ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

California Coastal Commission, Gentrification, and Climate Change

Matthew Kahn writes about his research with Jonathan Zasloff on the impact of the California Coastal Commission on gentrification and housing prices. No surprise, it makes for expensive coastal housing:

My favorite story for the new facts we have generated is that the Coastal Boundary Zone represents a commitment device. Rich guys know that if they buy coastal property that guys like me won’t be able to build new homes near them without facing huge amounts of red tape. This barrier to entry means that they can live in paradise without having the “middle class” crowd around them. This regulation induced buffer zone is valuable to these folks and this bids up the price of existing homes within the Coastal Boundary Zone. So, the regulation both limits new housing supply and raises local housing demand because the community becomes more exclusive.

The punchline here is that thanks to the moderate weather, coastal Californians tend to have very low carbon emissions compared to the average American. All the improved insulation in the world can’t beat a house that just doesn’t need to be heated or cooled much. And if the coast were more densely populated, average household emissions would be even lower thanks to shorter and fewer drives.

Security

Sponsor Of AZ Birthright Citizenship Seeks To Redefine The Constitution

Yesterday, Arizona Republicans introduced HB-2561, legislation that would prevent the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants from acquiring citizenship at birth. However, the 14th Amendment explicitly states that anyone born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-AZ) — the chief sponsor of the bill — told a skeptical Greta Van Susteren last night that his bill merely seeks to define citizenship based on the “correct interpretation” of the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” language. According to Kavanagh, it requires full allegiance to the United States:

KAVANAGH: We believe that that bestowing of citizenship, like a door prize, is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. And we have crafted two companion bills, the purpose of which is to trigger a judicial review, hopefully at the Supreme Court level, of the phrase in the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which we believe is the reason for this erroneous interpretation that grants citizenship when it should not be granted.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Big problem that you have is — or at least — and I assume you’ll agree with me — that citizenship is a nationwide — it’s a USA-conferred thing — matter. And it is — you are — you are an American. You are part of the United States of America. What your bill is, is filed in the state of Arizona that doesn’t confer citizenship. How do you — even if you were to get your bill passed, how do you even think that it would have any muscle at all and not be usurped by the federal question here?

KAVANAGH: Well, our bill is not granting citizenship. Our bill is defining Arizona and U.S. citizenship based upon what we believe to be the correct interpretation of that phrase. And we make that assertion based upon written statements by the authors of the 14th Amendment and the first couple of Supreme Court decisions, Slaughterhouse and Elk, which defined “subject to the jurisdiction” as not being you can be arrested and tried in our jurisdiction, but that you owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

Watch it:

What Kavanagh doesn’t mention is that there were two cases which followed the Slaughter-House Cases and Elk v. Wilkins which essentially invalidate his position. In Plyler v. Doe, the court wrote, “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.”

Meanwhile, James Ho, a former Bush administration lawyer, has provided a pretty straightforward definition of “jurisdiction.” “The plain meaning of this language is clear,” wrote Ho. “A foreign national living in the United States is ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ because he is legally required to obey U.S. law.” Ho also argues that “[d]uring congressional debates, both proponents and opponents of the citizenship clause agreed with this interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong — the child of Chinese immigrants who were “subjects of the emperor of China” — was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents owed their allegiance to a foreign power. NYU Law professor Cristina Rodriguez explains, “The Court’s rejection in Wong Kim Ark of the notion that children born to parents ineligible for naturalization were not themselves the subject of the Citizenship Clause is a powerful rejection of the idea that one’s status depends on his parent’s status.” (Except for when a parent is employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under another foreign government).

Finally, the fact that Kavanagh and his cronies are purposefully going out of their way to instigate costly litigation on the taxpayer’s dime is deplorable. The state of Arizona has already spent over $1 million in less than six months to defend SB-1070. Kavanagh is now essentially asking Arizonans to dish out more money to fight for a bill which will likely lead nowhere and would create an ugly situation for the nation’s burgeoning Latino population in the unlikely event that it does.

