Obama's 50 State Strategy

Obama is planning to campaign in all fifty states. With the shake-up we're seeing of the electoral map, that's sensible in a number of ways.

But whatever the ultimate electoral vote, I hope that it results in a significant win in the popular vote for Obama. That is, if he inspires voters to come out in "red states" that still end up going for McCain, and McCain pulls off a win, I hope that we see an overall 60+% of the vote going to Obama. That's not because I'm trying to have the electoral college eliminated. It's because, win or lose, a significant lead in the popular vote could put a permanent end to the tired line that this nation "isn't ready for a black President".

Hold On A Second There, Fred....

Fred Hiatt, apparenlty being unable to construct an honest defense of his own support for the Iraq war or his paper's editorializing in favor of the war, gives us a scathing attack on... bumper stickers.

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

He say's it's only the beginning, but for him it's also the end - he provides no further analysis of the anti-war movement, and pretends that if it cannot be proved that Bush intentionally lied or that he had absolutely no intelligence to back up even his most outlandish claim, his case for war must be seen as fully supported by the available evidence.

In choosing not to look past the "beginning" reflected in a bumper sticker slogan, Hiatt personifies the type of dishonesty we're discussing. Focusing on the most extreme case, representing it as typical, and failing to mention overwhelming contrary data? Some people, quite reasonably, would deem that "lying by omission".

After introducing Rockefeller's conclusion,

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," [Rockefeller] said.

Hyatt proceeds to pretend that Rockefeller's own report doesn't support his own description of his own findings. From Hyatt's self-serving synopsis - and yes, his editorial is at least as much about salvaging his own reputation as it is about Bush's - you might think that Rockefeller's report found support in the intelligence for Bush's claims about an Iraq-al-Qaeda partnership, Iraq's supposedly having trained al-Qaeda fighters, or secret meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Muhammad Atta. You might think that the report found that there was support for the Bush Administration's representations about Iraq's chemical weapons production capacity, or underground manufacturing plants. You might believe that the report substantiated Bush's insinuations about an easy, cheap post-war period. To the contrary, the report found that Bush's representations were either unsupported by the available intelligence or did not reflect the uncertainty of the intelligence. And what of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein was prepared to hand WMD's over to terrorists? That was contradicted by the available intelligence. (But supported, contradicted, what's the difference, right?) The report did not explore the work of Bush's White House Iraq Group, which was devoted to spinning intelligence and propagandizing in favor of war.

This degree of deception goes well beyond what Hyatt excuses as speaking "with too much certainty" or failing "to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq". Anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention to the build-up of the war could easily see the Bush Administration cherry-picking intelligence in favor of a war that it wanted to launch, whatever the facts or intelligence. They directly attacked anybody who questioned their spin, and dispatched a slate of retired generals to propagandize in favor of war.

Hyatt wants us to pity Bush, whom he paints as having had to decide "when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security". The problem is, that's not what Bush did, and Hyatt knows it. Bush didn't weigh the intelligence to decide what response to make - he decided what he was going to do, disregarded anything that did not weigh in favor of war on Iraq, stymied efforts to complete weapons inspections and get better evidence, and employed scorched earth tactics against many who dared oppose him.

This was not a contest of good intelligence versus bad - the good intelligence never had a chance. This was a contest of good judgment versus bad, and at the end of the day Hyatt's finger-pointing at the intelligence community cannot overcome the fact that neither he nor President Bush showed good judgment on Iraq.

The Problem Isn't So Much When It Was Said....

Robert Novak is upset that John McCain hasn't finished the process of flip-flopping on every issue he has ever championed. Conflating the political desires of all conservative factions into one, Novak writes,

McCain clinched the nomination, he has not satisfied conservatives opposed to his positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and how to ban same-sex marriages.

Novak also suggests that McCain has been unfair to John Hagee, you know, by holding him accountable for his words.

Founder and pastor of the Cornerstone megachurch in San Antonio, Hagee endorsed McCain at a joint news conference Feb. 27. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, immediately asked whether McCain agreed with Hagee's description of Catholicism as a "Godless theology." McCain started backing away, asserting that his courtship of the pastor was "probably" a mistake.

Donahue, accustomed to no remorse by Catholic-bashers, was surprised when Hagee apologized in writing and then engaged him in a warm private meeting at Catholic League offices in New York. But Obama supporters seeking the McCain equivalent of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright were not done. The Huffington Post featured a decade-old video of Hagee asserting that Adolf Hitler was God's "hunter," who forced Jews to create the state of Israel as their natural home.

It was a decade old? How inexcusable. As should be obvious to any adherent of Novak, it's only fair to go back seven years when dredging up videos of pastors saying inflammatory things. Besides, Wright used the active voice rather than the more acceptable passive voice. (What sort of minister uses the active voice, anyway?)

For people who aren't Novak, and thus don't apply the bright line "seven years of video clips" rules to radical statements, the question might be, "Does he still believe what he said?" There's every indication that both Wright and Hagee stick by their words. Some people attempt to defend Hagee by suggesting that there are extremist Jewish leaders who make similar arguments. Others point to his related statements, suggesting that the anti-Christ will be a gay man and, like Hitler, of Jewish heritage, and question how far we are supposed to go in rationalizing away Hagee's injection of Jewish heritage into the most contemptible people of human experience. (You don't get more contemptible than the anti-Christ, do you?) That recording is only four years old? I guess Novak's rules for the use of audio clips are different than his rules for use of video clips.

Actually, Hagee was a founder of Christians United for Israel and the first non-Jew named "humanitarian of the year" by the San Antonio B'nai B'rith. Donahue, his former adversary, called Hagee "the strongest Christian defender of Israel I have ever met." But McCain, who held his fire when reacting to Hagee's anti-Catholic remarks, had no patience with less clear evidence of anti-Semitism.

