Why did Goldstone flip-flop contra actual evidence?

NYT columnist Roger Cohen wants to know, as do I.

And a flip-flop it is, that South Africa's Richard Goldstone did, distancing himself from the report of his own UN commission on whether Israel, as well as Hamas, committed war crimes in 2008.

I have to quote extensively from Cohen's column to set the background:

He says his report would have been different “if I had known then what I know now.” The core difference the judge identifies is that he’s now convinced Gaza “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”

His shift is attributed to the findings of a follow-up report by a U.N. committee of independent experts chaired by Mary McGowan Davis, a former New York judge, and what is “recognized” therein about Israeli military investigations. Well, Goldstone and I have not been reading the same report.

McGowan Davis is in fact deeply critical of those Israeli investigations — their tardiness, leniency, lack of transparency and flawed structure. Her report — stymied by lack of access to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank — contains no new information I can see that might buttress a change of heart.

On the core issue of intentionality, it declares: “There is no indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead.”

It says Israel has not adequately answered the Goldstone Report’s allegations about the “design and implementation of the Gaza operations” or its “objectives and targets.” Victims on both sides, McGowan Davis argues, can expect “no genuine accountability and no justice.”

In short there is a mystery here. Goldstone has moved but the evidence has not, really.

Was it all the varieties of the "self-hating Jew" epithet hurled at him after the report's release, as Cohen wondered? Did Israel threaten not to let him in the country as a private citizen, which may have mattered indeed to an observant Jew like him?

We don't know because he's not talking, which makes it worse.

That said, it's arguable Zionism has won again.

It's won not because Goldstone is or was a self-hating Jew, but because he's no longer a self-examining one, or however we phrase it.

It's won because many low-key Zionists will see this as affirmation of their low-key intransigence, NOT toward Hamas, but toward the Palestinian Authority and the UN.

It's won because these low-key Zionists and semi-Zionists in the U.S., along with their Christian millennialist Amen Corner, will up the political pressure on Democrats and Republicans alike, when Goldstone's report offered at least the possibility of relief.

Cedar Hill economic development has one flop

So, the Bailey's in Uptown Village is no longer a steakhouse.

It doesn't surprise me. That said, the Best Southwest could use a place that's a steakhouse, but a bit lighter on the price point than was Bailey's in its original incarnation.

Second, the news is from November?

Either Pegasus News ain't doing that well in the Net search/SEO world or else it's showing little more love to the Best Southwest than is the Dallas Morning News.

Is "2 percent gay" wrong? Or "bad"?

The Religious Right is already trying to make hay with new demographic research saying gays and lesbians may "only" be 2 percent of the population, not 3-5 percent.

But, the study notes another 2 percent identify as bisexual. And, that many straights have "experimented."

But, the Religious Right is still trying to "run" with this.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies with the conservative Family Research Center, welcomed Gates' findings as further repudiation of the Kinsey 1-in-10 estimate.

Sprigg also was intrigued by the relatively high portion of bisexual people tallied by Gates.

"I see this as somewhat of a problem for the gay political movement," Sprigg said. "It undermines the idea that being born homosexual is an immutable characteristic that can't be changed."

First, many gay rights advocates have long moved beyond using "immutability" as an anchor for gay rights arguments.

Second, many gays are "gay from birth," even if many are not.

Second, as I noted, the "activity" numbers should give Sprigg additional food for thought. If as many people as identified as "gay/lesbian" or "bisexual" combined have been OK with having at least one same-sex sexual experience, it undercuts HIS argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

And, they do.

More than 8 percent of U.S. adults have had at least one same-sex sexual experience. While that's not the 1-in-10 of some estimates on gay/lesbian numbers, it's close enough, in terms of at least one-time activity, it ought to shut up the Religious Right.

Gary Gates, the researcher behind the numbers, says the lower percentage for "gay/lesbian" than conventional wisdom is probably because nobody sorted out the data like he has.

In any case, a dialogue on the numbers is part of what he wants.

"Yes, this is a credible estimate, but I'm fine to have a debate with someone about whether I'm right or wrong," he said. "The academic side of me says everything comes with caveats. But there is a level of power associated with having a number that can move dialogues along and hopefully move things forward."

And, with the exception of people like Sprigg, that's where we're at.

Gay rights advocates shouldn't worry over exact numbers, nor the "immutability" angle, for those still attached to it. Rather, the positive side is the "experimented" angle, and using those numbers to show just how many Americans are OK with same-sex sexuality.

Of course, the RR is using the number of "experimenters" for claims that gay-to-straight "cures" actually are such.

The reality? "Experimenters" in general are exactly that. Some may move more into bisexual territory, but few are likely to eventually identify as "primarily gay/lesbian." And, I'd guess that if we asked "experimenters" who do eventually identify that way if they were "repressing," we'd get at least a few yes answers. So, the "experimenters" prove nothing.

Beyond that, this might be like the Census allowing for "multiracial" identification; we might see more honest dialogue about sexuality in general.

