1.13.2009
NYT forms environmental reporting team
Amid a sea of really bad news in journalism (and everywhere else), a little encouraging news.
'Who is the David here?'
The following quote, buried near the end of Ethan Bronner's New York Times story on the Israeli perspective on the war in Gaza, pretty well captures the conundrum posed by this and all modern asymmetric warfare. Bronner quotes Moshe Halbertal, whom he describes as a "left-leaning professor of philosophy":
“Rockets from Hamas could eventually reach all of Israel,” he said. “This is not a fantasy. It is a real problem. So there is a gap between actual images on the screen and the geopolitical situation.
“You have Al Jazeera standing at Shifa Hospital and the wounded are coming in,” he continued, referring to an Arab news outlet. “So you have this great Goliath crushing these poor people, and they are perceived as victims. But from the Israeli perspective, Hamas and Hezbollah are really the spearhead of a whole larger threat that is invisible. Israelis feel like the tiny David faced with an immense Muslim Goliath. The question is: who is the David here?”
He's right. That is the question. Who is the David? Is it Hamas? The Palestinians in general? Israel? What about in the conflict between the United States and its adversaries in the "War on Terror"? I think the answer is that the Davids are civilians everywhere who have little to no control over the military-industrial complexes of wealthy nations like the U.S. and Israel, on the one hand, and homicidal mad men armed with dangerous weapons like the leaders (and most devoted followers) of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda on the other. Like Andrew Bacevich, I'm very skeptical about our ability to alter this dynamic in any meaningful way. As in Israel, the majority of Americans seem to be perfectly comfortable with the notion of inflicting massive civilian casualties on the populations of other countries. Nations whose people think in this manner have truly lost their way.
“Rockets from Hamas could eventually reach all of Israel,” he said. “This is not a fantasy. It is a real problem. So there is a gap between actual images on the screen and the geopolitical situation.
“You have Al Jazeera standing at Shifa Hospital and the wounded are coming in,” he continued, referring to an Arab news outlet. “So you have this great Goliath crushing these poor people, and they are perceived as victims. But from the Israeli perspective, Hamas and Hezbollah are really the spearhead of a whole larger threat that is invisible. Israelis feel like the tiny David faced with an immense Muslim Goliath. The question is: who is the David here?”
He's right. That is the question. Who is the David? Is it Hamas? The Palestinians in general? Israel? What about in the conflict between the United States and its adversaries in the "War on Terror"? I think the answer is that the Davids are civilians everywhere who have little to no control over the military-industrial complexes of wealthy nations like the U.S. and Israel, on the one hand, and homicidal mad men armed with dangerous weapons like the leaders (and most devoted followers) of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda on the other. Like Andrew Bacevich, I'm very skeptical about our ability to alter this dynamic in any meaningful way. As in Israel, the majority of Americans seem to be perfectly comfortable with the notion of inflicting massive civilian casualties on the populations of other countries. Nations whose people think in this manner have truly lost their way.
Single-bottle beer ban for Nashville?
We all know what this is really about? It's about making white yuppies who live downtown and white tourists who shop there feel more comfortable. Screw fairness. Let's take stock for a moment, shall we? Nashville is currently voting on a resolution that would make English, for all intents and purposes, the city's official language. We're considering instituting a ban on individual bottles of Olde English and Colt 45, though not necessarily on bottles of Sierra Nevada and Blue Moon. And one of our interstates was just named the best stretch of highway in the country by a trucking magazine. Ah, good times.
1.12.2009
Sorry, but Obama is a role model
I take Adam Serwer's point here about David Gregory's facile line of thinking with respect to Obama and the effect his election might have on black Americans, but I still think he wildly underestimates the impact adult examples can have on children -- white, black, or whatever else, urban, suburban, or rural.
Granted, a gainfully employed and responsible father and mother who care about reading and thinking and education will be a lot more significant in a child's life than a famous politician the child will never meet. But that hardly means that Barack Obama won't have an impact on black youth as president. Undoubtedly he will because he will be visible (not only on television, as Serwer suggests, but on the Web and in newspapers, magazines, and books, not to mention in conversation), and he will be doing something that for most black Americans seemed impossible until recently. We're talking about a very real paradigm shift.
I haven't heard anyone argue that the election of Barack Obama will have a "magical effect" on the black urban poor. It's not a question of magic. It's a question of psychology. That said, I certainly don't mean to suggest that the existence of a President Obama obviates the need to address in more substantive ways the problems facing blacks in the inner city.
Granted, a gainfully employed and responsible father and mother who care about reading and thinking and education will be a lot more significant in a child's life than a famous politician the child will never meet. But that hardly means that Barack Obama won't have an impact on black youth as president. Undoubtedly he will because he will be visible (not only on television, as Serwer suggests, but on the Web and in newspapers, magazines, and books, not to mention in conversation), and he will be doing something that for most black Americans seemed impossible until recently. We're talking about a very real paradigm shift.
I haven't heard anyone argue that the election of Barack Obama will have a "magical effect" on the black urban poor. It's not a question of magic. It's a question of psychology. That said, I certainly don't mean to suggest that the existence of a President Obama obviates the need to address in more substantive ways the problems facing blacks in the inner city.
What they mean, pal, is that YOU were slow
One of the final episodes in the ongoing comedy routine that is the Bush presidency.
1.07.2009
Weary of Harry
I hate to root against a Democrat, but there's a large part of me that hopes Harry Reid loses his bid for reelection in 2010.