Here's the thing. Some people have a problem with an evangelical leader who introduces elements of anti-Semitism into his theology, and endorses an ultimate theory that Israel must be defended not for the Jews, but as part of a Biblical "end of days" prophecy under which all of the world's Jews will gather in Israel to either convert to Christianity or perish in a Sea of Fire. In the eyes of some, even if you form a group called "Christians United for Israel", there's cause for concern that this is exclusively an evangelical Christian vision of Israel, not one that actually favors Jews - a people you describe as "not spiritually alive".

A prominent Christian ally of McCain's understands his reluctance to make a pilgrimage to Colorado Springs with no assurance that Dobson would endorse him or even restrain his criticism of him. But this evangelical sees the treatment of Hagee as cold calculation designed to ensure that McCain does not lose the Jeremiah Wright issue.

Let me get this straight. An anonymous, but "prominent" evangelical backer of McCain suggests what seems obvious - that McCain is walking away from Hagee and Parsley in order to preserve his ability to attack Obama on Rev. Wright? But his objection is to McCain's walking away, not to his original cynical embrace of two leaders who, only a few years ago, McCain might have decried as agents of intolerance? WWJD, indeed....

Mastering Your Demons

Ah, the good old days, which David Brooks told us were all about wrestling with sin:

The concept of maturity has undergone several mutations over the course of American history. In Lincoln’s day, to achieve maturity was to succeed in the conquest of the self. Human beings were born with sin, infected with dark passions and satanic temptations. The transition to adulthood consisted of achieving mastery over them.

You can read commencement addresses from the 19th and early 20th centuries in which the speakers would talk about the beast within and the need for iron character to subdue it. Schoolhouse readers emphasized self-discipline. The whole character-building model was sin-centric

That probably helps explain why, as the sin-centric model of maturity faded from public consciousness, the middle class stagnated and died, American industry failed, the economy collapsed, and... Oh, wait. I got that backwards. But then, this is David Brooks lecturing me about "satanic temptations" - It's unfair of me to pretend that he is being sincere.

Brooks tells us of Lincoln's inner struggle:

In January 1841, Abraham Lincoln seems to have at least vaguely thought of suicide. His friend Joshua Speed found him one day thrashing about in his room. “Lincoln went Crazy,” Speed wrote. “I had to remove razors from his room — take away all Knives and other such dangerous things — it was terrible.”

Lincoln was taking three mercury pills a day, the remedy in those days for people who either suffered from syphilis or feared contracting it. “Lincoln could not eat or sleep,” Daniel Mark Epstein writes in his new book, “The Lincolns.” “He appeared at the statehouse irregularly, hollow-eyed, unshaven, emaciated — an object of pity to his friends and of derision to others.”

Later, Lincoln wrote of that period with shame, saying that he had lost the “gem of my character.” He would withdraw morosely from the world into a sort of catatonic state. Early in his marriage, Epstein writes, “Lincoln had night terrors. He woke in the middle of the night trembling, talking gibberish.”

He would, of course, climb out of it. He would come to terms with his weaknesses, control his passions and achieve what we now call maturity.

Climbing out of that type of madness may have more to do with somebody saying, "Mr. Lincoln, perhaps you should stop taking mercury pills" than it did with clobbering back an inner beast. I'm not sure if David Brooks is aware of this, but mercury is poisonous and mercury poisoning leads to a cluster of symptoms evocative of Lincoln's melancholy - depression, anxiety, insomnia, intestinal problems, tremors, fatigue, fits of anger, loss of weight.... (The expression, "mad as a hatter"? It's about mercury poisoning.)

Let's also be honest here, Brooks did not pick Lincoln for his example because he desires a President who has struggled with and apparently overcome significant mental illness and suicidal impulses. He picked Lincoln because he's Lincoln, as part of his effort to advance the prospects of the so-called "Party of Lincoln." If a Democratic presidential candidate had in his background the type of psychological episode Brooks identifies in Lincoln, Brooks would happily join other right-wing columnists in declaring him unfit to govern. He would not be suggesting that it is somehow a "good thing" that the candidate called his wife "mother". Brooks focuses on ravages of the soul, not ravages of the body, because otherwise he would have to bring up the disease-related struggles of FDR and JFK.

There's also something utterly dishonest in this type of column, that has nothing to do with Brooks' politics. Columns like this are produced on a regular basis, declaring paths to maturity that would somehow make our society better.

In the last few years, we may be shifting toward another vision of maturity, one that is impatient with boomer narcissism. Young people today put service at the center of young adulthood. A child is served, but maturity means serving others.

The greedy, shiftless, ungiving baby boomers, finally being replaced by "young people" devoted to "service"? How nice. But why is it that these calls - mandatory military service, mandatory national service, struggles with inner demons, or even something as soft as a putting "service at the center of young adulthood" - almost always come from people who have never lifted a finger to do the very things they demand of others? And while it's nice for Brooks to part from the standard by claiming that young people now value public service, it should be remembered both that (as usual) this appears to be something Brooks made up on the fly, and also that his primary purpose in this piece is to undermine a presidential candidate who happens to be a boomer.

The column also advances an utter fantasy, that the public at large knew of Lincoln's troubles and voted for him anyway - or perhaps even in larger numbers - due to his successful battle. As if Lincoln ran campaign ads, "I used to take lots of mercury pills and wanted to kill myself, but I'm stronger for the experience. Vote Lincoln." There may well be politicians on the national stage who have struggled with mental illness, and one day we may learn of it through their biographers, but it's not going to be a centerpiece of their campaigns. Brooks' preferred candidate, John McCain, has made a point of contending that, despite six years as a P.O.W., he returned home in exactly the same state of (perfect) psychological health as the day he left. Anger problem? That's a fiction created by his opponents.

