Archive for 2011

KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL TEA PARTY DOCUMENTARY wins Edward R. Murrow award. It’s an excellent film.

SARAH HOYT: Jurassic President: “Obama’s preserved in the amber of an echo chamber where the romanticized version of the 1930s, seen through the new-age gauze of the 1970s, is paradise. . . . I don’t share his view, but I can understand it because we do move in intellectually similar circles.”

“FAULKNERIAN?” I’m not sure what that means, but it doesn’t sound positive.

FOR MONEY, I ASSUME, AS WITH THE SWEDES: Why Is (Pacifist) Spain Selling Cluster Bombs to Libya? “While Spain’s Socialist government publicly preaches the virtues of post-modern pacifism, in private it is busy selling weapons to some of the most odious and repressive regimes in the world.”

CHANGE: Drones Over Libya. “The US has now deployed armed drones over Libya, according to press reports. Drone systems have been operating as surveillance systems for weeks now, but acting on a NATO request, the US has now put up at least two weaponized drones in the Libya conflict. The logic of this move is inescapable. . . . Query whether this deployment of drones in Samantha Power’s War, wars of humanitarian altruism, will cement the acceptability of drones and targeted killing in conflict. Likewise the acceptability, and not just utility, of the CIA in using force when political reasons preclude military boots on the ground. If targeted killing and drones and CIA are okay in humanitarian adventures, they are okay in Pakistan and Afghanistan and wars in which the US has interests at stake. It is possible, but not persuasive, that wars of humanitarian intervention support a different set of rules for fighting and ‘jus in bello’ than regular wars, but that would defy the fundamental principle of the conduct rules of armed conflict, viz., that the rules are the rules regardless of the motive for fighting.”

UPDATE: From the comments: “Terrorists deserve trials… unless we summarily execute them with flying robot war machines. That’s special.”

MEGAN MCARDLE: Large Tax Increases Are Not A Semantic Question:

Yesterday I argued that simply covering our medium-term fiscal problems with tax hikes was not going to be easy or relatively painless; we’d have to go back to the Clinton era tax rates, and then hike rates again by at least a third, possibly more. Today Kevin Drum responds that this doesn’t seem so bad. . . . Of course it depends on how we implement such a hike. But looking just at the federal income tax makes no sense. In order to raise taxes to the 25% of GDP that Kevin wants, all taxes need to rise by at least a third, not just income taxes: excise taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes. And we’re talking about rising from the Clinton level, not from the current effective tax rate level. That’s going to be a lot more than 5%. . . . In other words, for the poorest 20% of Americans (who make less than $20,000 a year, with an average income of $11,500), taxes go from about $660 to about $1320. For the middle quintile (making an average of $50,000 a year), taxes go from around $7,000 to over $12,000. For those in the top quintile, with an average income of $167,000, taxes jump from a $41,000 to $62,000.

Turn it around and look at the effect on incomes: after tax incomes drop from $10,840 to $10,180, in the lowest quintile; from $43,000 to $38,500 in the middle quintile; and from$125,000 to $105,000.

Well, that would give the anti-tax movement a shot in the arm, wouldn’t it? How many people, given the choice between massive cuts in the federal budget, and cuts like these in their own budgets, would choose to cut their own?

OBAMA’S LIKEABILITY GAP:

The Barack Obama we’ve been seeing lately is a different personality than the one that made a miracle run to the White House in 2008.

Obama.2008 was engaging, patient, open, optimistic and a self-identified conciliator.

Obama.2011 has been something else—testy, petulant, impatient, arrogant and increasingly a divider.

That’s because he’s out of his depth, and desperate.

EDUCATION: “Pseudoscience is insinuating itself into our medical schools across the nation, going by the name ‘Integrative Medicine.'” Is it?

UPDATE: Reader Joel Pomerantz writes: “We have been teaching integrative medicine for years, and it’s important to know. Nearly half our patients are using some kind of herbal supplements, and if we don’t know what side effects or drug interactions those have, we can get into big trouble.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader William Stoddard writes:

I’ve gone to two practitioners of integrative medicine in a row for primary care, and I take my cats to a veterinary practice with a somewhat similar approach (they describe some of their treatments as “homeopathic,” for example). I don’t necessarily believe that their nonstandard methods are effective or scientifically valid (though at least one recommended herbal treatment has given me sustained symptomatic benefits). But they have one important quality that I value highly: They’re willing to talk with me! My sample of integrative practitioners seem to have a bit more time for communication, explanation, and emotional support. And I count that as part of quality of care. American health care has tended increasingly toward big, impersonal, institutionalized care delivery systems in which it’s all too easy for patient needs to get lost; I prefer to avoid them as long as I can.

It would be different if they relied entirely on “alternative” methods. But as long as they have the technological options available, and respect my right to choose a therapeutic approach that meets my needs, I’m not concerned.

Willing to talk. Yeah, there’s a doctor here in Knoxville who’s a great diagnostician, and his secret seems to be that he listens to you, and then he thinks about what you tell him. Shockingly, it makes a big difference.

TEA PARTY UPDATE: Reader John Marcoux writes:

Here’s a couple of pics from our third annual tax day rally of the Charleston Tea Party, held this year on the main deck of the USS Yorktown, a truly grand setting for a Tea Party gathering. Newt Gingrich spoke as did our Congressman, Tim Scott. Everyone was enthusiastic, and this was heartening to me, as we’ve had disappointments lately in Washington.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. Just necessary.

VIBRATORS ARE POPPING UP EVERYWHERE: “For years, vibrators were bought quietly in sex shops, and later online, arriving in discreet unmarked packages. They were rarely discussed, other than perhaps during a late-night girl-talk session fueled by many glasses of pinot grigio. But now you can find them advertised on MTV and boldly displayed at Duane Reade, Walgreens and other mainstream drugstores, mere steps from the Bengay and Dr. Scholl’s.” I think there’s a double standard, though, as I doubt any of those places would carry sex toys for men. Eugene Volokh blogged on that double-standard a while ago.

But what is this “sex conservatism of the ’80s” they’re talking about? I don’t remember any of that, unless you count Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin’s man-hating claptrap. Meanwhile, here’s an interesting history of the vibrator.

UPDATE: Reader Dub Kilpatrick emails: “As a proud member of the Fort Worth gay community, I assure you that ‘vibrators’ are not just for women. Big fan of your blog by the way. Keep up the good work.” Well, duh. But thanks!

And reader Jeff Nolan writes: “It’s interesting to note that the double standard reverses when the topic switches to topical and ingested remedies for low sex drive in women. Popular topical remedy Zestra is sold through Amazon but the company has had a very difficult time getting their advertisements carried in press and on TV. Meanwhile, over the counter ExtenZe not only has a plethora of TV ads, they even have a NASCAR sponsorship.”