And that, in turn, would probably really scare the Religious Right.

Gays yesterday, today and tomorrow

First, a man buried 2,500-2,800 years ago is NOT likely a gay caveman. The person may, or may not, be a transgender individual of some sort, though.

And, he's not a gay caveman. And, "he" may not even be male.

But, Vaughn Walker IS a gay judge. (Well, a retired one, now.) Walker was the federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8. He says, rightfully, he saw no reason to recuse himself, but, the Religious Right will certainly run with this.

And, the Religious Right will also likely run with the news that gay adults in America may "only" be 2 percent of the population, not 3-5 percent.

But, the study notes another 2 percent identify as bisexual AND that more than 8 percent of U.S. adults have had at least one same-sex sexual experience. While that's not the 1-in-10 of some estimates on gay/lesbian numbers, it's close enough, in terms of at least one-time activity, it ought to shut up the Religious Right.

Not that they're not trying.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies with the conservative Family Research Center, welcomed Gates' findings as further repudiation of the Kinsey 1-in-10 estimate.

Sprigg also was intrigued by the relatively high portion of bisexual people tallied by Gates.

"I see this as somewhat of a problem for the gay political movement," Sprigg said. "It undermines the idea that being born homosexual is an immutable characteristic that can't be changed."

Many gay rights advocates have long moved beyond using "immutability as an anchor, first of all.

Second, as I noted, the "activity" numbers should give Sprigg additional food for thought. If as many people as identified as "gay/lesbian" or "bisexual" combined have been OK with having at least one same-sex sexual experience, it undercuts HIS argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

Gary Gates, the researcher behind the numbers, says the lower percentage for "gay/lesbian" than conventional wisdom is probably because nobody sorted out the data like he has.

In any case, a dialogue on the numbers is part of what he wants.

"Yes, this is a credible estimate, but I'm fine to have a debate with someone about whether I'm right or wrong," he said. "The academic side of me says everything comes with caveats. But there is a level of power associated with having a number that can move dialogues along and hopefully move things forward."

And, with the exception of people like Sprigg, that's where we're at.

Drug-test GOP candidates?

Should there be a drug test for GOPers to be able to run for Congress?
1. Yes. 2. Hellz yes. 3. We'll call it "the Ryan." ("Santorum" is already taken.)

Drug-test GOP candidates?

Should there be a drug test for GOPers to be able to run for Congress?
1. Yes. 2. Hellz yes. 3. We'll call it "the Ryan." ("Santorum" is already taken.)

Douthat doesn't like Ryanomics

Ross Douthat says it looks too much like Reaganomics, from "Rosy Scenario" through trickle down equivalents to fill-in-the-blank economic numbers.

The fact that Ryan's doing all of this should be no surprise. He knows that punting the change from Medicare to Medic-Where down the road a dozen years isn't enough lipstick on the pig of Ryanomics by itself.

So, instead of being as bold as Ayn Rand would want him to be, he's trying to be too cute by half.

Why Douthat gave him "initial praise," I don't know. At the least, Douthat is smarter than David Brooks. (Not that that says a lot.)

That said, he does promise to review the suicide note political implications of Ryanomics in a future column.

Why you can't really trust medical studies

From XKCD, the lowdown on medical studies, with their 5 percent p values (compared to natural sciences, with their 0.01 percent values:

Is there a p-value for Ronald Reagan making erroneous statements after eating Jelly Belly jelly beans?

Note Pane 5, Line 5.

Bob Deuell just declined a lot in my book

Back when I lived in suburban Dallas and his Senate district covered part of our newspaper company's coverage area, he struck me as a decent guy.

But, deliberately blocking a vote on confirming John Bradley as the head of the Forensic Science Commission - a vote he knows Bradley will lose - just so that Bradley can chair the commission's final report meeting on Cameron Todd Willingham - is sick and wrong.

As the story notes, because some GOP state senators as well as all Democrats oppose Bradley, he'd lose a confirmation vote, and therefore would immediately lose his spot on the commission. The commission's April 14-15 meeting would likely then challenge how Bradley has forced the pace of its overview the science, or lack thereof, behind Willingham's murder conviction.

Deuell claims he doesn't want a new commission chairman to have to "start over."

He obviously doesn't want to see justice done, even belatedly.

Govt shutdown - no retroactive pay for the furloughed

As this Post story notes, even Gingrich and Gang in 1995 weren't so heartless as to refuse to retroactively pay federal employees furloughed in the government shutdown then.

But, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and gang are.

Rep. James Moran (D-Va), whose Northern Virginia district is home to thousands of federal employees, said furloughed workers should not expect to be paid, based on feedback he is getting from Republican colleagues in Congress.

“It is highly unlikely that about 1 million federal employees who are not working will ever be reimbursed,” Moran said in a conference call Wednesday with reporters. He called the majority of his GOP colleagues “far more anti-government in terms of their mindset” than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich during the 1990s shutdown, when Congress agreed to reimburse furloughed workers retroactively.