Obviously, it’s not fair to compare anybody to Lincoln, but he does illustrate the repertoire of skills we look for in a leader. The central illusion of modern politics is that if only people as virtuous as “us” had power, then things would be better. Candidates get elected by telling people what they want to hear, leading them by using the sugar of their own fantasies.

Because Brooks' entire column does just that, and doesn't invite candidates to lead him by using the sugar of his own fantasies? Did you see how Brooks elided from history the G.W. Bush narrative that he did engage in a struggle of the soul, beat back the demon rum, found God, and became a greater man for his struggle? It's only as Bush is about to leave center stage that Brooks has noticed that Bush in fact remained intellectually incurious¹ and gripped by narcissism?

All this suggests a maxim for us voters: Don’t only look to see which candidate has the most talent. Look for the one most emotionally gripped by his own failings.

Um, yeah. Because you wouldn't want to close with the impression that the whole column is a partisan jab at Obama, this generation's presidential candidate from Illinois.... Let's all vote for the candidate with the least talent!
__________________
1. Brooks actually describes G.W. Bush as displaying "intellectual insecurity". I don't mean to misrepresent Brooks by instead referencing incuriosity, but I have yet to see any evidence that Bush is even slightly consciously insecure about his intellect.

Turn Off Your IQ At The Door

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the primary? According to Rep. Heather Wilson (R, NM), it's because she was overwhelmed by the formidable liberalness of the victor... Dennis Kucinich?

He Knows Better, But....

Ari Fleischer whines,

Among the allegations in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's book is his assertion that the national press corps was "too deferential to the White House" and that the media were "complicit enablers" of President Bush's agenda. The press, he charges, failed to aggressively question the rationale for war. As someone whose duty it was to assume the position of a human piñata every day in the briefing room, I only wish Scott were right.

Fleischer goes on to share many examples of what he contends were tough questions, but fails to share his answers to those questions. As he knows, his answers usually ranged from evasions to outright falsehoods. The criticism is not that no tough questions were never asked - the criticism arises from the complacency of the press in accepting prevarication and deception from the White House and its mouthpieces.

The Charmas Friedhammer Gas Tax

For years, Thomas Friedman has endorsed substantial increases in the gax tax. Recently he took a different tack, suggesting a tax to the level of $4/gallon, something that is perhaps best described as a "windfall profits protection tax" or a "price control". Today, Charles Krauthammer claims, "That's my idea":

For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government - through a tax - to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.

Sure, because (as with Friedman's version) no players in the market would notice that they could simply increase their profits to the amount of the tax, and all oil companies are based in the United States.

Krauthammer complains that instead of imposing his beloved price control, the federal government attempted various forms of regulation, such as CAFE standards, that he sees as having failed to achieve their goals. It's obviously not the case that Krauthammer opposes government meddling in the marketplace, as his tax proposals and price controls do just that. Perhaps he sees taxation as the best way for the government to mold individual behavior.

Krauthammer no longer sees price controls as sufficient - now he's incorporating Friedman's call for periodic, substantial increases in the gas tax:

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Krauthammer believes that the price of oil on the world market is pegged to the U.S. gas tax, such that oil prices will stabilize if the U.S. imposes a $2/gallon gas tax? Really? And then by recycling the money back into the hands of consumers, they'll what? Buy televisions instead of filling up their cars? Or perhaps they'll notice that public transportation continues to be overwhelmed and underfunded and wonder why, despite their enormous common ground, Krauthammer parted with Friedman on the use of gas taxes to fund and expand public transportation.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand - and bring down world crude oil prices - the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Thank you Charmas Friedhammer. And once this fantasy comes true, and the public is "thanking" Congress for setting an effective price floor on gasoline at $6/gallon, demand for an overstretched public transportation system is way past its limits, and crude oil prices have continued to climb because (as it turns out) the price per barrel isn't defined exclusively by U.S. gasoline prices, what will Krauthammer say when his "conservative" peers are blasting President Obama (or, if McCain is elected, President Clinton) for for the weaknesses of his plan? That is to say, will Krauthammer join them or will he ignore them - I doubt he would even see a third potential approach.

And am I supposed to overlook Krauthammer's timing here? He didn't propose a $2 gallon gas tax back in 2001. Back then, he claims he "only" wanted a price control that would create windfall profits for gasoline refiners. He still doesn't favor providing states and local governments with the resources they need to upgrade and update their public transportation systems. People will still be stuck driving cars, because his policies don't involve the creation and expansion of alternatives. The poorest workers who are still stuck driving will be paying $75-$100/tank to fill up their cars, and we're supposed to believe that lower payroll taxes will put that back in their paychecks? Krauthammer has an amazing ability to make pretty much any idea regressive and retrograde.

The Neverending ANWR Oil Song And Dance

George Will, in a rather typical display of poor thinking, argues against the dastardly environmental concerns that keep our nation from fully exploiting and depleting all of our oil and natural gas reserves.

Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.

Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."

Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply?

Will instructs us,

One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there.

Er, yeah, "might". Now I'll give Will as much credit as he's due for not tossing out a certain figure, particularly on the heels of his attack on Schumer for asserting a projection as fact. But that isn't much, given that the rest of Will's column treats his own projection as a certainty.

Will proceed to attack Schumer, and everybody else who has opposed ANWR oil drilling, as being "complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline". This, of course, is raw fiction. Will pretends that world oil production - on the whole, and by individual nations, can only rise. Will pretends that a nation like Saudi Arabia won't limit its own output, well below capacity, in order to protect its own reserves and maximize its profits - yet if Saudi Arabia weren't doing exactly that, Will's contentions would be even more absurd.

Let's take a moment to consider reality:

President Bush used a private visit to King Abdullah’s ranch here on Friday to make another appeal for an increase in oil production that might give American consumers some relief at the gasoline pump. The Saudis responded by announcing they had decided a week ago on a modest increase of 300,000 barrels a day.

