Gabfest

The "lynching" of Saddam

pampl — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:41:58 GMT

The trial of Saddam Hussein wasn't perfect. It *was* better than any conducted in Iraq in decades, better than almost all in the region, and better than most of the developing world. It was also a trial of a man who was known to have murdered hundreds of thousands of his helpless subjects, tortured and brutalized many more, and subjected all to routine censorship and secret policing. Plotz doesn't deny Saddam's guilt in any of this, or deny that the Iraqi people are right to choose what punishment fits these crimes. He just seems to think a noisy crowd means that delivering justice to a tyrant becomes the moral equivalent of murdering a black man for the 'crime' of considering himself the equal of a white man.

I certainly hope that the trial of KSM doesn't meet Plotz's standards of justice because, whatever they are, they're completely alien to all normal human sense of right and wrong.

Executive Pay Limits

Chris Weagel — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:02:08 GMT

Wall Street doesn't produce anything of value. They don't deserve ANY compensation let alone weekly showers of gold. The bare minimum should see the government marching these pigs into the public square for nationally televised horse-whippings. Do you have any idea how many millions of workers' lives have been destroyed by decisions made by Wall Street who then rewards itself for doing so? Limiting executive compensation should only be the beginning. Let's see top income tax rates returned to Eisenhower-era levels. Let's see these behemoth's corporate charters revoked.

Plotz's diagnosis about male to female ratio

pampl — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:34:33 GMT

There's been a lot of interesting debate over gender and the recession and terrorism, but I think Plotz's take-away was misleading or even wrong. A lack of women in general isn't the problem - the ME has the same 1.05 male to female ratio as the world in general, whereas the comparatively successful India and China which have some of the worst ratios in the world at 1.12 and 1.1 respectively. While more women would ideally be in politics, they aren't completely absent (e.g. Benazir Bhutto, Queen Rania) and it's not really remarkable that a group of countries mostly lead by autocrats also happens to be mostly led by men.

The argument I've heard is that it's the lack of marriage prospects that causes young men to become alienated and prone to extremism, which is why traditionally polygamous ME countries are having these problems. There are some sub-Saharan African countries that are polygamous as well, and I don't know if they're having problems with terrorism, so that might be a hole in the hypothesis.

Too many mistakes...

sp81615 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:15:27 GMT

... on this week's Gabfest segment about the compensation of Wall Street executives and bankers. Citigroup's $100 million trader is Andrew Hall, not Andrew Bird. His trading unit (now spun off from Citigroup) is Phibro, not Philco. And the basic term for exploiting small differences in the price of an item is arbitrage. Please, Gabfesters, learn a little about economics (and get the names right) before you podcast. It's embarassing. Or stick with politics, about which you have genuinely insightful things to say.

Gabfest 16 Oct 09

LeftOver — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:08:26 GMT

The reason some of us are opposed to same gender marriage it is time for the state to get out of the marriage business all together.

Obama, Tariffs, and Gabfests

jonathanng — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:54:05 GMT

Let me first say I voted for Obama last year. Not because he's Democrat. Not because he's NOT Republican. But because I felt he was the best man for the job. I looked at what he stood for, liked what I saw, and voted for him. I try to be as politically blind as possible. I listen to the issues. Not the political party.

I am amazed on how much slack you guys gives Obama. It is as if you have already decided in your minds that he will be a great president before has really done anything and proven himself. Can we please have some objective coverage of his presidency?!?

The tire tariffs was not a subject of this week's Gabfest. This is surprising because this story is incredibly important. It is Obama's first clear mistake, as many reputable media publications have agreed. As an economist I'm extremely disappointed at the President I voted for. And as a Gabfest listener I'm equally disappointed with what is supposedly objective journalism.

The problem with politics is that politicians don't understand economics. This is weird because economic decisions make up a majority of political decisions. The problem with political journalism is the same. We need more journalists with economic backgrounds. (Wonk Watch gathered the opinions of economists, not lawyers!)

How can democracy thrive if the media isn't doing its job? Especially from "smart" media such as Slate. Someone from Slate, PLEASE write something about the tire tariffs. Inform your readers. DON'T be the online Democratic version of Fox News.

For your reference:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14450332&source=hptextfeature

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/09/podcast_1.html

Afghanistan policy

gilesryan — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:23:01 GMT

Your discussion on Afghanistan left out one key point - the heroin trade. Talking about our Afghanistan policy without considering heroin is like talking about Mideast policy and pretending the Saudis, Iraq and Iran have no oil.