I would ordinarily say this would increase the "win" factor for Democrats of a shutdown, but tea partiers will massage this to blame Obama for the likely small minority of federal employees sympathetic to such a message. But, independent voters within federal employees are more numerous and more likely to believe Dems' messaging. Nonetheless, this isn't a slam dunk.

With Obama having "frenemies" like Joan Walsh

He doesn't need real friends.

Walsh, the Salon editor-in-chief, says she's not going to jump on Obama's 2012 campaign bandwagon and lists good reasons why.

Then, rather than talk up third-party options, she says she's going to vote for him anyway. Ugh.

Obama will veto anti-EPA bill

He's finally made a formal statement to that effect. It's nice to hear but what took so long?

Dear NYT - A paywall should mean better guest op-eds

Former GOP nutbar Congresscritter Curt Weldon talking about his personal plan to talk Gadhafi into exile does NOT qualify.

Weldon doesn't mention the backers of his initiative, with whom he is talking in Libya, etc. Given his past history of alleged financial improprieties, for the NYT to run a column like this without at least having a backgrounder news story is kind of laughable.

GOP wants to privatize Medicare

The LA Times story's headline doesn't tell you that. But, the body of the story does, loud and clear:

The proposal would rework Medicare by offering seniors a menu of private plans and restructure Medicaid funding into block grants distributed to the states.

True, it wouldn't apply to current recipients. And why not?

If privatization is so good, why not start it immediately?

You know the answer to that rhetorical question.

Because it would greatly hurt seniors. And, we can't have today's seniors voting on their pain.

And, David Brooks (surprise!) seems to have read a different story on Ryan's plans. All that's missing from the column is two under-55 Boboes and a line on Pop Ev Psych.

Michelle Bachmann lies about family tree

Ed Brayton has all the details. Here's a summary:
1. She's not a seventh-generation Iowan;
2. Here ancestors didn't "persevere" through 1860s weather problems;
3. Her Norwegian ancestors, while fairly early to Wisconsin (not Iowa) weren't in the earliest vanguard.

This is important not just because it shines light on her character but because tea partiers have pledged to not do politics as usual.

Southwest Airlines problems keep growing

Now, the discount airliner has grounded 79 planes in the aftermath of a forced landing in Yuma, Ariz. yesterday.

It's not the first time a Southwest plane has developed an in-flight hole in its fuselage.

Whether the 737-300s, compared to later models of the 737, have structural problems that appear after so many flight miles or what, I don't know. But, given that Southwest has had a bit of run-ins with the FAA in the past couple of years, it had better do a thorough inspection job.

Now, it appears cracks have been found in three more planes. The fact that they're all on rivet lines would be a bit disconcerting, I think.

Update, April 5: That said, it appears this problem is Boeing's and not Southwest's. The plane maker overestimated the number of flight cycles the 737-300s could withstand before needing regular inspections.

And, that leads to this angle, the WSJ says:

For Boeing, which has built its reputation on engineering prowess and a mastery of metal airframes, the miscalculations raise questions about its new models constructed with composite materials. Half of the company's coming 787 Dreamliner, for instance, is constructed of carbon-fiber composite material, with which Boeing has far less long-term experience than it does with metal.

The story goes on to note Boeing has had one misjudgment already on the Dreamliner, specifically on its joints.

Federal shutdown here we come?

Even as Speaker John Boehner tries to tell tea partiers a shutdown is a Democratic win, it looks more and more likely, as Beltway leaders say budget dealing is at an impasse.

Of course, this is the same Boehner who's offering a one-week extension in exchange for an additional $12 billion of cuts, talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. No wonder there's an impasse.

Meanwhile, wingnuts aren't buying into Boehner's worries:

“This is not 1995,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who is considering a gubernatorial run in the Hoosier State. “We have the internet, we have talk radio, we have an infrastructure to get our message out.” ...

“Look — if liberals in the Senate and in this administration want to continue to play political games instead of accepting very modest budget cuts, then if they’d rather embrace a government shutdown than make a down payment on fiscal responsibility, then I say shut it down,” Pence said on the “Top Line” webcast. “And I still feel very strongly that way.”

“The people who seem to be afraid of a government shutdown … are worried about getting elected in two more years,” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.) told the Washington Post. “I’m worried about having to go home and tell the folks that I grew up with, and intend to spend the rest of my life with, that I’m a liar.”

Others in this group include Reps. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) and Raul Labrador (Idaho), who called out Boehner during Monday’s session before being battered by his own freshmen colleagues the next morning.

Have fun, Big John.

Also, remember, Majority Leader Eric Cantor reportedly wants Boehner to fail. How much is he undercutting him in private?

And, Pence illustrates yet again how the Internet has its dark side. The tea partiers are in an echo chamber.

State Sen Ogden: Texas financing is broken

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden says the state may need to go back to its old franchise tax, the problem is that bad:

He says state law now requires spending more money in some areas than the state is allowed to collect. He calls that situation unstable and a big problem for the foreseeable future.