Obama's tax gambit
TNR's Noam Scheiber has some interesting insights with respect to Obama's reported proposal to include as much as $300 billion in tax cuts in the economic stimulus package. Scheiber sees Obama's gambit as an attempt to undermine Republican opposition to the stimulus. This makes sense, and I think it's a big part of the story. But Obama isn't simply floating these proposals through the media to communicate with Republicans in Congress. He's sending a message to moderate Democrats and Republicans who might be skeptical about the massive amounts of new government spending that he understands their needs and concerns. He's also fulfilling a major campaign promise.
The devil's in the details, of course, but my concern remains that the stimulus will end up being a combination of tax cuts and conventional spending meant to sustain the status quo. An opportunity exists to direct spending toward reform-minded initiatives in the health care and energy sectors. I'd hate to see it be wasted. Then again, $500 billion is a lot of money, and at present no one knows exactly how it will be allocated.
One other point here. Mitch McConnell's notion of providing loans, rather than grants, to cash-strapped states is a horrendous idea. A loan program would be likely to mean no program at all, since many states would be reluctant to leave themselves hamstrung in this manner, potentially for years to come. I do think it would be wise, in providing the grants, to impose a condition that the states submit to some kind of efficiency audit, to be performed by outside experts and made public afterwards.
The devil's in the details, of course, but my concern remains that the stimulus will end up being a combination of tax cuts and conventional spending meant to sustain the status quo. An opportunity exists to direct spending toward reform-minded initiatives in the health care and energy sectors. I'd hate to see it be wasted. Then again, $500 billion is a lot of money, and at present no one knows exactly how it will be allocated.
One other point here. Mitch McConnell's notion of providing loans, rather than grants, to cash-strapped states is a horrendous idea. A loan program would be likely to mean no program at all, since many states would be reluctant to leave themselves hamstrung in this manner, potentially for years to come. I do think it would be wise, in providing the grants, to impose a condition that the states submit to some kind of efficiency audit, to be performed by outside experts and made public afterwards.
1.06.2009
Adapt and cut emissions
This post by Christina Larson at TNR takes on the question of adaptation to climate change, raising a number of interesting points, including this notion of how to choose which coastline, species, or community to save from destruction and who will decide. Good question. Larson also points out that adaptation has long been a dirty word among environmentalists, and I can attest to that. I spent a year working in the environmental nonprofit world, and adaptation and sacrifice were both third-rail subjects. You just didn't talk about them unless you wanted a fight. Yet it seems obvious to me that in-between measures will be absolutely necessary in addressing and, yes, adjusting to climate change.
On a related subject, for all the well-meaning talk about making the transition to hybrid vehicles and even electric cars, few people seem interested in addressing the question of cars that are already on the road. The millions of existing motor vehicles are not going to simply disappear. Where is the research or even the discussion about how to lessen the emissions from these vehicles short of simply driving less (which, in some cases, isn't really possible) or taking cars with internal combustion engines off the road (which certainly isn't? Not everyone (and in this economy, practically no one) is going to be able to buy an electric car just because it appears on the market. I'm all for putting more hybrids and electrics on the road, and I'm certainly for investing in public transit in a serious way, but those are long-term solutions. What do we do in the short term?
On a related subject, for all the well-meaning talk about making the transition to hybrid vehicles and even electric cars, few people seem interested in addressing the question of cars that are already on the road. The millions of existing motor vehicles are not going to simply disappear. Where is the research or even the discussion about how to lessen the emissions from these vehicles short of simply driving less (which, in some cases, isn't really possible) or taking cars with internal combustion engines off the road (which certainly isn't? Not everyone (and in this economy, practically no one) is going to be able to buy an electric car just because it appears on the market. I'm all for putting more hybrids and electrics on the road, and I'm certainly for investing in public transit in a serious way, but those are long-term solutions. What do we do in the short term?
Death is not a psychological blow
Sorry, David Brooks, but wars in which hundreds of people are killed are not purely psychological. Andrew Sullivan takes a more sophisticated look at the war in Gaza here.
The dysfunctional American health care system
This piece from Truthout is a little old, but it's a very interesting historical analysis of the U.S. health care system, which has basically developed in a totally arbitrary manner. What is it with Americans' aversion to planning? We don't like to plan our cities or our social safety nets. American fatalism.
1.05.2009
No judgments
This morning I'm trying to get inside the heads of Obama and his advisers to figure out why they're telling the press that as much as 40 percent of the economic stimulus package could come in the form of tax cuts. Everyone, including me, is surprised. Josh Marshall doesn't like the look of things. Neither does Paul Krugman. Ezra Klein is growing weary of tax cuts as a response to every kind of economic situation. And Matt Yglesias thinks Obama is setting himself up for failure by opening negotiations from a place of weakness.
Yglesias might be right, and so might Marshall, Krugman, and Klein. But Obama won't be our president for another two weeks, and at this point we know very little about what the final package might look like. For the moment, I'm reserving judgment (while reserving the right to get angry later).
It does seem to me that Krugman is wrong about one thing. He argues that Republicans won't get behind the stimulus package no matter what, but I'm not sure that's right. Some Republicans won't. That's true. But moderate Republican Senators like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and George Voinovich might be persuaded to come aboard. No group is monolithic, even Republicans, and no one wants to be remembered as another Hoover.
Yglesias might be right, and so might Marshall, Krugman, and Klein. But Obama won't be our president for another two weeks, and at this point we know very little about what the final package might look like. For the moment, I'm reserving judgment (while reserving the right to get angry later).
It does seem to me that Krugman is wrong about one thing. He argues that Republicans won't get behind the stimulus package no matter what, but I'm not sure that's right. Some Republicans won't. That's true. But moderate Republican Senators like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and George Voinovich might be persuaded to come aboard. No group is monolithic, even Republicans, and no one wants to be remembered as another Hoover.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