That's Saudi Arabia snapping its fingers and adding to the marketplace 30% of the daily oil production Will optimistically proposes might be drawn from ANWR.

The White House said the increase would not be enough to lower gasoline prices, which are nearing $4 a gallon, and industry analysts called it mostly symbolic.

Meanwhile, what else is happening?

The International Energy Agency, which advises industrial countries, recently reduced its estimates for oil demand growth this year, with consumption expected to fall in the United States, Europe and Japan. But demand should still rise by one million barrels a day thanks to growth in China and the Middle East.

Let's refer back to Will:

One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there.

Bill Clinton? Oh yeah - the guy who was in the White House before ol' whats-his-name, who apparently bears no responsibility in Will's mind for failing to open ANWR to drilling despite having Republican majority in both houses for six years. Will seems intent on flushing the entire G.W. Bush Administration and its record down the memory hole.

The projections for increased world demand for oil highlight another fallacy of Will's argument. He forgets that oil is priced according to a global marketplace. Demand for oil has not stood still since 1995 - it has increased substantially. Saudi oil production has not stood still since 1995 - it has increased by over a million gallons per day. But in some years it decreased - Will deludes himself if he believes that Saudi output would be unaffected by new production in ANWR. (And if he doesn't believe that, but is arguing it anyway....) It's these realiities that lead to projections such as,

If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.

The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."

Will complains,

America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit.

You would think that a self-professed conservative like Will would embrace that approach for as long as it works. But Will appears to prefer a model whereby we pump every drop of our own oil, thereby lowering its value, while allowing Saudi Arabia to hold larger reserves.

At this point, we can abandon all pretense that Will was trying to construct an honest argument. The one source he cites gives him away:

In his book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,' " Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.

Bryce has been singing the same song for years. To some degree he has a point: We cannot sustain our present way of life without importing energy, other energy sources are decades away from being viable alternatives, and we shouldn't disadvantage ourselves by focusing on domestic energy production rather than seeking the cheapest energy sources in a global commodities market.

Bryce is not as myopic as the title to his book makes him sound, and advocates energy research (particularly new battery technologies for storing large quantities of electricity), solar and nuclear energy. But that part doesn't interest Will - who knows if he really even read past the title - who appears to embrace it as an endorsement of unbridled energy consumption. But Will's perception is once again lacking - the thesis of his column is premised upon the very concept his sole source decries as a myth.

Blair Must Be Thankful That He Had Better Writers

I imagine that, save for George Bush and maybe one or two others, people would find it more than a bit painful to have Michael Gerson put words into their mouths. Speaking of the "American kickoff of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation", Gerson's word-insertions start almost immediately:

At an event designed to further mutual religious sympathy, two of the panelists - including the president of Yale University, Richard Levin - casually asserted that religious Americans who support pro-life restrictions on international family planning aid are as doctrinaire and exclusionary as Saudi extremists. Pro-life Catholics and evangelicals? Wahhabi extremists? What's the difference?

Gerson share's Tony Blair's reaction to his spin, as,

Speaking to me after the event, Blair was patient, arguing that that "could not be what they intended."

It sounds like Tony Blair was trying to tell Gerson that he got it wrong. But Gerson didn't provide a quote for the statements that supposedly constituted the casual assertion, nor did he even deign to quote Blair's full sentence. But Gerson wants to tell us what people said, not show us, and we're supposed to take him at his word that he's getting things right.

But Blair is also critical of an "aggressive secularization," which, he told me, makes it easier to "forget a higher calling than the fulfillment of our own desires." Religious faith, at its best, not only encourages idealism, it provides an explanation and foundation for human rights and dignity, "an inalienable principle, rising above relativism and expediency." This does not "eliminate the painful compromises of political existence," Blair recognizes. But it does mean that "not everything can be considered in a utilitarian way." Blair defends a pluralism without relativism, a tolerance consistent with a belief in religious and moral truth - indeed, a tolerance that arises from within those convictions.

The worst thinking, of course, falls outside of the quotation marks. For example, the idea that religion, and by implication religion alone (and perhaps only the particular Christian beliefs of Gerson... and Blair?), "provides an explanation and foundation for human rights and dignity". Yet it's pretty simple to find and articulate entirely secular explanations of, and foundations for, human rights and dignity. Just as it's pretty simple to find examples of religion, not "at its best", undermining both.

On top of that, to put it mildly, neither the administration led by Blair nor the administration exalted by Gerson, can justly claim to have expanded the "foundation for human rights and dignity", either at home or abroad. Their anti-terror security rules at home pared back domestic liberties. Support for indefinite incarceration without charges, denial of habeas corpus rights, mistreatment of prisoners, use of techniques such as waterboarding that have been traditionally classified as torture, and rendition of prisoners to other nations that will use torture? But it's all worth it if in a decade or two, or four, or ten, Iraq becomes a somewhat non-repressive Shiite-dominated authoritarian democracy of some sort? Is all of this one of the "painful compromises of political existence"?

To speak of "pluralism without relativism, a tolerance consistent with a belief in religious and moral truth" seems misguided. Is this Gerson's way of saying, "My particular religious and moral beliefs are superior to yours, but enable me to tolerate your inferior beliefs"? Or, "As long as you respect the superiority of my beliefs, pluralism is great"? How can you hold those beliefs and sincerely believe that you support a pluralistic society? For the leadership of a state to champion its own religious beliefs while branding others as inferior is the opposite of pluralism. Even assuming it's what he said, Blair's certainly smart enough to see the inconsistency.

But his main argument is public and visionary. Religion, Blair argues, is not going away, as secularists have expected and predicated for centuries.