Lawmakers revamped the state business tax in 2006 at the same time they moved to cut property taxes. Experts say that left the state with a structural shortfall of about $10 billion every two years.

He actually wants a bigger change than that.

He'd like a straight-up corporate income tax.
“Even if you lose your shirt, you still may be liable for paying the business tax because it isn’t an income tax,” Ogden said. “That business tax is a mess.”
It takes cojones for a Republican to propose that. And, the devil would be in the details. But, Ogden's right on the need for change, and the need for serious change. Rick Perry's tweaking of the franchise tax WAS lipstick on a pig.

Realistically, though, nothing will change without yet another lawsuit by school districts.

One week worth $12B to Boehner

That's the price, in more spending cuts, Speaker of the House John Boehner has put on a one-week extension of temporary federal budgeting. Nice.

A chocolate toast at Chaco

This is very interesting news, and underscores that high-intensity trade linked the U.S. Southwest and Mesoamerica centuries ago.

Researchers have found traces of chocolate in drinking pottery at Chaco Canyon, the renowned Anasazi ruin site in New Mexico.

And, interestingly squared, the traces were found in "commoner" pottery, not just fancy stuff.

The vessels they examined came from the elite burial sites at Pueblo Bonito in roughly A.D. 900, and from the platform mound site of Los Muertos in Arizona. The latter is believed to have been the residence of elites among the Hohokam, an agricultural people, in the 14th century. They also tested eight pots from small pueblos that would have been inhabited by common folks.

Researcher Dorothy Washburn, of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, believes turquoise was the primary exchange good for the chocolate.

Washburn said there also appears to be Mesoamerican-influenced design changes.

These two things, combined with trade of macaw feathers, may give more credence to the idea that Anasazi/Puebloan Kachina religion also came from Mesoamerica.

Goodell wants NFL to test for HGH — how about for PR?

Sounds great, no?

Well, no.

Reality is, Roger Goddell's claiming to want to improve the NFL drug testing program is PR and hyperbole.

1. There's not a good HGH testing program out there right now.
2. His league and owners are facing suits by both active and retired players over the league's lockout.

So, no, this is just Roger the Dodger trying to change the tune. Nothing more.

Matt Ridley — full-on libertarian?

I lived Ridley's book, "Nature via Nurture," several years ago. I loved it not only because it was good science writing, but because I thought it signaled the end of his Pop Ev Psych politics and thoughts.

Well, perhaps not so fast.

A month or so ago, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he appeared to dip at least one toe in the waters of climate climate denialism.

Now, he's arguing for free market solutions to obesity problems. And, again, in a WSJ op-ed.

So, maybe "Nature via Nurture" was just a phase. Whatever "conversion" was involved didn't fully stick.

If not a "full-on libertarian," at the least, his "rational optimism" puts him in the same camp, albeit focusing on different issues, as Clay Shirky et al.

Hell, next, he'll be asked to be on Skepticblog With Michael Shermer and Brian Dunning as another libertarian pseudoskeptic.

Meanwhile, his "rational optimism" is probably not rational. In the case of his partial degree, or whatever, of climate change denialism, it's certainly not "empirical optimism." And, on the issue of obesity, he's trying to "inflict" rationality on something not amenable to rational amelioration, at least to that part of obesity due to food addiction/compulsion.

And, his claim that we're all going to be super-rich in the not too distant future? That's likely as the stock market hitting 20,000 by 2010.

Actually, Ridley is more the full-on British version of an American financial sector clusterfucker.

While the ideas in "Nature via Nurture" are still good, he's got zero credibility as a science journalist now.

For a much longer review of "The Rational Optimist," go here.

Sam Power as next Sec'y of State? Ugh

Oh, she's a smart mind, indeed. And, I won't question her moral dedication. But, the U.S. can't get involved in every bit of every foreign nation's internal unrest, first of all. So, the idea of her becoming Obama's next Secretary of State, or National Security Adviser? Pass.


Second of all, who decides when it's just "unrest" and when it's "genocide"? Take former Syrian President Hafez Assad. Were his actions against his own people "just" putting down unrest, or something more? And, beyond racial or ethnic lines, how many groups will ask for a redefinition of what all constitutes genocide?

I do know, from what I've read about here that, smart as she is, she's not wrestled with those questions.

Beyond that, she's either a hypocrite, clueless, or a big suck-up, even by Beltway standards, if she thinks President Obama has "waged" a two-year campaign of elevating human rights issues, and that that led to intervention in Libya.

The reality?

1. First and foremost, just a month ago, we vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Israel and West Bank settlements, arguably a human rights violation itself.
2. Right now, we've been quiet on Bahrain squashing and quashing Shi'ite dissent.
3. A year ago, Obama had Hillary Clinton kissing Hosni Mubarak's ass.

Geoengineer against climate change? Eff you

A conference on climate geoengineering underscores one of the biggest reasons I oppose the idea — who makes the decisions on big-ticket geoengineering items?

