertisers have to include the potential for his outrage - wild accusations that they're trying to silence him and are tools of the evil political left - in their calculus of whether or not they should pay the high cost of advertising on his show. One or two advertisers quit over this type of statement, they're open to attack. But there's safety in numbers - so once a certain tipping point was reached other advertisers felt comfortable joining in the "boycott".

Limbaugh's future as a radio figure is similarly based upon economics. If he can sustain a sufficient base of listeners and advertisers, his show will go on. If not, he'll probably be off somewhere playing cards with Glenn Beck, reminiscing about the good old days when demagoguery, race-baiting and misogyny were considered to be wholesome American values.

Some of Powers' examples of sexist statements by (ostensibly) liberal commentators are unquestionably sexist. Some are simply offensive, with no sexual component. Some should really have been omitted from her essay, or miss the actual issue.¹ But even with her most outrageous example of a left-leaning media figure who holds misogynistic views, Bill Maher, she misses the point. She lists off some of the outrageous things he has said about women, then complains,

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

Okay... let's give credit where credit is due to the right-wing demagogue and misogynistic Ann "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president" Coulter for calling her friend a misogynist during the course of her zillionth appearance on one of the shows he hosts. Who backed her up? The Nation's Christopher Hayes. The audience seemed to enjoy the exchange, and did nothing to suggest displeasure at the criticism of Maher.

If you want excuses not to watch Maher's show, he gives you plenty. He is contemptuous of religion, he frequently makes anti-Muslim statements, he advocates the use of illegal drugs, he holds positions on medicine that would be downright dangerous if followed by society at large, he often plays softball with guests who make absurd statements and panders to those who share his more eccentric views, and of course he's at times disparaging to women. I'm sure I missed a few dozen other reasons not to watch Maher's show. (If you are intellectually dishonest for paying attention to a political commentator who holds a view you find offensive, you may as well throw out your TV and radio.)

Most people in Maher's audience don't watch his show because they agree with him on those issues, they watch Maher in spite of his positions. If he were to make those positions the centerpiece of his show, he would soon be off the air. Limbaugh, on the other hand, is giving his audience exactly what it wants. Why is Limbaugh already back to making misogynistic comments on his show? Because if tones things down, even to the level of Maher, he's over.

It should also be recalled that many of the comments that Powers suggests were excused by the poltical left, in fact, triggered significant outrage and at times significant consequence for the speaker.

Maher stands as a great example of my earlier point. After years of making outrageous statements on a show called "Politically Incorrect", and providing a platform to misogynistic guests like Ann Coulter,² Maher made a comment about suicide bombers that caught the nation's eye, and created the type of snowball effect - lost sponsors, lost network affiliates - that presently threatens Limbaugh. So his network fired him. Boycotts? There's no indication that any of Limbaugh's advertisers felt any economic pressure, save perhaps from the high cost of advertising on his show, or that the network affiliates who dropped the show were worried about their revenues as opposed to filling the same airtime with cheaper content.

So yes, recognize misogyny where you find it. Criticize it without double standards - or false parallels. But don't forget that at the end of the day, as far as media companies and their advertisers are concerned, it's all about the money. Right now, unfortunately, that means that change almost always needs to come from the top, down.
---------------
1. By way of a small example, Powers finds it inherently sexist that Matt Taibbi called Michelle Bachmann "batshit crazy". But Taibbi has used the same epithet against Rand Paul.

2. Guess which guest on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrectsaid,

I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.

A Giant Sucking Sound....

I have to give credit to anybody whose performance on Real Time leaves you thinking, "I wish Maher had found a more honest, more insightful conservative guest, who won't attempt to cloak her inability to respond to the facts raised by others by interrupting them and talking over them. Like his guest from last week, Ann Coulter." So, whether or not I should be surprised that she wants to take this nation down the same path forged by her much more famous great-grandfather, I have to hand it to Margaret Hoover for making Ann Coulter seem like a well-mannered intellectual.

Douthat Misrepresents Krugman on Deficits

Last night on Real Time, Bill Maher pointed out the fact that Republicans talk big about the deficit when they don't control the White House, but run up huge deficits when they do - that Republican deficit hawkery is not sincere, but is a tool they used to attack a Democratic President's agenda. Of Maher's three guests, two attempted to defend the Republican Party. Gretchen Hamel took the "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes approach and argued, in essence, "this time is different" - that the Republicans have learned their lesson and now sincerely want to balance the budget. Ross Douthat argued that G.W. Bush had been attacked for his deficits at the start of his Presidency, I guess to suggest that the Republican antics represent "politics as usual" and thus should be excused despite their harm to the nation?