This game again - okay, Michael - name names. Which specific "secularists" are you referencing? But beyond that, isn't it far more accurate to say that religious leaders have feared for centuries that secular elements of society will cause religion to wither and die? Isn't the gist of your very column that religion is at a disadvantage in what you see as "a faithless world"?

Why Aren't There More Conservative Law Professors?

You would have to have a very poor grasp of logic to come up with a nutty idea like this:

Obama clinches; Dow Jones Average drops 72 points in 9 minutes. ... This is not a particularly large drop (it's less than 1%), but the probable trigger was much clearer this time than for market responses to other primary wins and losses.

But apparently law professors aren't required to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Charles Murray On Elitism

Charles Murray seems to be describing himself in this editorial, as a reasonably intelligent person who has absolutely no grounding in being a good citizen.

A large proportion of gifted children are born to parents who value their children's talent and do their best to see that it is realized. Most gifted children without such parents are recognized by someone somewhere along the educational line and pointed toward college. No evidence indicates that the nation has many children with IQs above 120 who are not given an opportunity for higher education. The university system has also become efficient in shipping large numbers of the most talented high-school graduates to the most prestigious schools. The allocation of this human capital can be criticized--it would probably be better for the nation if more of the gifted went into the sciences and fewer into the law. But if the issue is amount of education, then the nation is doing fine with its next generation of gifted children.

But of course, the issue is not the amount of education. What would be shocking if this weren't Murray speaking is that he appears completely ignorant of the importance of early education in the maths and sciences to foster the skills of children gifted in those disciplines and to lay the foundation for their pursuing careers in those fields. Chasing the almighty dollar is part of the equation, certainly, but the lack of support for gifted education in public schools affects how many kids end up pursuing careers in the hard sciences.

Moreover, Murray apparently doesn't know that high school dropout rates for gifted kids are no lower than average. Now, Murray may delude himself that that's a good thing - pretending that Google will hire college (and perhaps high school) dropouts if they're smart enough - but the rest of us live in the real world. The price of ignoring the needs of gifted children goes beyond their picking the wrong major at college.

The problem with the education of the gifted involves not their professional training, but their training as citizens.

What does this tell us about Murray and his peer group when he was in school? It suggests that they were very full of themselves, scornful of those less intelligent than they were, and perhaps oblivious to those more intelligent than they. The gifted kids I knew growing up, and my school system used a cutoff significantly above the 120 IQ Murray would apply, were very socially aware. Now, some of them may have had ideas for resolving social problems that would seem bizarre to most other people, but such is the result of high intelligence crossed with limited life experience.

We live in an age when it is unfashionable to talk about the special responsibility of being gifted, because to do so acknowledges inequality of ability, which is elitist, and inequality of responsibilities, which is also elitist. And so children who know they are smarter than the other kids tend, in a most human reaction, to think of themselves as superior to them.

Again, going back to my own experiences, a lot of the gifted kids I knew had the opposite problem - lots of self-doubt, low self-esteem, a feeling of social isolation. Granted, some were gregarious and confident. But this mass of smart narcissists that Murray imagines simply didn't exist. That's not to say that I didn't know some kids like Murray describes, and they probably did have IQ's in the 120+ range, but with few exceptions they weren't smart enough to qualify as "gifted" under the criteria applied by my school system.

It's funny to hear Murray talk of "elitism" as if it's a good thing, because he of course attributes failures of social policy in the post-Civil Rights era to "elite white guilt". That, apparently, is elitism leading to egalitarianism - which to Murray is bad. What Murray seems to be endorsing is elitism leading to self-aggrandizement. So what Murray wants from public schools is not a program of gifted education that will nurture young scientists, mathematicians, and writers, but more of a 19th century British public school model, ("public school" in that context refers to what we call "private schools"), apparently with a similar sense of entitlement to rule:

All of the above are antithetical to the mindset that prevails in today's schools at every level. The gifted should not be taught to be nonjudgmental; they need to learn how to make accurate judgments. They should not be taught to be equally respectful of Aztecs and Greeks; they should focus on the best that has come before them, which will mean a light dose of Aztecs and a heavy one of Greeks. The primary purpose of their education should not be to let the little darlings express themselves, but to give them the tools and the intellectual discipline for expressing themselves as adults.

In short, I am calling for a revival of the classical definition of a liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to prepare an elite to do its duty.

Given the way Murray seems to describe his younger self and his narcissistic peers, it's hard to see what impact this proposed "civics for the smart" class would have had on them. On the other hand, when you read his clumsy thoughts, it's pretty easy to see how a more rigorous academic education may have helped him produce better analyses (although, sad as it may be, without the racist overtones and glaring errors, Murray's readership would probably decline). For example, here Murray speaks of trying to significantly improve the English language skills of a child of average intelligence:

It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough.

Here, in describing gifted children, he again appears to be describing himself:

Many high-IQ students, especially those who avoid serious science and math, go from kindergarten through an advanced degree without ever having a teacher who is dissatisfied with their best work and without ever taking a course that forces them to say to themselves, "I can't do this."

Apparently Murray "knows" he isn't smart enough for complex math because he has never tried.

Coming from Murray, this is almost laughable:

The gifted must assimilate the details of grammar and syntax and the details of logical fallacies not because they will need them to communicate in daily life, but because these are indispensable for precise thinking at an advanced level.

And in his quest to impose rigorous civics training on smart kids such that they "know what it means to be good", he is happy to have the next generation follow his lead and skip difficult math and science classes that might also provide a "setting in which their feet can be held to the fire".

Novak's Best Defense Is A Good Offense

I guess this question goes to Scott McClellan - how does it feel when a man with no honor attempts to impugn yours?

The New FindLaw

FindLaw has refocused itself, seemingly as a consumer site. (Don't worry - the stuff for practitioners is still there - the link is just a lot less conspicuous.)