Painting rooftops white, as the conference discussed, is one thing. (That said, I wouldn't call it "geoengineering." In the past, that word has been reserved for big-ticket items like seeding the atmosphere with aerosols, and this blog post will take it that way.)

Who makes the decisions what we're going to do, in terms of what substances or materials we use? Who makes the decisions as to who pays how much to fund this? If politicians override scientists, who holds them accountable, especially to swaths of conservative Americans who have shown themselves ready to be bamboozled by pseudoscience on so many issues in the past already?

Here's an American attendee, emphasizing the research need:

If climate engineering research isn't done now, climatologists say, the world will face grim choices in an emergency. "If we don't understand the implications and we reach a crisis point and deploy geoengineering with only a modicum of information, we really will be playing Russian roulette," said Steven Hamburg, a U.S. Environmental Defense Fund scientist.

But, that still doesn't answer all the questions above. And, if research is going to be just about the technology, and not paralleled by discussing the decision-making and the cost/payment issues, it's kind of senseless.

The first and second weren't addressed in the conference. As to the third?

Well, that leads to the issue of what I have called "salvific technologism," namely, the idea that technological advances are ALWAYS going to be the "cavalry" ready to ride over the hill in the nick of time. In the developed world, I think it's far and away the strongest in the U.S. That, in turn is because it dovetails so well with American exceptionalism. After all, Americans did Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project, yada, yada, yada.

But, a look at previous U.S. attempts to "engineer" our ecology, on a smaller scale, show it's often been a big fat flop.

Tamarisk in the Southwest and kudzu in the Southeast are the two most glaring examples of that in terms of plant-based engineering.

Finally, "geoengineering" is a "tomorrow" solution to global warming and climate change. We don't have the specifics ironed out today? "No problem; we'll get to that tomorrow."

And, the conference DID, to its credit, address that:

Many here worried that someone, some group, some government would decide on its own to conduct large-scale atmospheric experiments, raising global concerns — and resentment if it's the U.S. that acts, since it has done the least among industrial nations to cut greenhouse emissions. They fear some in America might push for going straight to "Plan B," rather than doing the hard work of emissions reductions.

Here's the problem with geoengineering, in that way —

It doesn't require America, like the old Fram commercial, to pay up front now; it doesn't require Americans to face the cost of climate change and global warming. Beyond the "who's in charge" and "possible catastrophe" issues, that's the third reason to oppose geoengineering – it's a seductive mistress speaking honeyed words full of formlessness and void, to riff on the opening of Judeo-Christian scripture.

Kevin Drum has officially had his brain co-opted by Obama

Many Democratic partisans rightly attacked Bush on Iraq. And, they fought back against wingnut bloggers who said, "You can't question the president in a time of war!"

But, Kevin Drum, now of Mother Jones and formerly of Washington Monthly, and a neoliberal to some degree of long standing, is now close to that same territory with Obama.

Here's the nut graf (courtesy Glenn Greenwald):

So what should I think about [the war in Libya]? If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.

(Italics added in quote.)

Drum has a follow-up post in response to Greenwald, where he shifts the goalposts a bit:

I think pretty highly of Barack Obama's judgment. But what does it mean to say that? Just this: that I think highly of his judgment even when I disagree with him. How could it be otherwise, after all? If, when you say that you trust somebody's judgment, what you really mean is that you trust their judgment only to the extent that they agree with you, that's hardly any trust at all. Just the opposite, in fact.

To make this more concrete, I also think highly of Glenn Greenwald's judgment on issues of civil liberties and the national security state. This means that when he takes a different position than mine, it makes me stop and think. ... This doesn't mean that I've outsourced my brain to Glenn, but it does mean that he influences my judgment, and that's especially true on issues that I'm unsure of.

Ditto for Obama.

OK, Mr. Drummeister, nice try but a fail.

In the follow-up, you didn't say you'd literally trust Greenwald's judgment better than your own in case of disagreement, unlike what you said with Obama.

A reminder. Kevin, in the original post you said:

I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.

Earth to Kevin: Your brain has been co-opted.

And, so much for the "reality based community," eh? It's kind of Orwellian to put that type of trust in a leader. In his original post, Greenwald juxtaposed your comment with one by John Hindraker about Bush. Yeah, Hindlicker was more slobberingly effusive than you, but ... he's not an alleged member of the reality based community.

Beyond that, your first graf in the follow-up has a straw man, of the particular type I call "false polarities." I don't know about you, Drum, but here's how I operate on partitioning and sharing trust. I can disagree with someone on one issue yet trust their judgment on that issue, but I can also disagree with someone on an issue, even if I respect that person overall, yet NOT trust their judgment on that particular issue.

And, "Democrats right or wrong" bloggers like you are yet another reason I don't vote Democratic.

Beyond this, it's not a political issue, but one of integrity. If Drum made a statement like this about anybody, I'd question, if not his integrity, his self-actualization or something similar. To say you'd "literally" (and not mean that in a scare-quotes way) trust someone else's judgment over yours on an issue on which you disagree sounds like a psychological problem.