Had Douthat stopped there, it might be appropriate to point out to him that an accusation of hypocrisy in general, let alone when you're pointing to actions taken a decade apart, does nothing to tell us which approach is correct. Even if you assume all else is equal, it could be that the Democrats learned from experience that the threat from the out-of-control deficits ushered in by Bush were overstated. That assumption, of course, would require you to be ignorant of the fact that at the time G.W. took office there was a budget surplus and an opportunity to pay down the national debt, and when he left office he had run up a gargantuan deficit and that we were in the midst of a serious financial crisis. Surely Douthat is not that ignorant.

But then, what to make of his reference to his New York Times colleague, Paul Krugman, as the sole example of left-wing hypocrisy on the issue. He alleged that at the start of the G.W. Bush presidency Krugman argued that deficits were bad, and that now that a Democrat was in office he was arguing that deficits were good. That leaves us with one of several possibilities, none of which are flattering to Douthat:

1. He has not read Krugman's columns and other writings, and is accusing Krugman of hypocrisy based upon his own ignorance of and suppositions about what Krugman has written;

2. He has read Krugman's columns and other writings, but doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand those writings; or

3. He's lying in order to score a political point at the expense of his colleague.

It's also fair to observe that Douthat's implicit suggestion that the nation's economic situation is analogous then and now, such that the issues involved in the determination of whether the nation should have a deficit were essentially the same, is false - similarly suggesting ignorance by Douthat or his deliberate intent to deceive his audience. To assume that Douthat is both informed and sincere would require that you regard him as seeing the following two scenarios as equivalent:

1. A family spends more than it earns for a decade, such that it has six figures of debt. Due to some lucky windfalls, a small lottery win, an inheritance, a modest raise at work, the family is finally able to balance its budget - $2,000 left at the end of the year. Given the choice of applying that amount to its debt, or of spending the money, the family chooses the a third path, taking a $5,000 vacation - increasing its total debt load and making its situation less sustainable.

2. A family struggles to make ends meet, and faces significant debt. It's worried about the impact of that debt on its short-term, and especially upon its long-term, financial well-being. But catastrophe strikes, mom is diagnosed with cancer, and the family needs to spend $100,000 in uninsured medical costs to keep her alive and thus goes deeper into debt.

Is Douthat truly unable to understand the difference between choosing to spend yourself deeper into debt when your financial picture is good and you have the option of reducing your debt load, and going deeper into debt in response to catastrophe? Or of the policy choices and economic consequences involved in choosing between spending that benefits the masses and tax cuts directed at the rich? If he has read Krugman, he shouldn't be. When the Bush tax cuts were initially proposed, for example, Krugman wrote,

His argument went as follows: given its projected surpluses over the next decade, the federal government may not only pay off its debt, but actually find itself using surplus cash to buy private assets. This could cause problems, he suggested, because it would be "difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures." So we should engage in "pre-emptive smoothing of the glide path," which turns out to mean cutting taxes enough so that the federal government never does pay off its debt, after all.

Now I would quarrel with those surplus projections. I would also point out that in declaring "it is far better . . . that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases," Mr. Greenspan was out of bounds. Since when is it the Fed's business to say that we should have a tax cut rather than, say, a new prescription drug benefit -- or for that matter a missile defense system? (Neither program is factored into those surplus projections.)

When the economy was souring, Krugman didn't oppose tax cuts as a stimulus measure, but instead wrote why Bush's plan would not be effective as stimulus:

Now Mr. Bush could have tried to sell his plan in terms of the ideology that the plan actually reflects. But he has never done so. Instead, he has engaged in an elaborate disinformation campaign. Part of this effort involves an attempt to deny the plain fact that the tax cuts will mainly go to the very, very well off. But the campaign's most striking feature has been the attempt to sell the tax cut as a short-run stimulus to spending -- as the answer to an economic slowdown that Mr. Bush has done his best to play up, and which his doomsday rhetoric may have worsened.

What's ironic is that the timing of the Bush tax plan makes it just about completely useless as a short-run stimulus package. In order to keep the headline numbers down, the plan delays the really big tax cuts far into the future, putting hardly any money into the hands of consumers this year and not much next year. And recently administration officials have begun to admit that if they are really serious about doing something for the economy now, they need to add an immediate tax cut onto the plan.