Heroin is the only significant cash crop the Afghans have and it's certainly their major source of foreign exchange, so it cannot be ignored. Moreover its influence on their politics is undoubted. We frequently reads stories reporting that Karzai has important allies among the druglords and that the Taliban depends on heroin for their financing. In other words, heroin contributes to both sides in this struggle. So let's take notice of the elephant in the room if we want to discuss the issue in any meaningful way.

Afghanistan is a hopelessly corrupt narco-state. American foreign poliocy has come to the point that we are deeply involved in supporting a narco-state while fighting its enemies who are also supported by the same drug trade. Only someone completely delusional can tell me how we're supposed to "win" anything in a situation like this.

I'm going to say something very un-American (David Plotz almost said it but he couldn't quite get it out ), but I'll say it so listen up. Some problems have no solutions. Repeat, some problems have no solutions. You can throw all the money in the world at it but it doesn't get solved, and every life spent pursuing the endeavor is a life that could accomplish more doing anything else.

As for John Dickerson's remarks that any change in course by Obama would be seen as a reversal of what he laid out six months ago and that he would suffer politically for this - so what? I voted for the guy because, after eight years of a fool who would never, NEVER, admit a mistake, Obama struck me as someone with the maturity and sense to see an error and own up to it. I'm convinced many Americans saw this quality in him and voted accordingly. Were we wrong?

America needs to get out of Afghanistan now.

Giles Ryan - Bellevue, Washington

Discredits the UN but not Gaddafi?

pampl — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:16:07 GMT

I don't get this argument. Neither the UN nor Gaddafi is new to crazy diatribes. The UN, though, is designed to give a voice to representatives of the world's governments, and because there are some crazy governments out there, if the UN is fulfilling its purpose it will include some kooky rants. I don't know much about the Libyan people but I strongly suspect that Gaddafi's job as their leader and symbol of their state doesn't require him to act like a deranged old man ranting about conspiracy theories. His performance was a (completely predictable) failure at his job.

P.S. : how do you mark a thread with a specific gabfest date and topic?

Baucus' not chair of the committe in charge of HC reform

pampl — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:09:33 GMT

..because there is no such committee. There are FIVE senate committees each working on their own version, as well as a House version. Baucus' compromise will probably look the closest to the final bill, but it's not more important than all the others combined and to say that he's chair of "the" committee with the relevant jurisdiction is to buy into the grandstanding that Bazelon was complaining about.

9/11/09 Political Gabfest section on the Supreme Court

Makr Zimmermann — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:56 GMT

David Plotz doesn't see any difference between the speech denied to corporations that's granted to media organizations (which are, of course, also incorporated)? The difference is hidden in the 1st Amendment: They are the media, and have been given a central place in American affairs in the Constitution. Corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution. They are artificial entities that had to be granted some of the same status as real people because they aren't really people. All of the people who make up corporations are real & have real rights—and that's enough.

Was Emily Bazelon drunk?

Michael Graves — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:57:09 GMT

I enjoyed this week's Gabfest very much. But to be honest, I spent the entire time half-wondering whether Emily was incredibly intoxicated and that was why her two male colleagues were acting even more intellectually superior and condescending to her than usual (and believe me, that is saying a great deal) or whether she wasn't drunk at all and the Gabfest has simply become kind of boring?

So what the heck was going on in this one? What do you think?

Slamming whiskey and your gabmates

killpolitics — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:41:04 GMT

I've just finished listening to the podcast this week and putting some new cleats on our boat dock on the island here. I hate to say it but, Miss Bazelon, you were the most coherent of your compadres. You sounded like what I feel like I sound like when I'm drunkenly rambling. cheers.

Emily

mcurragh — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:46:37 GMT

I have listened to the Gabfest for almost two years. While I respect Emily Bazelon's legal knowlege, her speaking voice is infuriatingly girlish and distracts from what she and the other two panelists are discussing. It is time to replace her with someone (anyone) who sounds a bit more serious...

Cicrumcision

jvnola — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:31:34 GMT

I guess I am one of those guys rabidly against non-medically necessary circumcision on baby boys. I am thrilled that the rate of circumcision has gone down in this country. I find it barbaric to cut off a section of a baby's skin without any medical necessity. Would it be okay if another religion developed that insisted that ear lobes of babies should be cut off shortly after birth? How about a few toe nails?