Kevin Drum hits new low in Obama butt-kissing

When running the Washington Monthly blog, he was bad enough, although much better than Steve Benen. (I haven't even gone there in more than a month.)

But, his new low? Well, many Democratic partisans rightly attacked Bush on Iraq. And, they fought back against wingnut bloggers who said, "You can't question the president in a time of war!"

But, Drum's now close to that same territory with Obama.

Here's the nut graf (courtesy Greenwald):

So what should I think about [the war in Libya]? If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.

Of course, I haven't read MoJo in a while, either. And, with crap like that, I doubt I'll resume anytime soon.

Update, April 3: Drum has a follow-up post in response to Greenwald, where he shifts the goalposts a bit:

I think pretty highly of Barack Obama's judgment. But what does it mean to say that? Just this: that I think highly of his judgment even when I disagree with him. How could it be otherwise, after all? If, when you say that you trust somebody's judgment, what you really mean is that you trust their judgment only to the extent that they agree with you, that's hardly any trust at all. Just the opposite, in fact.

To make this more concrete, I also think highly of Glenn Greenwald's judgment on issues of civil liberties and the national security state. This means that when he takes a different position than mine, it makes me stop and think. ... This doesn't mean that I've outsourced my brain to Glenn, but it does mean that he influences my judgment, and that's especially true on issues that I'm unsure of.

Ditto for Obama. Unlike Glenn, perhaps, I'm unsure about the wisdom of our Libya intervention, and the fact that I'm unsure makes me more open to giving Obama's judgment a fair amount of weight in this matter. That's what it means to respect another person's judgment. On the other hand, as my post made clear, it doesn't mean that he's persuaded me. As I said twice, I think the Libya intervention was mistake. I wouldn't have done it. But partly because a president I respect disagrees, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. His position has made me stop and think.

The first graf? A straw man, of the particular type I call "false polarities." I don't know about Drum, but here's how I operate on partitioning and sharng trust. I can disagree with someone on one issue yet trust their judgment on that issue, but I can also disagree with someone on an issue, even if I respect that person overall, yet NOT trust their judgment on that particular issue.

Take Greenwald. I agree with him on a lot of issues, and, respect him, but I've busted his chops before here, and will do so again, now, for not speaking out about ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero teaching the Ford Foundation how to comply with the patriot Act, and the big ACLU board brouhaha and ultimate dissenters' purge that follows. I know Glenn is solid with the ACLU, but I think he's too tight; he doesn't promote alternative groups such as Center for Constitutional Rights on anything close to a regular basis.

Drum then has a second straw man: that one MUST show one's brain has not been co-opted by disagreeing with someone, and making that protest in public. Silence is another way of doing that.

That said, Kevin, in the original post you said:

I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.

Earth to Kevin: Your brain has been co-opted.

And, as for Greenwald taking an "appallingly hostile" reading of your original post? In his follow-up, he was pretty darn generous. In fact, too generous, in my opinion.

Hugh Raffles doesn't know ecology

Claiming, as he does in this NYT op-ed, that invasive species are good, is clueless.

Designating some as native and others as alien denies this ecological and genetic dynamism. It draws an arbitrary historical line based as much on aesthetics, morality and politics as on science, a line that creates a mythic time of purity before places were polluted by interlopers.

To such nonsense, I reply: "Tamarisk," also known as "saltcedar."

Or "kudzu." Or "starling."

Even worse is his personalizing this, by claiming alien plants enhance a society just like immigrants, then at the end of the column, turning to his own naturalization ceremony.

And, the NYT, even with a putative paywall, still doesn't let us peons comment on op-ed stories.

Anonymous sourcing gets even more ridiculous

Here's the latest. On political strategy for a presidential race that won't have its first semi-binding vote for nine months .... granting campaign aides anonymity to "leak" about their boss's campaign plans.

Allies and aides who outlined the path that Romney is charting to the nomination spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publically discuss private strategy sessions.

Ridiculous. "Traditional media" gets worse at this all the time.

Oh, and Philip Elliott of the AP, "publically" is NOT a word. "Publicly" is.

Spiegel's must-read on U.S. military's Afghan kill teams

I hadn't gotten myself fully up to speed on the issue, but, Der Spiegel is all over the issue that American media are still (with the exception, overall, of McClatchy) slow to address. That issue is the "kill teams" ... the issue that at least in some military units, soldiers are not just heartless toward but ready to brutally kill Afghan civilians.

First, per one soldier, Adam Wingfield, who was concerned about it, the "kill, kill, kill" attitude sounds kind of common:

There are people in my platoon that can get away with 'murder.' They planned and went through with it. ... Pretty much the whole platoon knows about it. It's OK with all of them pretty much, except me. I want to do something about it, the only problem is I don't feel safe here telling anyone.

Meanwhile, despite Gen. Petraeus' allegedly having concern for Afghan civilians as part of his counterinsurgency, how well is he working to INSIST that message percolates down? Maybe not totally?