Do you like it? Hate it? Are you eager to publish your law firm's infomercials in the video section?

It's Official - Luttwack Is Full Of....

Well, semi-official, but the New York Times public editor has softly agreed with the idea that Edward Luttwack's smear of Obama was not "fit to print". Some of the column is amusing,

Many Times readers saw the article as irresponsible (“gasoline on the fire,” said Paul Trachtman of Tierra Amarilla, N.M.) or false (“Islam is not like our hair or the color of our skin, which we inherited from our parents,” said Ali Kamel of Rio de Janeiro). The blogosphere lit up with assertions that Luttwak did not know what he was talking about.

But you have to read down three more paragraphs before you find out, the blogosphere was right:

I interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them said that Luttwak’s interpretation of Islamic law was wrong.

Luttwack attempted to defend himself with reference to an anonymous scholar of Islam who... also seemed to believe Luttwack was wrong:

Interestingly, in defense of his own article, Luttwak sent me an analysis of it by a scholar of Muslim law whom he did not identify. That anonymous scholar also did not agree with Luttwak that Obama was an apostate or that Muslim law would prohibit punishment for any Muslim who killed an apostate. He wrote, “You seem to be describing some anarcho-utopian version of Islamic legalism, which has never existed, and after the birth of the modern nation state will never exist.”

The editor of the Op-Ed page, David Shipley, seems to be brimming with lame excuses for running anti-Obama propaganda:

David Shipley, the editor of the Op-Ed page, said Luttwak’s article was vetted by editors who consulted the Koran, associated text, newspaper articles and authoritative histories of Islam. No scholars of Islam were consulted because “we do not customarily call experts to invite them to weigh in on the work of our contributors,” he said.

What, exactly, did they consult? The collected works of Daniel Pipes? Really, I would like to hear the specifics.

Shipley, the Op-Ed editor, said he regretted not urging Luttwak to soften his language about possible assassination, given how sensitive the subject is. But he said he did not think the Op-Ed page was under any obligation to present an alternative view, beyond some letters to the editor.

I do not agree. With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.

I'm still wondering, how did Shipley decide that Luttwack's column was suitable to print in the first place? What was the process by which the column ended up in the New York Times? I suspect that story's at least as embarrassing as the fact that Luttwack was regurgitating the propaganda of Daniel Pipes.

Environmental Lies And The Lying Liars....

George Will writes,

Regarding McCain's "central facts," the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, which helped establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - co-winner, with Al Gore, of the Nobel Peace Prize - says global temperatures have not risen in a decade.

Their report, full version here, summary here (PDF), shows the following (click the image for a larger view):
The blue lines represent projections of climate change based on natural forces. The red lines represent models based upon natural and anthropogenic forces (forces resulting from human activities). The black lines represent actual measurements.

So what part of the IPCC's actual findings are consistent with Will's claim that there has been no global temperature increase in a decade?

Beyond Parody

Many years ago, on a Canadian News Show (the National / Journal), the latter portion of the show often included a brief moment of political parody. One I recall occurred after Brian Mulroney was elected as Prime Minister. A woman, in operatic style, sang a song effusively praising him ("Brian Mulroney is wonderful, wonderful, wonderful / He'll fix what's the matter, and walk on the water / He's wonderful") and summarizing his campaign promises:

He'll cut taxes for farmers and fishers and loggers,
And lower the interest,
And increase the dollar,
Give loans to build ships,
And more jobs for the kids,
And get bigger grain sales,
And restore VIA Rail,
And expend more on health and the fighting of crime....

And he'll lower the deficit at the same time!

Which brings us, of course, to John McCain: He'll fix what's the matter and walk on the water.

Charles Krauthammer: Scientific Ignoramus

Sometimes when you read Krauthammer's dishonest arguments, you can't help but think that he's talking down to an audience that he knows will not engage in critical thinking when lapping up his screeds. And there's probably some of that in today's entry, but for the most part it appears that Krauthammer believes what he says. Which is remarkable, as he presumably completed at least undergraduate level science classes as part of the preparation for his medical school training. Speaking of global warming, Krauthammer says,

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems - from ocean currents to cloud formation - that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing.

But Charles, they're changing because they're constantly being improved. And only a scientific ignoramus would contend that we cannot rely upon a scientific model, complex or otherwise, until it is established with absolute certainty.

The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Now you're changing the subject. We were talking about scientific models, not doomsday scenarios.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation.

What a dishonest claim that is, Charles. You lump environmentalists, scientists and politicians into some sort of nebulous category of... what? Enemies of the state? And you declare that any effort to address carbon emissions and global warming constitutes "advocating radical economic and social regulation"? Let me guess - your preference is to do nothing while we wait for the 100% scientific certainty that only a scientific ignoramus would believe is possible?

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

Vaclav Klaus said it? Well, there. You've changed my mind. When a politician from a small foreign country says something, particularly if it can be reduced to a sound bite, obviously we should cast away science and our own political system and simply defer to the foreign leader's judgments. We shouldn't even ask their basis - we should simply defer. Boy, Charles, you sure know how to make good policy.

You know what? I could declare, "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity is Charles Krauthammer." Just saying it doesn't make it true, does it? (Would it be true if Vaclav Klaus said it?)

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over.

Newsweek? Have you never heard of peer reviewed scientific journals? I mean, you may as well cite a Krauthammer column to tell us that the war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban was over in 100 days and all the critics have been proved wrong. It's mainstream media - and when it comes to selling extra copies, people take license - in your case, lots of it. But you know what? If you look in those peer reviewed journals, instead of relying exclusively on sound bites from politicians (as translated from the original Czech), you may find that Newsweek is a lot closer to reality than you are.

Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming - infinitely more untested, complex and speculative - is a closed issue.