Politics

Oklahoma Lawmaker Sally Kern Proposes Bill That Forces Teachers To Question Evolution

State Rep. Sally Kern (R) has proposed the second anti-evolution bill this year in Oklahoma. Entitled the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,” the bill, which will be first considered next month, would require the state and local authorities to “assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies” and permit teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review” the scientific strengths and weaknesses of “existing theories.” But the only topics mentioned in the bill as contestable are “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In an attempt to legitimize the bill, Kern said, “It’s a simple fact that the presentation of some issues in science classes can lead to controversy, which can discourage teachers from engaging students in an open discussion of the issues.” However,
Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education previously released a critique against a similar bill, SB 320 — which died in committee in February 2009 and only differs slightly from Kern’s bill — that said, “promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest”:

‘Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest… Evolution as a process is supported by an enormous and continually growing body of evidence. Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin’s time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found.’ With respect to the supposed ‘weaknesses’ of evolution, OESE added, ‘they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don’t like evolution.’

Kern is a relentless advocate for anti-evolution legislation in Oklahoma, so the newest bill comes as no surprise. Kern was the head sponsor of HB 2107, which would have called for “academic freedom” in connection to “biological or chemical origins of life.” The bill passed the House by a vote of 77-10 in March 2006, but then came to its demise when the legislature adjourned in May. Kern was also the lead sponsor for the House Concurrent Resolution 1043, which mandated the state board of education amend the state science standards so students could “critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theory of evolution.”

Kern has frequently used Oklahoma’s education system as a prop for her grandstanding. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo points out, Kern fought vehemently against educational reforms to bolster Oklahoma’s chances in winning grants through the Race to the Top program, saying, “these are standards that are not American standards…Race to the Top is Obama’s baby.”

Kern also proclaimed that homosexuality is comparable to “toe-cancer” and that “it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam. Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country.”

Paul Breer

Security

Rescuing Democracy Promotion From Cynics

Former Bush administration “democracy czar” Elliott Abrams thinks that “The revolt in Tunisia, the gigantic wave of demonstrations in Egypt and the more recent marches in Yemen all make clear that Bush had it right”:

In November 2003, President George W. Bush laid out this question:

“Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter?”

The massive and violent demonstrations underway in Egypt, the smaller ones in Jordan and Yemen, and the recent revolt in Tunisia that inspired those events, have affirmed that the answer is no and is exploding, once and for all, the myth of Arab exceptionalism. Arab nations, too, yearn to throw off the secret police, to read a newspaper that the Ministry of Information has not censored and to vote in free elections.

Abrams offers no examples of anyone who claimed that Arab nations don’t yearn to throw off the secret police, don’t want to read a newspaper that the Ministry of Information has not censored and don’t want to vote in free elections, which is the sort of thing might one might do if one was trying to disprove an argument someone has actually made.

But, of course, no one claimed any of those things. What Bush’s critics did say was that promoting democracy in the Middle East through invasion and occupation of Middle Eastern countries was a bad idea. Those critics were, of course, correct. Bush’s democracy agenda was a huge failure for a number of reasons, but not least because it featured as its main advertisement the smoking ruins and charred bodies of Iraq. There was also the Bush administration’s tendency to pull the plug when it became obvious that democracy might mean the political victory of people the U.S. didn’t like, as happened in Egypt. Or, as in Gaza, to try to reverse the outcome through a coup, a disaster in which Abrams himself played a key role.

These sorts of lame attempts at retroactive self-vindication (along with constantly trying to scare Israelis about Obama) have been Abrams’ main occupation since leaving Bush’s employ. For Abrams, there’s really no event that occurs anywhere in the world that can’t be spun as evidence of how awful Obama is.

For example, last week, Abrams suggested that Hezbollah’s steadily increasing power in Lebanon, most recently evidenced by their insistence on naming the new prime minister, “reflects the continuing reduction in American sway in the region, and especially the ‘engagement’ with Syria”:

The last straw may have been the decision to send an ambassador to Syria by recess appointment despite the Senate’s unwillingness to confirm the Administration’s candidate. That foolish gesture must have indicated to the Syrians and to Hizballah that the Administration had learned nothing from two years of insults and rebuffs by Damascus.

It should be obvious that the idea that Obama’s sending an ambassador to Syria triggered Hezbollah’s takeover of the Lebanese government is ridiculous on its face, but then, that’s how neocons think: Talking to one’s adversaries is itself a form of appeasement.