Winfield again:

I have to make up my mind. Should I do the right thing and put myself in danger, or should I just shut up and deal with it? The army really let me down out here. When I thought I would come here to do any good, maybe make some change in this country, I find out it is all a lie. There are no good men left here.

What brought this attitude on?

Can we, like FiredogLake, say it's all a "hate industry" at home?

No. To the degree this is hate-based, racial and ethnic hatred have never needed an "industry" to fuel them. If anything, any causal correlation is the other way.

Second, the military trains people to kill. After actual stories (whether close to true or not) that in World War I, very few riflemen actually fired to kill, armies around the world ever since have worked on molding soldiers into psychologically "better" killers. There's not necessarily any ethnic hatred involved. That said, it makes it harder to have uniformed soldiers be the lead on counterinsurgency, especially when their mission is hugely undermanned, putting them on edge in an uncertain countryside all the time.

Adam's mom, Emma, and another military mom talks about that:

For the soldiers of the 5th Stryker Brigade, the new COIN strategy was a non-starter, says Audrey Morlock, Jeremy's mother. The Army didn't provide her son with training for this strategy, she says. "For three years, my boy was only trained (to do) one thing -- kill, kill, kill." The Winfields also have the impression that the requirements for the soldiers which came with the new COIN strategy overburdened them. "How were they supposed to protect the population?" asks his mother Emma.

Bingo. Oh, this is yet another reason to note that the British counterinsurgency in Malaysia was far different than what Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal proposed.

So, instead of blaming a "hate machine," let's blame politicians from President Obama on down who still want to believe, and want to have the American public believe, a ground war can be fought on the cheap. Let's blame generals like Petraeus who refuse to counteract many Americans' video game version of war and won't tell the politicians the truth, as Spiegel notes in discussing the Pentagon's fear of war atrocities photos coming to light. And, let's blame Americans who want to believe all this and who, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, aren't being asked to "feel" the cost of war.

Here's the reality, as Spiegel describes it:

Adam Winfield rarely saw the enemy. He and his comrades only saw the Talibans' helpers through their night-vision devices when the enemy was burying landmines -- they hid during the day. For days, the Americans did nothing but carry out senseless patrols. The soldiers became frustrated and bored.

The enemy, says Adam's father, is invisible until somebody gets blown up. "They are fighting against ghosts."

Of course they're going to be skittish, and not do well on counterinsurgency work.

That said, again, let's remember these facts:
1. Americans want to hear lies about the painless, techie nature of modern war.
2. Politicians don't want to upset citizens, nor appear "weak on war"; in Bush's case, it includes continuing to tell lies about what his administration achieved in Afghanistan.
3. The military brass will "sell" whatever it can, while doing another thing in reality, for a number of reasons.

So, you're going to get a clusterfuck.

That's why good liberals who write blank checks of support for the Army aren't such good liberals. That's especially true when a "professional" army, versus draftees, is more likely to produce incidents such as these, in my opinion.

As for Adam Winfield? Does his finally giving into pressure to join the kill team make him murderer or victim of psychological bullying? Or a bit of both?

While glad I've never been in a situation such as his and presuming I never will be, we can't consider him 100 percent innocent. I'm not going to lay down exact percentages, but, we can't totally excuse him.

Andrew Wakefield - more blood on his hands

What else can you saw about the not-only long-discredited Andrew Wakefield, but the money-hungry data-cheating Andrew Wakefield, with the spread of measles in Minnesota, especially as he deliberately seeks out barely, and partially, Westernized Somali women and fear-mongers the alleged and over-hyped dangers of vaccines.

And, the AP reporter doesn't know much about the antivaxxer movement's tentacles, either. Otherwise she wouldn't have interviewed and quoted antivaxxer Wayne Rohde, a regular at Age of Autism, as a defender of Wakefield.

"Unfortunately a lot of the media thinks he's saying 'Don't get vaccinated.' That's far from the truth. He's basically encouraging people to get vaccinated but do your homework and know the risks," said Wayne Rohde, a co-founder of the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota, which says parents should have other options for immunizing their children.

No, that's surely NOT what he's doing. Rather, he's fear-mongering, highly inflating the quite small dangers of vaccination to women recently immigrated from a part of the world where anti-Christian Muslim extremists fear-monger about vaccines as a Christian plot at times.

I'll be charitable enough to assume the AP reporter is a general assignment reporter; nonetheless, in the age of teh Google, reporting like this simply isn't good. Period.

Oh, and yes, antivaxxers, Age of Autism IS antivaxxer. Read here.

Joe Nocera comes out swinging

The newest New York Times op-ed columnist skewers Warren Buffett in his first column.

Good thing, too. For too long, too many financial reporters, and columnists, have operated under the assumption that "The Sage of Omaha" had a halo.

Well, from his ownership of the Buffalo News onward, the answer is NOT.

Of course, in the past, as a business writer, he's bought into conventional Beltway wisdom at times, as Naked Capitalism notes.