Overthrown? You mean, Newtonian physics is no longer taught in high schools and colleges as a "close enough" approximation of how things work? When apples fall from trees, they now fall up? Your statement is as ignorant as arguing, "Now that we can measure things in microns, rulers and measuring tapes are useless." They're not. They get us pretty close to where we want to be, and often all the way to where we want to be. And when we need to be more precise, we can turn to more sophisticated tools (or, if you prefer, relativity).

Further, beyond you and Newsweek, nobody seems to be calling this a "closed issue". As you previously noted, the scientists you love to malign - people who, unlike you, know what they're talking about - are constantly striving to improve their models and increase the accuracy of their predictions. You may not like the fact that the science points in a particular direction, but if you have an honest bone in your body you should be able to admit that it's you who is approaching these issues in religious terms - even describing your own mindset ("agnostic") in religious terms - even though it's a scientific question.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

What discredited the naysayers on the issue of global warming? Oh yes... lying, and paying for pseudoscience in order to attack competent science. Sorry, Charles - your heroes have nobody to blame but themselves. And to the extent that the "left" is empowered by relying on sound science, and by the fact that your heroes of the "right" have been proved to be liars? C'mon. Those are crocodile tears you're shedding.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class - social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies - arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but - even better - in the name of Earth itself.

And now we delve into ad hominem? That didn't take long. Ah yes... the studious young people who pursue advanced degrees in science, and enter the lucrative fields of physics and climatology... They're all about amassing power and wealth for themselves. You caught 'em just in time - next week they were going to take over the country and make us all wear lab coats.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.)

Ad hominem; straw man. Can't you do better?

And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment - carbon chastity - they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Ad hominem; straw man. Nope, I guess you can't.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So a parliamentary committee in a foreign nation proposed something that's nutty and unworkable in practice? But wait - this was a foreign government? Now I'm confused, because I thought you believed that if a foreign leader did or said something nutty and non-scientific we were supposed to immediately adopt it into our nation's norms of conduct to comport with that statement. Perhaps we only do that if the foreign leader doesn't speak English? And the danger posed by this carbon card is what? Let's look at what's happening in England:

The Government has, quite understandably, backed away with some horror from a new proposal by a committee of MPs to introduce a system of 'personal carbon credits' for every individual in Britain.

Charles, you're building a house of cards.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research - untainted and reliable - to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

By "untainted and reliable" you mean what? Particularly given that you are completely ignorant of the existing research? As a scientific ignoramus you presumably mean, "I won't believe any science that doesn't comport to my existing world view" - and for you, that's consistent with your take on pretty much everything. You are preternaturally incapable of thinking beyond the narrow confines of your tiny, closed mind. You know nothing, but you pretend yourself capable of dictating to actual scientists the criteria they should use to evaluate the documented fact of global warming? And you dare to insult others as following an "ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology" or "talking through their hats"?

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

So wait - your entire argument is a straw man, concluding with your concession that we need to "reduce our carbon footprint"? You just want to provide a fig leaf to hide your pro-industry, anti-environmental stance - an excuse to harm the environment while hiding behind ignorant, dishonest demands for scientific certainty?

As for nuclear energy, have you never heard of solar energy? Geothermal energy? Hydroelectric energy? Wind energy? I'm a proponent of nuclear energy but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that no other carbon-friendly sources of energy exist. Is it that you weren't aware of these other sources of energy, or are you being dishonest?

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Oh, come on. You're going to pretend that the only reason that G.W. Bush couldn't pass a nuclear energy program in six years of ramming pro-energy industry legislation down our throats is that he and his fellow Republicans worship at "The Church of the Environment"?

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.

If you have it your way, either you or an incompetent Republican administration for which you cheerlead. Either way, the rest of us lose.

A Clash Of Faiths

On one side, the inimitable Michael Gerson,

But compassionate conservatism has come under criticism for a variety of reasons. For some, it is fundamentally at odds with fiscal conservatism -- no social priority is deemed more urgent than balancing the budget. For others, it is a violation of their vision of limited government -- the state's only valid purpose is to uphold markets and protect individual liberty. But by drawing these limits so narrowly, such critics would relegate conservatism to the realm of rejected ideologies: untainted, uncomplicated and ignored. And by leaving great social needs unmet, they would grant liberalism an open field and invite genuine statism.

On the other side, (sort of) free market advocacy from Daniel Larison:

How tiresome it is to hear that “social needs” are unmet because government is not involved in meeting them, or that government must be involved if those needs are, in fact, unmet. If they’re unmet, they’re probably unmet because someone whining in the name of “compassion” forty years ago complained that the government wasn’t doing enough, so the state usurped the proper social functions of existing institutions that have since withered and died from neglect and lack of support, and now all we are left with is recourse to still more government.

A big part of the problem with "compassionate conservativism" is that it was a lie from day one, with perhaps Michael Gerson being the only living person not to have come to terms with that fact. The term represents typical G.W., attempting to depict himself as a centrist who will reinvent the social safety net to help people climb out of poverty, coupled with a promise to dole hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of federal dollars into religious organizations. He didn't mean the first part and, as far as I can see, for G.W. the second part was solely about getting votes. I've seen no evidence that G.W. cares about the efficacy of vouchers (and in fact "No Child Left Behind" and voucher programs appear calculated to prevent direct comparison of public schools to private schools, by doling out money to private schools while exempting them from NCLB's testing requirements and standards).

But what of Larison's cult of the free market? What social support network is he imagining, flourishing some forty years ago, but that has now disappeared? It's a fiction presented as fact.

That's not to say that the government has not stepped into places where charities, particularly religious charities, once dominated. Counties offer free and discounted medical care that one might have historically received through a hospital founded by a religious group. Poor people get food stamps (or should I say an EBT card) rather than queueing outside of the Salvation Army offices or some other soup kitchen. Housing subsidies and government funded shelters have largely replaced charitable shelters.