Consider, for comparison’s sake, that the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. ambassador after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, in which Syria was implicated, and spent the next three years scolding the Syrians and denying them the honor of our diplomacy. This cunning strategy resulted in… Syria-backed Hezbollah increasing its power in Lebanon for three years. It was not, in any sense, a successful approach. But, of course, in the reality neocons create for themselves, bad things only ever result from not taking a hard line.

Consider also that the Tunisian government was a close ally in the Bush administration’s war on terror. The State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), one of the Bush administration’s key democracy initiatives, (headed by Liz Cheney, by the way, which I’ve heard made it lots of fun for MEPI officials to advocate against nepotism) had its regional office there.

Now here’s what Abrams had to say about the recent demonstrations:

The revolt in Tunisia has thrown both that nation’s dictator, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and the Obama administration’s democracy-promotion policy onto the ash heap of history. The revolt undermined — indeed, destroyed — two years of effort in Washington to move toward a policy of “engagement” with hostile and repressive regimes.

The price for this policy has been paid by men and women from China to Russia to Iran to Egypt to Venezuela, who had expected a louder voice and a firmer helping hand from the United States. Now, watching the Tunisians try to move from a rapacious dictatorship to a stable democratic system, the president should say that in Tunisia, and everywhere else, we will side with those working to build democracies.

Again, this is almost too silly to merit a response, though I would note that if this sort of critique came from the left it would probably be attacked by conservatives as “blaming America.”

Specifically in regard to Iran, however, I’d suggest that if Abrams doesn’t like the impact that Obama’s engagement policy has had there, he should try talking to actual Iranians like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, both of whom credit Obama’s shift in tone away from Bush’s belligerence with helping to create political space in Iran.

But that’s beside the point, because obviously Abrams’ goal here isn’t to tell the truth, it’s to try and score points, which is neatly emblematic of the Bush administration’s instrumental approach to democracy promotion itself. It was simply something to threaten regimes with to get them to do what we want, something nice to talk about while we go about imposing our will on everyone. This, of course, ends up discrediting the U.S. and devaluing the democratic brand, which is why, as I wrote yesterday, it’s desperately important that the democracy agenda be taken up by progressives and others who actually support it, and not left to the cynics.

Politics

Senate Republicans Place Big Bank Apologist On Banking Committee

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

ThinkProgress’ Ian Milhiser noted yesterday that Senate Republicans put Sen. Mike “noun, verb, unconstitutional” Lee (R-UT) on the Judiciary Committee, despite his radical ignorance regarding constitutional matters. But that wasn’t the only committee assignment for which the GOP decided that fealty to ideology was more important that acknowledging reality.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) was one of the financial industry’s biggest apologists during November’s campaign, opposing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law while claiming that derivative deals were “non-risky,” even as they cost schools and cities all across the country (including many in Pennsylvania) millions of dollars. And Toomey has been totally unrepentant about his personal role in deregulating the financial industry.

In 2000, former Sen. Phil “mental recession” Gramm (R-TX) attached the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to an unrelated, 11,000 appropriations bill. The CFMA ensured that the growing market in over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, stayed entirely unregulated. Toomey — then a member of the House of Representatives — voted for that bill, and said that he would do it again, inaccurately claiming that the legislation “did absolutely nothing to cause the financial crisis.”

So, naturally, Republicans have seen fit to name Toomey to the Senate Banking Committee, which has oversight of the nation’s financial regulatory laws. The committee was instrumental in crafting Dodd-Frank.

Here’s what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — which released its final report yesterday — had to say about the bill Toomey claims did nothing to bring about the financial crisis:

The CFMA effectively shielded OTC derivatives from virtually all regulation or oversight. Subsequently, other laws enabled the expansion of the market…The OTC derivatives market boomed. At year-end 2000, when the CFMA was passed, the notional amount of OTC derivatives outstanding globally was $95.2 trillion, and the gross market value was $3.2 trillion. In the seven and a half years from then until June 2008, when the market peaked, outstanding OTC derivatives increased more than sevenfold to a notional amount of $672.6 trillion; their gross market value was $20.3 trillion.

Ultimately, the FCIC concluded, derivatives “were at the center of the storm.” And yet, Republicans put someone on the Banking Committee who has said that he would go back and deregulate those instruments all over again if he could.

In the course of his career, Toomey’s collected almost $2.5 million from the finance industry. He was also the the president of the Wall Street front group Club for Growth from 2005-2009.