Gohmert Pyle strikes again

Arguably Texas' most nutbar emissary to the Congress of the United States, Rep. Louis Gohmert appears determined to top himself, time and time again.

The latest? President Obama's military action against Libya is possibly part of a nefarious Obamacare plot.

It's a bad bill. And then when you find out that the prior Congress not only passed that 2,800 page bill with all kinds of things in it, including a new president's commissioned officer corps and non-commissioned officer corps. Do we really need that? I wondered when I read that in the bill. But then when you find out we're being sent to Libya to use our treasure and American lives there, maybe there's intention to so deplete the military that we're going to need that presidential reserve officer commissioned corps and non-commissioned corps that the president can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to the Obamacare bill.

No, really.

Don't believe the pull quote? Here's Gohmert Pyle in his own words.



And, as we see him in gear-churning action, this isn't surprising ....

Enviros wolf sellout may be for naught

But, we're seeing teh stupid exposed.

Western Congressmen are already trying to gut a deal brokered between the Obama Administration and environmental groups on how much protection, and at what administrative level, wolfs in Greater Yellowstone would get.

I blogged about what was wrong with that settlement here. At the time, I said I could understand the fear that Gang Green, and even a group like Center for Biological Diversity, more willing to legally confront the government and less suck-up to the Democratic Party, had that Congress would go further.

Well, that fear was real. And, this could be yet something else to which a budget settlement is made hostage, too.

That said, a group that did NOT sign off on the agreement gets it right, and always had it right:

"From the outset, it was clear that nobody from those Congressional offices had made any promises," said Summer Nelson with the Western Watersheds Project. "This settlement is not going to appease them."

Normally, someone like Kieran Suckling of Center for Biological Diversity is this smart, too. Why he and his group signed off on the agreement in the first place, I don't know. Ditto for other non-Gang Green groups.

Seriously, though. Signing "on the premise" of a Congressional deal is NOT the same as signing "on the agreement" of a deal.

Especially when it's not just Congress we have to worry about:

It is unclear whether the Obama administration will take a stand against the bills to give the settlement time to work. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Tester he supported the Montana senator's legislation during a March 9 appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It's clear that the Obama Administration, while more environmentalist that W's, is less so, overall, than Clinton's. Yes, the EPA is doing some good things, but on species protection? Yeesh. Kenny Boy Salazar was going to disappoint from the day he was appointed.

Why does Perry hate Hispanics?

Ron Brownstein makes clear what's at stake for the future of Texas public education, Hispanic education, and the long-term future of the GOP in Texas (IF, IF, IF Texas Democrats can manage this) with the 2012-13 state budget up for discussion in Bananastan with Boots.

Again, an every-other-year legislature, along with the franchise tax "fix" that wasn't, is part of Texas' problems. With a session, even a short session, last year, the state could have addressed economic problems a year ago.

Of course, that means admitting, in non tea party fashion, you HAVE economic problems in the first place.

Matt Dowd likes Obama's 2012 chances

He says three things have to happen for the GOP to topple him, and only one — a charismatic candidate — is in GOP control.

The other two are the economy and foreign policy.

And, in the Libya case, they're kind of linked.

If Obama can get lucky enough to get that resolved quickly (oh, by the way, B.O., to where will Gadhafi go in exile??), then oil should stay below $110/barrel through next year. But, he's going to have to do more than Kumbaya on energy policy issues.

If oil stays below that benchmark, I think unemployment will be below 8.5 percent at the end of this year and around 8.0 percent by Election Day. Not as good as Reagan had in 1984, but it could be good enough.

As for the charismatic? The most charismatic GOP candidates, actual or hinted, are also its most nutbar. That's Bachmann, semi-charistmatic Gingrich, and the in-the-wings Palin. Of course, on religious beliefs, you have the non-charismatic nutbar Mike Huckabee.

Trickle-down behavioralism

THAT, behavioralism that runs more people into debt, not trickle-down economic benefit, is the biggest result of increasing income disparity, says Joe Stiglitz, in a must-read story.

Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. ...

The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe.

The only problem is, is that most middle-class right-wingers still operate on faith in this area, as in many areas of their lives.

Like the young Ronald Reagan, they believe the presence of a shitpile automatically means a beautiful horse is also in the neighborhood. Or, if they believe in their god enough, one will be delivered to them. Or, they continue to believe they can either pressure the nonreligious rich in exchange for their votes on social issues, or that they have common cause.

Or, that class divisions are played up by liberals, or liberals' fault in the first place. (Well, since real liberals haven't been around since LBJ, that's a hard argument to make.)

(Sidebar — this raises the issue of "spillover" in people's religious beliefs and their effects on wider society. But, I don't want to confound stuff too much.)

Anyway, religious or not, I think many rightists, and a fair chunk of centrists, beyond any religious reasons, are still too wedded to American exceptionalism in this area as part of why they resist facing the fact that America is more class-based, in terms of incomes at least, than "old Europe."