But then the question arises: why not adopt the add-on and forget about the original plan? Or better yet, why not implement one of the short-run stimulus plans proposed by Democratic senators, and discuss those huge long-term tax cuts for the rich at our leisure?

Douthat should also know that, as far as Krugman is concerned, he's asking the wrong question:

How did a huge surplus turn into a huge deficit? The recession, the tax cut and terrorism -- in that order -- all played a role. Also, it now seems clear that the big surplus in 2000, almost twice as large as the surplus in the previous year, was an aberration -- that tax receipts were inflated by the technology bubble. In retrospect it's hard to believe that we locked in large, long-term tax cuts based on exactly one year in which the non-Social-Security budget was in significant surplus. (Thanks, Mr. Greenspan.)

But anyway, ''Who lost the surplus?'' is the wrong question. The right question is whether the Bush administration has any plan to return to a balanced budget, let alone to honor George W. Bush's promise to use the Social Security surplus to pay down debt. And the answer is no.

That is, it should be obvious to anybody who reads Krugman that he is not particularly concerned with any particular year's budget deficit or surplus, but is instead focused on the long-term.

And if Douthat needs to be spoon fed, well how about that - Krugman has even penned a piece in response to those who "want to know why I’m blaming Obama’s deficits on Bush, and why I think Obama deficits are good, while Bush deficits weren’t." The criticism is of debt, not deficits; deficits can result from a prior administration's policies; and when it comes to stimulus spending the "zero bound" makes an enormous difference. But Douthat knows all of this, doesn't he?

Seriously, was Douthat's attack on Krugman a confession of incompetence, of willful ignorance, or of mendacity?

"Would You Have Done Anything Differently"

A question frequently posed to politicians who are out of office, most notably to those who lost reelection: "Would you have done anything differently if you could do it over again?" It's not a question worthy of much attention, really, as there's no reset button - what's done is done.

But it's interesting to me how many politicians say "No".

If we're simply rewinding the tape - going back in time to a period when we had no idea what the future would hold - that's reasonable. If you don't know the consequences of your actions, odds are you would do the same thing over again. But the question implies knowledge - that you'll be making your choices with full awareness of how your decisions turned out.

As I see it, there are two appropriate responses to that question:

1. Yes, of course in retrospect I would have done things differently.

2. No. Even though I made mistakes I like the way my life has turned out.

The response that's not appropriate, even from a politician that is viewed as successful? "No, I would have done everything in exactly the same way." The "I made no mistakes, and it was my evil opponents or capricious voters who did me in" response. I'll grant, perhaps even out of office a politician can remain a bit hubristic, so some might not be answering the question truthfully. They may in fact have lots of things they would do differently, but be unwilling to publicly admit that they are imperfect. Perhaps such a person is not the most suited for public office, but at least they're capable of some degree of honesty with themselves.

But if that's their honest answer - they truly would not do things differently - it's probably for the best that they're out of office. The conceit of, "I didn't make mistakes, and all bad outcomes resulted from the actions of others," suggests a disconcerting combination of narcissism and of an external locus of responsibility. That's true even if the politician means well - even if he thought his policies were the best for the people he represented. Actually it may be worse if the politician means well because, in retrospect, it should be easy for him to identify mistakes in his approach to the issues, his opponents and his constituents that, if corrected, might have resulted in greater success for his policies.

I'm Starting To Like Christine O'Donnell

Not to say I would vote for her, but with every nutty thing she's ever said being pulled out of her past, I admit it. She has a certain charm. Seriously, check out her 'notorious' video:

Look at the smile she serves up in this "mice with human brains" article.

For the most part, her brand of "crazy" seems to be well-meaning, borne of limited experience and intellectual curiosity, not mean-spirited or truly insane.

At one time or another, and at one level or another, haven't we all had a friend like this? A person who has a strong opinion on everything and substantive knowledge about... next to nothing? But they're amusing. If O'Donnell smoked pot, odds are she would be what we call a "granola hippie". "Hey dude, did you know that the man... the man has developed mice with human brains? Really, dude. And all we have to do to eliminate poverty is raise minimum wage to $40 grand a year! Think about it...." All those visits to "Politically Incorrect" and Bill Maher never got her to take even a single toke? (No offense, Bill, even though she's not a blonde it's hard to believe you wouldn't have tried.)

Update: