Haha OMG and I just saw this:

From the first sentence of Brooks' previous op-ed:

"Humans are overconfident creatures."

LOLZ. But Obama should totally go with his gut determination on Afghanistan.

Although I do have to admit I kind of agree with this statement: "Over the past year, the bonfire of overconfidence has shifted to Washington. Since the masters of finance have been exposed as idiots, the masters of government have concluded (somewhat illogically) that they must be really smart."

Nevertheless, then we get back into wtf territory with this paragraph:

"Nobody seriously believes high pay caused the financial meltdown; it was bubblicious groupthink. But cutting executive pay just polls so well.

Every great action can be done in a spirit of humility or in a spirit of overconfidence. Regulating pay in a spirit of humility would mean rebalancing the power between shareholders and executives, without getting government involved in micromanaging individual pay decisions."

This is just annoying op-ed-iness. People who do not rely on public opinion polls don't all actually believe that shareholders are the best people to renegotiate executive pay: http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/the_ceo_pay_debate_why_reform_is_going_nowhere

one of the worst columns brooks has written

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html

Specious comparisons to Lincoln and Churchill? (Where are the comparisons to LBJ or Nixon, or the USSR, if you're going to pick and choose?) Basing our policy in Af/Pak on a gut feeling of "determination" in one person? Not even addressing the Hoh resignation, even just to tear it down, if that's what you believe?

I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether we should stay in Afghanistan, but going by my gut as Brooks would have me do, I don't think we can achieve an acceptable "win" scenario by military force. Even though nuclear Pakistan is some scary shit. Our troop presence in Afghanistan just seems to be providing the Taliban and local militias with more targets to blow up. The argument that instability in Afghanistan is bleeding over into Pakistan sounds a lot like domino theory to me, but even buying that that is the case, I think our efforts would be better served by trying to shore up Pakistan by focusing on, well, Pakistan. In Afghanistan we have aligned ourselves with an even less legitimate, respected, and powerful government than the Pakistani government. Even if we create a safe space for democracy there, that's not even half the battle in terms of getting a viable democratic government off the ground. Meanwhile the situation in Pakistan is deteriorating in spite of our increased efforts in Afghanistan. (While the official troop increase is still being discussed, extra support personnel have been quietly deployed to the country.)* And that's without bringing Matt Hoh's resignation letter and "Valleyism" into the argument.

It would be a travesty for the Taliban to regain its hold of Afghanistan, especially for women. It would be a boon to Al Qaeda.** But the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Western Europe, not from a cave in Kandahar. And they are still less fatal than if we were to continue diverting our resources to the Middle East instead of focusing on universal health care, infrastructure, climate change, gun violence, poverty, the food supply, rape culture, and preparedness for natural disasters, which are outcomes we can actually positively affect without sacrificing thousands of American lives in the battle.

*ETA from Mr. Kristof: "In Afghanistan, for example, we have already increased our troop presence by 40,000 troops since the beginning of last year, yet the result has not been the promised stability but only more casualties and a strengthened insurgency. If the last surge of 40,000 troops didn’t help, why will the next one be so different?"

**ETA from Mr. Friedman:

"What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won’t Al Qaeda return, the Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my second principle: In the Middle East, all politics — everything that matters — happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.

And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he’ll get zapped by a drone."

Getting Ranty, or, Sit Down and STFU

I'm sick of reading about how women pay higher health insurance premiums and things like Caesarians and domestic violence are considered pre-existing conditions. Oh, and fat people should pay more for health care because they will use the system more. The John Kyl view holds that people who will never use these services shouldn't have to pay for them (nevermind the fact that body weight is not a great proxy for who will need cardiac care or diabetes management).

People, I am so sick of this.

We all pay into the system one way or another, and some of us rely on some parts of the system more heavily than others. Some of us use public education, others have health issues that require expensive treatment, others have violence committed against them and need law enforcement services. If you do not need to rely on state services at all for whatever reason, THE CORRECT RESPONSE IS NOT TO WHINE ABOUT PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, IT IS TO BE FUCKING GRATEFUL THAT YOU DO NOT NEED THESE SERVICES. Education, health, law enforcement, maternity care--these things are public goods that we all benefit from whether or not you yourself are benefiting directly. I REPEAT: AN EDUCATED, HEALTHY, SAFE, PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY BENEFITS EVERYONE. So if you are complaining about how your premium shouldn't reflect the cost of fat people or mothers or people with disabilities or domestic violence victims, SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.

at least he writes about interesting/important topics

even if I don't agree with what he says much. Here's Douthat's column from today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05adouthat.html?_r=1

I just want to ruminate on a couple of his points:

1) Liberals are unlikely to support immigration reform that curbs the number of unskilled laborers coming into the US.

Well, this may or may not be true. Liberals do tend to like policies that are humane to the immigrants who are already here, such as not splitting families apart (though this is in contrast to Douthat's next point) and not punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Such policies encourage more people to try to enter the country illegally, and worry about naturalization once here. Right now, though immigration reform is on the back burner, the politically expedient stance among both Dems and Repubs is to call for better border patrol and a tougher stance toward people here illegally, so in practice I'm not sure that the libs to whom Douthat is referring constitute a politically significant cadre.

But, what struck me most about his statement is the double-edged sword of it all. Traditionally we hear the call to reduce the cost of business for corporations (a rising tide lifts all boats) from the right wing. Cheap laborers reduce that cost. Maybe this is the brilliance of the GOP: reaping the benefits of a policy while pinning the blame for its unpopular aspects on the Dems.

2) "But today’s Democratic Party increasingly represents “unmarried America” — the single, the childless, the divorced. This makes it an unlikely vehicle for policies that discriminate, whether through tax code or the welfare state, in favor of the traditional nuclear family."

Except where same-sex couples are concerned, which could constitute 5% of the family population (assuming a 50% partnered rate for a population that constitutes perhaps 10% of the general populace). Douthat is right when he says that cultural shifts like these go deeper than public policy can extend itself, and I suppose it's up for debate as to whether trying to shift cultural trends away from divorce and single-parenthood is worth punishing people for whom this is the best option. Do we trust them to make the best decisions for themselves (a typical Republican party line)? Also, these are the people who grew up in an era of the nuclear family, and while it may have given them a leg up economically, it doesn't seem to have done the same spiritually...blaming or extolling the nuclear family seems simplistic to say the least.

3) Education needs reform that is unlikely to be brought about by liberals.

Probably true. Douthat wants choice and competition brought to our public schools. I can't exactly disagree, though we'd probably disagree about how to do that. Tying funding for public schools to geographical school districts (and then tying the students to those districts) begets some serious problems with our nation's public schools, and probably gives birth to the growing inequality gap. Choice = good; usually though, "choice" and "competition" go hand in hand with "privatization" in the Republican lexicon. Maybe "choice" could involve a decoupling of geography and school funding/attendance instead. The outcry from rich districts would probably be substantial, but we all pay for other people's education in some way or another because an educated populace is a common good, and this would be an extension of that principle.

4) "The European experience suggests that specific policy interventions — the shape of the tax code, the design of the education system — may matter less in the long run than the sheer size of the state. If you funnel enough of a nation’s gross domestic product through a bureaucracy, the gap between the upper class and everybody else usually compresses.

But economic growth often compresses along with it. This is already the logic of our current fiscal trajectory: ever-larger government, and ever-slower growth."

Interesting.