Tag: yep

Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

David Foster Wallace (via southpol)
Source: The Atlantic

Saturday night, when the event is done, the Lincoln Memorial will still be the place where King gave one of the most memorable speeches of the 20th century. People who came to the rally in search of answers will still be looking. And Glenn Beck will still be a legend in his own mind.

Eugene Robinson

Douthat: asked and answered

ross douthat:

Would Friedersdorf and others really like to live in a world where the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the [Park 51] project just had their sentiments ignored, because of the bigotry woven into the anti-mosque cause?

tom socca:

Is this a rhetorical question? Here’s one in return: how do you get onto the New York Times op-ed page without a sixth-grade civics education? Would I like to live somewhere where people are allowed to practice their religion, even when two-thirds of the general public would deny them that right if they could? Hell, yes, I would, Ross Douthat. That place is called America. Love it or leave it.

Asked and answered auto-reblog.

(via abbyjean)

Spread

Well, it’s only online (MSM read: world wide interweb-log, or “blog”) commentary for the moment, but for the MSM this appearing (and staying) on the NYT site amounts to a clarion call:

In the much-discussed Pew poll reporting the spike in ignorance, those who believe Obama to be Muslim say they got their information from the media. But no reputable news agency — that is, fact-based, one that corrects its errors quickly — has spread such inaccuracies.

So where is this “media?” Two sources, and they are — no surprise here — the usual suspects. The first, of course, is Rush Limbaugh, who claims the largest radio audience in the land among the microphone demagogues, and his word is Biblical among Republicans.

[…]

Once Limbaugh has planted a lie, a prominent politician can pick it up, with little nuance. So, over the weekend, Kim Lehman, one of Iowa’s two Republican National Committee members, went public with doubts on Obama’s Christianity. Of course, she was not condemned by party leaders.

[…]

[Then] there is Fox News, whose parent company has given $1 million to Republican causes this year but still masquerades as a legitimate source of news. Their chat and opinion programs spread innuendo daily. The founder of Politifact, another nonpartisan referee to the daily rumble, said two of the site’s five most popular items on its Truth-o-meter are corrections of Glenn Beck.

Beck tosses off enough half-truths in a month to keep Politifact working overtime. Of late, he has gone after Michelle Obama, whose vacation in Spain was “just for her and approximately 40 of her friends.” Limbaugh had a similar line, saying the First Lady “is taking 40 of her best friends and leasing 60 rooms at a five-star hotel — paid for by you.”

The White House said Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha were accompanied by just a few friends — and they paid their own costs. But, wink, wink, the damage is done. He’s Muslim and foreign. She’s living the luxe life on your dime. They don’t even have to mention race. The code words do it for them.

I can think of no other instance in which a prominent, national news source has even intimated (much less directly called out) the modern news cycle. Let me be the first to say: Welcome to Earth. We breathe a mix of nitrogen and oxygen here.

Lockbox!

Kevin Drum provides (perhaps) the most lucid explanation of the Social Security Trust fund I’ve ever read:

Group A overpaid and built up a pile of bonds in the trust fund. Those bonds are a promise by Group B to repay the money. That promise is going to start coming due in a few years, and it’s hardly surprising that Group B isn’t as excited about the deal now as it was in 1983.

Yep. Read the whole thing to be shocked and dismayed by who Group B represents (and is represented by)…

Lockbox!

Modern Conservatism

I think it basically explains why Palin believes that there’s something offensive about American Muslims building a community center on private property while [Dr. Laura] Schlessinger telling a black woman she should stay out of interracial relationships if she doesn’t want to have n-bombs lobbed at her every day is the height of free expression. The point is that Constitutional rights only apply to whomever conservatives arbitrarily place in the category of “real Americans,” and extending them to anyone outside that narrow circle is a threat to the freedoms only real Americans have a right to enjoy. As Keep America Safe’s Debra Burlingame said of the proposed Park 51 project, freedom of religion “is a Western concept.” Only “Westerners” need apply.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we here at Lemkin call: Nailing it.

(via savingpaper)

Modern Conservatism

The central question raised by this controversy is the same one raised by countless similar controversies throughout American history: whether the irrational fears and prejudices of the majority should be honored and validated or emphatically confronted.

Glenn Greenwald nailing it. Also worth checking out for Dean’s more nuanced explanation of himself.
If only we had a rhetorically skilled President that could go out there and make a powerful case for this. Of course, a growing fraction of Americans think he’s a Muslim. Probably better to wait until September 2012 to start pushing back on that too.

High Cost of Free Parking

If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove.

The subsidies are largely invisible to drivers who park their cars — and thus free or cheap parking spaces feel like natural outcomes of the market, or perhaps even an entitlement. Yet the law is allocating this land rather than letting market prices adjudicate whether we need more parking, and whether that parking should be free.

High Cost of Free Parking

I’ve got a little list

From digby:

  • Tea Party’ers are not more likely to have racist tendencies than other conservatives.
    (Except they are.)

  • Democrats are scheming to hit 94 percent of small business owners with tax increases.
    (Except they aren’t.)

  • Bloody violence is out of control along the Mexican border, and illegal immigrants are streaming into America at record levels.
    (Except it’s not and they’re not.)

  • Obamacare will send Medicare spiraling out of control.
    (Except it won’t.)

  • Marriage is a religious union that’s all about procreation.
    (Except it isn’t.)

  • Voters say cutting the deficit is more important than creating jobs.
    (Except they don’t.)

  • Social Security is going broke, it adds to the deficit, and we have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
    (Except it’s not, it doesn’t and we don’t.)

  • The earth is getting cooler.
    (Except it’s really really not.)

Small enough to print, laminate, and keep in your pocket, David Gregory (et al.). Go and do likewise.