Cross-posted on WonkRoom.

Alyssa

Cryptonomicon Book Club, Part VII: Stairway to Heaven

Oh man, you guys. All sorts of spoilers below, of course, and what spoilers they are. Previous parts of this discussion are linked to here. I cannot wait to hear what you guys have to say about this one.
I.

Most of the time, I find it irritating that the Kindle doesn’t work on a page numbers system, especially for novels that don’t have formal tables of contents in all editions. But in the case of Cryptonomicon, this worked surprisingly well for me. I didn’t really have a sense of how far I had to go in the novel, and we built to what I assumed would be just another climax at Golgotha, and suddenly that was the end. Destroying the gold really did turn out to be the point.

II.

It was the point of the action, at least. But I’m not actually sure the plot is the point of Stephenson’s novel. I’m entirely open to alternate arguments and interpretations. But given my memories of The Diamond Age, I was surprised by what a writerly novel this is, how beautifully full of experimentations with language it is, how certain moments of observation and description serve as jolting parallels if you’ve been reading closely.

Take, for example, one of the things Randy notices as he and Amy’s cousins are picking through his ruined house: “The hand-crafted Italian tiles that Charlene had picked out for the bathrooms are seventy-five percent broken.” It’s a marvelous statement of both who Randy is, that he notices something traumatic like this with mathematical rigor, and of where he and Charlene stand. They are over, done, unsolvable, but they haven’t yet verbalized it definitively. Charlene is gone, and all that remains is the formality of her declaration that she’s never coming back.

It would be a terrific moment of writing on its own, but it doesn’t stand on its own. Later we have this moment: ”Shaftoe is trying to drag one of them out of danger when he looks down and sees that he is stomping across a mess of shattered white crockery that is marked with the name of a hotel—the same hotel where he slow-danced with Glory on the night that the war started.” The symbol of their relationship is broken by forces beyond their control, war and disease, much like the earthquake that ruined Randy and Charlene’s home together. But the thing that is broken in this case is not something that one partner picked out and that the other acquiesced to: it’s a symbol of a truly shining memory. The fact that Stephenson has these parallel moments, separated by hundreds of pages, tying the characters together across generations and across families, shows an attention to detail that I found tremendously moving when I encountered it.

The second parallel isn’t as clear: Bobby is impaled on instruments of literal warfare, while his granddaughter is shot by a corporate and legal warrior. He chooses to die, she’s able to live. But I like that it’s there, that the broken pottery isn’t the only thread in this.

The parallel threads are evidence of planning, but even on its own, Stephenson’s prose just shines. So much of Bobby Shaftoe’s narrative is shot through with sarcasm and parody that it’s easy to forget that he enters the novel in part as a poet. Stephenson gives him prose that’s worthy of that pedigree:

No one can reach him now, no one can help him. When the fuel oil stops streaming through the hose, he summons all the concentration he has left. Pretends, one last time, that he actually gives a damn. Jerks the safety pin from a white phosphorus grenade, lets the handle fly off and tinkle merrily across the roof. He can feel it come alive in his hand, the thrumming animal fizz of its inner fuse. He drops it into the air shaft, a circular pipe straight down, a black disk on a feel of dingy grey, like the ashes of a Nipponese flag. Then, on an impulse, he dives in there after it.

I particularly loved that after referring to the flag repeatedly as a meatball, a kind of goofy term that is a justifiable satire of kamikaze warfare and the unbelievably reckless, destructive stupidity of continuing the war after it was lost, Stephenson suddenly elevates it here, makes both the Japanese suicidal urge and Bobby Shaftoe’s something lovely, imbues them both with the beauty of the emotion behind lost causes.

And he pulls it off with the funny stuff, too. The satire flickers on an off throughout the novel, and in the midst of something profound, Bobby Shaftoe’s reunion with Goto Dengo, we get another lovely flare of it in the form of Douglas McArthur, who declares, upon finding the two together, ”‘And now, when I least expect it, I encounter you here, many leagues distant from your assigned post, out of uniform, in a disheveled condition, accompanied by a Nipponese officer, violating the sanctity of a ladies’ powder room! Shaftoe, have you no sense whatsoever of military honor?’” McArthur’s sense of honor is outrageously misplaced, and in time, it’ll turn to tragedy, but Stephenson makes it very funny.

III.

I have some real issues with the pivotal (for the plot, though as I’ve said, I honestly feel in this novel that the main caper is entirely beside the point) scene where Avi confronts Goto Dengo and convinces him to lead them to the gold buried in Golgotha:

‘His teeth are down in that hole. You buried my uncle’s teeth!’ Goto Dengo looks up into Avi’s eyes, neeither angry nor defensive. Just sad. And this seems to have an effect on Avi, who softens, exhales finally, and breaks eye contact. ‘I know you probably had no choice,’ Avi says. ‘But that’s what you did. I never knew him, or any of my other relatives who died in the Shoah. But I would gladly dump every ouunce of that gold into the ocean, just to give them a decent burial. That’s what I’ll do if you make it a condition. But what I was really planning on doing was using it to make sure that nothing of the kind ever happens again.’ Goto Dengo ponders this for a while, looking stonefaced out over the lights of Tokyo. Then he unhooks his cane from the edge of the table, jams it into the floor, and shoves himself to his feet. He turns towards Avi, straightens his posture, then bows. It’s the deepest bow Randy’s ever seen.

This is, in some ways, a highly insightful book about World War II. But it is not a book that in any substantive way that deals with the Shoah, which for a novel that hinges on profound respect for the profaned remains of murdered Jews, strikes me as kind of a problem. Avi’s Judaism is treated only glancingly: as the source for his many nannies, as the reason his wife is so comfortable flying off to Israel—she always knew she was going home—as a reason for his interest in holocaust prevention that’s never really explored or treated with the respect that ethically neutral practices like codebreaking and hacking are. But the World War II-era principals spend none of the narrative events of the book in occupied German territory. Rudy’s glimpse of a concentration camp is the only time we see the Holocaust, and then Rudy escapes. The incident is punishment for him, but not a deep engagement with what the regime he served was doing. We don’t ever know that Goto Dengo is aware of the Holocaust, though we assume he must be, given his emotional reaction to Avi’s declaration.

I don’t think it’s wrong to want to focus on the Pacific theater, on forced labor, on the suicidal grand strategy of Japanese leadership. But I do think it’s a problem to use the victims of the Holocaust as a very brief plot device without really dealing with them, if their deaths are meant to be important connective tissue between characters.

IV.

A lot of the discussion about this book has surrounded Stephenson’s characterizations of women. The Fatling wrote, I thought very articulately, in the book club two weeks ago that:

I think Stephenson is under the impression that he’s somehow doing us women a respectful favor by not delving into the whys and wherefores of his female characters’ behavior. Like, “Oh, I don’t pretend to understand you, and I’d hate to get it wrong, so I’m not even going to try.” Which, instead of elevating us to this demi-goddess status, just serves to make us into people who don’t matter enough to be interesting. It’s really frustrating to me, because I really, really like his books, but he can’t even be bothered to let the ladies be human.

But one thing I thought Stephenson did exceptionally well in this section was to give us—and Bobby Shaftoe—the experience of loving from afar a woman whose experiences are probably impossible to translate in a profound and specific way. I think it’s telling that the myths people tell Bobby about Glory elide her trauma, his abandonment of her, her solitary pregnancy, her contraction of leprosy, her heroism:

They say that she has a healthy young son, living in the apartment in the Malate neighborhood of Manila, being cared for by the extended family while his mother serves in the war. They say that she has put her nursing skills to work, acting as a sort of Florence Nightingale for the Huks. They say that she is a messenger for the Fil-American forces, that no one surpasses her daring in crossing through Nipponese checkpoints carrying secret messages and other contraband.

It’s not just that Stephenson can’t comprehend the fullness of Glory’s experience. The man who loved her can’t, the people who revere her can’t. They can only deal with the horrific things that she’s been through by cloaking them in the healing balm of heroism. And in the finest passage of the novel, when Bobby finally comes to understand Glory, when he tries, in his fumbling, inarticulate way to explain Glory to their son, Stephenson makes that refusal to pretend we understand her a point of honor, something beautiful, it acknowledges the horror of her experiences, her courage, and her continuing struggle for self-actualization:

Bobby squats down and looks the little Shaftoe in the eye, wondering how to begin to explain everything. But the boy says, ‘Bobby Shaftoe, you have boo-boos,’ and drops his club and walks up to examine the wounds on Bobby’s arm. Little kids don’t bother to say hello, they just start talking to you, and Shaftoe figures that’s a good way to handle what would otherwise be pretty damn awkward. The Altamiras probably have been telling little Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe, since the day he was born, that one day Bobby Shaftoe would come in glory from across the sea. That he has now done so is just as routine and yet just as much of a miracle as that the sun rises every day.

‘I see that you and yours have displayed adaptability and that it is good,’ says Bobby Shaftoe to his son, but sees immediately that he’s not getting through to the kid at all. He feels a need to get something into the kid’s head that is going to stick, and this need is stronger than the craving for morphine or sex ever was. So he picks up the boy and carries him through the compound, down semi-collapsed hallways and  over settling rubble-heaps and between dead Nipponese boys to that big staircase, and shows him the giant slabs of granite, tells how they were laid, one on top of the next, year by year, as the galleons full of silver came from Acapulco. Doug M. Shaftoe has been playing with blocks, so he zeros in on the basic concept right away. Dad carries son up and down the stairway a few times. They stand at the bottom and look up at it. The block analogy has stuck deep. Without any prompting, Doug M. raises both arms over his head and hollers ‘Soooo big’ and the sound echoes up and down the stairs. Bobby wants to explain to the boy that this is how it’s done, you pile one thing on top of the next and you keep it up and keep it up—sometimes the galleon sinks in a typhoon, you don’t get your slab of granite that year—but you stick with it and eventually you end up with something sooo big. He wishes that he could also make some further point about Glory and how she’s been hard at work building her own staircase. Maybe if he was a word man like Enoch Root he would be able to explain. But he knows that this is going way over the toddler’s head, just as it went over Bobby’s head when Glory first showed him the steps. The only thing that’ll stick with Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe is the memory that his father brought him here and carried him up and down the staircase, and if he lives long enough and thinks hard enough maybe he’ll come to understand it too, the way Bobby does. That is a good enough start.

I was crying by the end of this. I don’t think it makes up for the way Stephenson keeps other women at a distance, keeps Mary an adorable creampuff and Amy a sexy badass, and refuses to invest them with the substance of inner life. Glory is real, but she’s lost to Bobby, she’s lost to us, the sexy girl we got to know in the novel’s early pages is lost even to herself. It gives a sense of what Stephenson could accomplish if he tried elsewhere, and it’s both a triumph and a deep and abiding exposure of a flaw.

Yglesias

Egypt

The most important news of the day is clearly out of Egypt, but this is (a) well outside my expertise, and (b) something especially hard for me to keep tabs on while on vacation. So I’ll offer a link to my colleague Brian Katulis who’s actually knowledgeable about the region and has some tough words about the Obama administration’s overall approach to the area:

After stumbling a bit in its initial response to the unrest, the Obama administration has come out strongly in favor of universal rights to free speech and peaceful protest. Now is the time to back up that talk with policy action. America has provided around $60 billion in assistance to Egypt over the past 30 years and it has established deep ties with Egypt’s military and intelligence services. In fact, a senior Egyptian military delegation has been visiting the Pentagon this week as the unrest grew in Egypt. Egypt certainly plays an important role in America’s fight against global terrorist networks and the efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and our countries have many common interests.

There is a way to navigate all of these issues and shape a more proactive and less reactive policy. As I argued in this policy analysis for the Century Foundation, the United States should seek to use all of its leverage to achieve progress on core security interests while encouraging pragmatic reform. Otherwise, staying the course in a path dependency on current U.S. policy could lead to greater instability. Indeed, there is something to Egyptian opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei’s argument that America’s current policy “is really pushing Egypt and pushing the whole Arab world into radicalization with this inept policy of supporting repression.” America’s influence and leverage is not what it used to be but it can revive its position by changing its policy approach.

Taking the long view, it’s clearly not possible for Egypt and other Arab states to be ruled by “pro-American” dictatorships forever so policy that’s merely based on prolonging the day of reckoning has some real problems.

Politics

Veterans Slam Rep. Bachmann’s Plan To Cut Vet Benefits: ‘Heartless,’ ‘Shows Contempt’ For Troops’ Sacrifice

In her tea party-fueled quest to cut government spending and social programs, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has unveiled a plan to cut $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing the Veterans Affairs Department’s health care spending and cuts veterans’ disability benefits. The Air Force Times reports her plan would slice $4.5 billion from the VA, including reducing 150,000 veterans’ disability compensation and the amount they receive in Social Security Disability Income.

