Can CNN be saved?

Douthat proposes.

Link blag

The Economist looks at America's fiscal deficit.

Ezra Klein explains how the filibuster morphed into a routine 60 vote requirement, which was eye opening for me.

Later he bemoans the neglected House. One wonders whether Ezra would be making the same argument if we had a Speaker Gingrich or Speaker Delay.

FiveThirtyEight eyes European intolerance.

Kurt Vonnegut was hard-as-nails badass.

The top 20 unfortunate lessons girls learn from Twilight.

People eating Bhut Jolokia, world's hottest pepper.

Today's kid reporter winner had an odd reaction.

That ten year-old who refused to pledge

"I very solemnly, and with a little bit of malice in my voice, said 'Ma'am with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge.'"

Bill Clinton on gay marriage

Fine stuff via Andrew:

Anderson Cooper: You said you recently changed your mind on same-sex marriage. I’m wondering what you mean by that. Do you now believe that gay people should have full rights to civil marriage nationwide?

Bill Clinton: I do. I think that, well let me get back to the last point, the last word. I believe historically, for two hundred and something years, marriage has been a question left to the states and the religious institutions. I still think that’s where it belongs. That is, I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this side in debates. But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position. I am no longer opposed to that. I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it. I have long favored the right of gay couples to adopt children.

AC: What made you change your mind? Was there one thing?

Clinton: I think, what made me change my mind, I looked up and said look at all of this stuff you’re for. I’ve always believed that—I’ve never supported all the moves of a few years ago to ban gay couples from adoption. Because they’re all these kids out there looking for a home. And the standard on all adoption cases is, what is the best interest of the child? And there are plenty of cases where the best interest of the child is to let the gay couple take them and give them a loving home. So I said, you know, I realized that I was over 60 years old, I grew up at a different time, and I was hung up about the word. I had all these gay friends, I had all these gay couple friends, and I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.

That our society has an interest in coherence and strength and commitment and mutually reinforcing loyalties, then if gay couples want to call their union marriage and a state agrees, and several have now, or a religious body will sanction it, and I don’t think a state should be able to stop a religious body from saying it, I don’t think the rest of us should get in the way of it. I think it’s a good thing not a bad thing. And I just realized that, I was, probably for, maybe just because of my age and the way I’ve grown up, I was wrong about that. I just had too many gay friends. I saw their relationships. I just decided I couldn’t, I had an untenable position.

Independents disapprove of Obama

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A majority of independent voters disapprove of how Barack Obama's handling his job as president, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down.

[..] Broken down by issues, the president still gets majority support on foreign affairs and terrorism, but a majority now disapprove of how he has handled health care, taxes, the economy and the budget deficit.

[..] "Among all Americans, his rating on health care has dropped 13 points since March. Compare that to his 16 point drop on the deficit and 17 point dip on taxes and it looks like there is growing discontent with Obama's overall domestic agenda — not just his health care policy."

Agreed. Domestic fiscal issues have become dominant now, hence our disapproval with Democrats' left-wing course.

But foreign affairs, terrorism, and (I would add) civil rights—wherein lay Bush's biggest disasters—is now on the right track (with the probable exception of Afghanistan). So there's the good news, it's just not getting a lot of attention. Partly because things have been quiet, but also because non-intervention in general isn't sexy enough to draw much media.

Manufactured controversy watch

The Palinite anti-David Letterman protest attracts more members of the media than protesters, 35 to 15.

Why Obama didn't release the abuse photos

White House pollsters must have gotten similar results:

The poll suggests that 87 percent of Republicans are against the public release of the photos, as are 62 percent of Democrats. Three out of four independent voters would also prefer for the photos to stay under wraps.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, and I think Obama may understand this, but a politician must choose his battles and in the grander scheme of things making these photos known must be pretty low on his priority list. They're only important for holding the Bush administration accountable, something Obama would rather not be sidetracked by.

Play him off, keyboard cat...

Yeah, Bush-Cheney Republicanism happens.

Wingnuts of the week

Curiouser and curiouser

I'm not entirely sure what to make of Obama's supposed "Sister Souljah" moment.

Like the ACLU, I pretty much favor full disclosure of all torture-related information and evidence, because I think it's important to put these dark years behind us, retake the highest moral ground that's practical for a superpower, and confidently tell the world 'never again.'

However, a Dish reader suggests:

Obama's not saying he's going to continue any of the practices you and millions of others have rightfully condemned. The justice department is currently investigating the Bush administration, and has been good about revealing what went on, with more revelations to come. Also, it's not as if Obama is going to destroy the pictures or never release them. He's just saying that it might be a good idea, for the safety of not just our troops but of hundreds of thousands of others, if the United States did not release these photos to the public right now. That may very well be true, and if it is he's behaving the way a responsible commander in chief should behave. I see nothing immoral in that decision.

Maybe...and if so, perhaps the Obama administration can persuade the courts.

Yet lawyers are scoffing at the idea of introducing new arguments, so Sens. Lieberman and Graham are planning to attach a legislative rider to prevent the release.

It makes me wonder all the more just what's in these photographs that some people are so desperate to hide.

Link blag

NYT: Understanding Obamanomics

Israeli soldiers shoot a nonviolent Palestinian protester (3:20 mark on the video)

Che film is one of the worst box-office disasters of all time. Which makes sense, since him and his fans are rabidly anti-capitalist.

CNN:

It was a rough year for the Fortune 500 overall. All told, America's 500 biggest companies earned $98.9 billion in 2008, down 85 percent from $645.2 billion in profits the previous year. And 128 companies on the list had losses, totaling $519.3 billion. The previous year, just 57 Fortune 500 companies lost money,

Forbes castigates Obama's voucher hypocrisy.

NYT editorial calls for the impeachment of Jay Bybee.

PBS's Frontline has a good hour-long special on the financial meltdown, which you can watch online.

Meghan McCain's speech on what the Republican party should be is great. Too bad so few are listening...

Perry: With its $8.40/hr minimum wage, Oregon has 12% unemployment.

CNN tries some reporting

Doesn't get much for answers though...

Bush is not bowing

Little Green Footballs claims this is an instance of Bush bowing like Obama did, and the post made memeorandum.

But this is not a bow, Bush is actually receiving a medallion in the source video.

The many reasons to end Prohibition

Jeffrey Miron, senior lecturer in economics at Harvard, gives a compelling tally. Here is a portion with my numbered emphasis and imagery...



Numbered plastic markers are set on the pavement to determine the location of bullet casings found at the scene of a shootout where unknown gunmen opened fire and killed four police officers in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico on Feb. 17, 2009.

1. Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.



Bodies awaiting autopsies crowd a walk-in refrigerator at the morgue in the border city of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Feb. 18, 2009.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.



Army soldiers guard a police station in the border city of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Monday, March 16, 2009. As retired and active-duty soldiers largely took over security in the violence-wracked city of 1.3 million, a retired Army officer took over as head of police Monday, whose previous law enforcement chief resigned earlier, after receiving threats.

2. Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.



Mexican soldiers check the identity of a man during an operation searching for drugs and weapons in Reynosa, on Mexico's northeastern border with the U.S., late Tuesday, March 17, 2009.

3. Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.



A member of the Army watches the incineration of fourteen tons of drugs in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico on December 2, 2008.

4. Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.



With a .50-caliber rifle in the foreground, the U.S. House National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee holds a hearing on U.S.-Mexico border violence, Thursday, March 12, 2009, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C..

5. Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Drug users face restrictions on clean syringes that cause them to share contaminated needles, thereby spreading HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.



A federal policeman stands guard during an operation at a nightclub in downtown Ciudad Juarez March 7, 2009. Across the border from El Paso, Texas, Ciudad Juarez recently received hundreds of heavily armed federal forces to take over anti-drug efforts from police tainted by corruption and links to drug traffickers. Picture taken March 7.

6. Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.



Yaneth Deyinara Garcia (center) and Sigifrido Najera (2nd from left), members of the drug Organization "Cardenas Guillen", are presented to the press at the headquarters of the Defense Secretary in Mexico City on March 20, 2009.

7. Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One in every 31 U.S. adults is in the corrections system, which includes jail, prison, probation and supervision, more than double the rate of a quarter century ago, according to a report released on Monday by the Pew Center on the States.

[...] "Violent and career criminals need to be locked up, and for a long time. But our research shows that prisons are housing too many people who can be managed safely and held accountable in the community at far lower cost," said Adam Gelb, director of the Center's Public Safety Performance Project, which produced the report.

[...] During the last 25 years prison and jail populations have grown 274 percent to 2.3 million in 2008, according to the Pew research, while those under supervision grew 226 percent over the same span to 5.1 million.

It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000

This article argues for more probation and parole, and those may be good, workable ideas.

But the single best thing we could do to reduce law enforcement and prison costs dragging the economy is to eliminate the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders and raise revenue:


If re-legalized and taxed at a reasonable rate, the weed in this bust alone could pay all those salaries for a year plus prison costs. [And that's not even taking into account the lost productivity of being jailed for 5 years or cultivating marijuana in secret.]

Under prohibition there is no revenue and these salaries and prison costs are paid from your other local taxes.

(ht Library Grape, images via The Big Picture)

Swimsuit journalism

I'm so glad we have CNN's Reliable Sources to keep S.I.'s Swimsuit Edition honest . . . .

You may want to go view read more of the offending gallery story.

Man, 47 "marries" girl, 8

CNN:

A Saudi judge recently refused to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man -- a union apparently arranged by the girl's father to settle his debts -- a lawyer in the case told CNN.

On Saturday, the judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, dismissed a petition brought by the girl's mother because she "is not the legal guardian of the girl," the woman's lawyer Abdullah al-Jutaili said.

"Therefore, she cannot represent her daughter in these proceedings," al-Jutaili said.

Her parents are separated, he said.

According to the lawyer, the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his.

The judge did ask for a pledge from the husband, who was in court, not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili.

The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said.

ToTheCenter:

Too young to be a mother, but old enough to be a wife, the refusal of Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man has triggered intense debate this week inside the very conservative kingdom.

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, said Wednesday, Jan. 14, in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged ten or twelve can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

But Rick Warren thinks we mustn't change the "5,000 year-old definition of marriage".

Savage on marriage

Making the rounds:



Also on Colbert

Good stuff. But my favorite part was actually Cooper mentioning the arc of history. Of course it bends towards justice. It just takes some time for bigotry to shift out of the population enough. Silver hits the nail:

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

Another tidbit:

According to CNN exit polls, an overwhelming majority — 67 percent — of 18-29 year-olds voted against stripping gay couples of their right to marry.

Quote of the day

"A lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me." --Barack Hussein Obama

That's one for the ages.

Full presser:



Transcript at CNN.

West Virginia in play

Palin goes to put her redneck ducks in a row.

Free Sarah Palin

Via Yglesias:



Show deference!