But when you look at why this happened, it was due to the failure of private and religious charities to meet the needs of an industrialized society. Giving full respect to the significant charitable efforts made by many people and organizations before the dawn of the so-called "welfare state", there was no glory day when the needs of all of the nation's poor were well-met by charity. Religions and charities did not shutter workhouses and orphanages, in favor of keeping families together. Religions and charities did not bring about universal public education. Religions and charities still do operate hospitals - but for most of us, the bill isn't any smaller than it would be at a private or public hospital, and they would be overwhelmed and bankrupted if they were to open their doors to the nation's poor with no charge and without requesting reimbursement through Medicare and Medicaid. Moreover, the government can administer programs evenly across states or the entire nation, where charities did not and cannot. In short, we're dealing with two issues: The fact that the world Larison depicts as an ideal never existed (and never will), and the fact that society has changed from the days when charities and religious organizations could partially fulfill the needs now served by government.

The question of whether it is better to serve up charity with a religious sermon or a dose of shame, or if it is better to leave charity to hands that can deny relief to people deemed "undeserving" (whether because they're not seen as making a sufficient effort, or because they're of the wrong faith or perhaps even ethnicity) is apart from the question of whether private charities and religions could take the place of public social assistance in a modern industrialized society. They cannot. You want to talk about ending dependence? I'm all ears. But it's a separate issue.

Gerson seems to recognize the failure of non-state actors, arguing that fiscal conservatives, "by leaving great social needs unmet, ... would grant liberalism an open field and invite genuine statism." Where he devolves into the comical is in the idea that the "alternative" is for state and federal governments to tax their citizens then pass the money along to third parties to administer in a "charitable" manner. There's no evidence presented, nor argument given, that this approach saves money, increases efficiency, or reduces dependency.

Larison objects to the continuation of dependency, arguing,

However the program or initiative is designed, it will always be another form of dependency and another means to concentrate power in the state by creating these bonds of dependency on government initiatives. How insulting to listen to someone who has never blinked at proposing spending other people’s money on the problems of people he has never met mock fiscal responsibility, and then claim that those interested in the profoundly moral effort to not pass on our debts to our posterity supposedly believe that balanced budgets are the top “social priority.” What is Michael Gerson’s top social priority? It seems that gratifying his undying need for atoning vicariously through good works that he isn’t doing that are paid for by wealth he isn’t creating in places he will never go is his top priority, and woe betide the moneychangers who block him on the path of righteousness!

Well, a big part of the problem probably starts with turning this into a religious debate, dictated by unseen forces emanating from our WWJD bracelets. The fact is that as long as there have been churches, there have been collection plates. Shall we discuss tithing, which at times and places in history was little different from a tax? What churches offered straw polls to let people decide where and how they spent the collected money? Save for individual efforts and those of small groups, something that cannot take the place of large-scale social programs, this has always been about paying money to third parties who decide if and how it will be expended for the benefit of the poor.

The dichotomy Larison implies - and it's a false dichotomy - is that we have a choice between balancing the budget and providing public assistance to the poor. We can also balance the budget by increasing taxes or cutting other areas of spending. So if we're going to speak of a "profoundly moral effort to not pass on our debts to our posterity", we must ask why the most "moral" solution is to put social spending on the chopping block, while preserving current levels of corporate welfare, military spending, and those provisions of the tax code that are exceedingly favorable to the rich, or instead of raising taxes to cover the difference. Larison argues,

Instead of a supposedly libertarian Christ, Gerson offers us Christ the social worker, which is an appropriation every bit as unpersuasive as the other caricatures he rejects, and the disciples of this social worker have an unerring ability to be extremely annoying.

You can make a strong libertarian case for prioritizing a balanced budget and cutting social welfare benefits first, but spare me any argument that it's dictated or even supported by Christ's teachings.

"We'll Ship It Overseas"

John McCain's latest flip-flop? Yucca Mountain.

“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”

— John McCain, 5/27/08

The article points out the obvious:

And such a cockamamie solution, too.

We are going to ship nuclear waste overseas? Will Kathie Lee Gifford be seen dancing on a Carnival deck, pointing to canisters and promising cut rates to those tourists who travel onboard? John McCain’s Love Boat?

And exactly where overseas are we going to ship the waste? There’s plenty of room inside the Colosseum, right? I am sure it would be safe for, say 100, even 10,000 years, in Baghdad now that the war is almost over. Or perhaps Myanmar — I hear the weather is always lovely there.

More Truth Than You Can Handle

In case you haven't yet had enough of pundits wishing that politicians would tell the truth as they see it, Thomas Friedman offers us some more truthiness. Friedman opens:

Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?

At this point you're probably already thinking, "I don't know, but I suspect it's something different than what you're about to say." Perhaps you're expecting that it will be yet another call by Friedman for an increased gas tax.

No, our mythical candidate would say the long-term answer is to go exactly the other way: guarantee people a high price of gasoline — forever.

This candidate would note that $4-a-gallon gasoline is really starting to impact driving behavior and buying behavior in way that $3-a-gallon gas did not. The first time we got such a strong price signal, after the 1973 oil shock, we responded as a country by demanding and producing more fuel-efficient cars. But as soon as oil prices started falling in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we let Detroit get us readdicted to gas guzzlers, and the price steadily crept back up to where it is today.

We must not make that mistake again. Therefore, what our mythical candidate would be proposing, argues the energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., is a “price floor” for gasoline: $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, which is still half the going rate in Europe today.

Price controls? Friedman is literally suggesting that having "had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud", Barack Obama should guarantee windfall oil company profits by preventing the free market from ever leading to a gas price below $4/gallon?

Wouldn’t it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn’t that just be amazing?

It sure would, Mr. Friedman, but (so sorry) your plan isn't the right one.