A host of veterans groups slammed Bachmann’s plan:

–Veterans of Foreign War national commander Richard L. Eubank said, “The only discussion the VFW wants is to tell the congresswoman that her plan is totally out of step with America’s commitment to our veterans.” “No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress,” said Eubank. “There are certain things you do not do when our nation is at war, and at the top of that list is not caring for our wounded and disabled servicemen and women when they return home,” he said. “I want her to look those disabled veterans in the eye and tell them their service and sacrifice is too expensive for the nation to bear.”

–The National Veterans Foundation’s Rich Rudnick told ThinkProgress that Bachmann’s plan is “terribly misguided,” saying, “veterans benefits are minimal to begin with” and that Bachmann’s scheme would be a “real step backwards.” “Cutting back on the VA right now would be showing contempt for American servicemembers’ sacrifices,” Rudnick said in a phone interview this afternoon.

–Disabled American Veterans Washington Headquarters Executive Director David Gorman said Bachmann’s plan is “[s]uch an ill-advised proposal [it] is nothing short of heartless.” “It is unconscionable that while our nation is at war someone would even think of forcing our wounded warriors to sacrifice even more than they already have,” Gorman said. “Their injuries and disabilities were the result of their service to the nation, and our nation must not shirk its responsibilities toward them. How do you tell a veteran who has lost a limb that he or she has not sacrificed enough? Yet Rep. Bachmann wants to do just that.”

–Veterans for Common Sense executive director Paul Sullivan “said cutting veterans’ health care spending is an ill-advised move at a time when the number of veterans continues to grow as troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan.” “It is really astonishing to see this,” he said.

–VoteVets.org Chairman Ashwin Madia said, “Michelle Bachmann’s plan would turn veterans away from the care they’ve earned and deserve. Congress voted for two wars that have created many veterans that now need help, and we cannot – and will not – turn our backs to them. That’s bad policy that I think even a majority of Republican voters will stand squarely against.”

In a statement to the Air Force Times, Bachmann “said her plan is intended for discussion purposes as an example of ways to cut federal spending.”

Climate Progress

In Profound Denial, Chamber Of Commerce Lectures On ‘Energy Reality’

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce dug further into denial of the reality of global warming pollution today, attacking the Obama administration’s clean energy goals as “wholly unrealistic.”

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for the end to billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and a national commitment to double low-carbon electricity by 2035. “Raising taxes on the industry that fuels our lives shows a profound detachment from our energy and economic reality,” former Bush official Karen Harbert, president and chief executive officer of the chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, lashed out. Harbert further attacked the president’s proposal for being too “ambitious“:

The president’s proposed ‘clean energy’ mandate would entail a more ambitious restructuring of the country’s power sector than even those in the his party have proposed. This mandate could require us to increase our non-hydro renewable generation by more than 700% and more than double our nuclear power, while virtually eliminating from the country’s most available, proven, and economic domestic energy resource—coal.

Harbert somehow thinks that making America into the world’s clean-energy leader is a bad idea.

In actual “energy and economic reality,” the oil and coal industries are killing Americans, weakening our economy, and destabilizing our planet. Pollution from burning coal and oil kills at least 20,000 Americans a year. Oil company profits are soaring — ConocoPhillips up 46 percent to $1.9 billion, Chevron up 72 percent to $5.3 billion — on rising prices that are sucking the lifeblood out of the economic recovery. Even Dr. John Felmy, American Petroleum Institute’s top economist, admits that raising taxes on oil companies could create two million American jobs.

Furthermore, the fossil-dominated chamber continues to blindly ignore the existential threat of climate change. Our polluted climate is already causing death and misery on an unprecedented global scale. If anything, President Obama’s clean energy plan may be insufficiently ambitious. The simple facts are that the United States needs to join the rest of the world in rapidly eliminating the unconstrained use of fossil fuels. As the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook describes, in a “climate friendly” scenario “the power sector is largely decarbonized by 2035.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce needs to starting facing reality — or at least properly rename Harbert’s program to the Institute for 19th Century Energy.

Older

Switch to Mobile