I believe that if it were not common and/or practiced in certain western religions, most people would find the tradition abusive. I also feel that any parents that intend to have their baby circumcised when not medically necessary should be required to have part of their skin removed, using just as much anesthesia as will be used on their son. Any adult that chooses to do it for himself is perfectly okay ... it is his choice to have it done. I know a lot of people focus on the sexual part of it. To me that may be relevant, but the simple fact that so many of us find the procedure itself barbaric and abusive is more than enough of a reason to be strongly against it.

If it can be proven that there is a significant medical benefit to doing the procedure, then that is entirely different. But, at least for men in this country, no one has shown that to be the case.

Rivalry of NYC and DC is NOT politics

newtongimp — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:29:07 GMT

I really enjoy listening to the Slate Political Gabfest. I hear new and differing ideas which I may not have been introduced to. That said, the last Political Gabfest (August 21st) included a discussion on, essentially, the cultural dominance of NYC over DC. I do not listen to the Political Gabfest to learn about cultural rivalries between two cities. If you are going to turn over control of the political gabfest to someone other than the usual please stress to them that your listeners are their for a discussion on politics not cultural rivalries irrelevant to the majority of people.

Re: The Death Panel Gabfest - vacations

Pennywhistler — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:43:23 GMT

Assuming you really felt compelled to discuss Presidential Vacations,

1) The only cogent point is the number of days Bush the Younger was ON vacation during his (ie, Rove & Cheney's) presidency - which was an astonishing 33% of his time in "office". Bush spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days at his Texas ranch.

2) Martha's Vineyard has an important Black heritage - including the Martha's Vineyard African American Film Festival, and the African American Heritage Trail of Martha's Vineyard. I can think of many reasons why Mrs. Obama would want to shlep her family there.

See http://www.mvheritagetrail.org/ .

Oh ... and Eunice Shriver changed millions of lives and the mind-set of millions more. She deserved much better from youse guys.

Health care

ecw — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:38:34 GMT

I've been listening to the merry-go-round of pundits regarding health care (Ever notice it's the same people over and over again just moving from one show to another?) They repeat themselves on each show and the emphasis is always on the "political" implications of the "perception" of the bills. It has become clear that none of these "experts" has actually read the bill. I want folks to cite pages and line numbers when they complain about the bill. It's another example of media laziness. \\The one shining exception was Alex Wayne of CQ on Lynn Neary's NPR show who actually delivered page numbers when talking about the bill and what it means. We need more of that.

Fri 8/14 gabfest

Haldew — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:26:30 GMT

Love you guys! But, I actually disagreed with a few things you discussed in your last podcast:

1. Obama in a National Park? Come on, when Clinton did it, his family hated it and we all derided them for pandering. Obama and wife are witty, intellectual and urbane. Why shouldn't they go to a place where they will find people like themselves. Plus, good restaurants and by the way plenty of middle class people!

2. Town meetings. There is credible proof out there that these meetings were at the very least jump started by the Republicans. These aren't the kind of Town Meetings we have in Mass. where we tolerate the nutters and are polite to all. These are disgruntled crazies who actually might benefit most from Obama's plan. Plus where is the other side of the argument? Where is the plan to provide health care to many more at lower costs? This is what the R's say they want, but they have offered up nothing but Palin type nonsense. Get tougher please.

FYI, I was a Republican for all my adult life until 5 years ago, when I had had enough of Bush and Cheney. I'm a huge fan of Obama and what he is trying to do. I cannot comprehend what the R's are thinking. They are acting in a manner that I can only call right wing idiotic un-American self aggrandizing foolishness. They should be ashamed.

Also, the Kennedys as royalty? Noooo. But, as an interesting family yes.

Thanks for all the fun and thoughts.

Replace Plotz with Dan Gross!

Noumenon — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:08:27 GMT

It was great having Dan Gross on the podcast -- how nice it was to hear someone who knows something more than the journalistic conventional wisdom pipe up with some interesting points about the relevance of behavioral economics and with a good point about the effect of the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

It's depressing how seldom any of the participants seem to be aware of any of the counter-arguments to the journalistic CW that one can easily find on the blogs. All the participants should get out a little more. I'm not saying that they should take the blogs' arguments at face value, but it would be nice if their political commentary were at least as informed as mine. (I mean they should not only be informed about the bare facts, but also be informed about the debate going on out there, if they are going to act like their discussion adds something to that debate.) Thank God John brings in his polls and Emily sometimes can describe a legal decision or most of these discussions would be completely valueless.

I'd love to have Dan on permanently, but ideally he would replace David Plotz, not Emily. I actually liked David Plotz based on his 1st book and Blogging the Bible. But here on the Gabfest, he consistently talks out of his -- well, let's say the other end of his digestive tract -- and on top of that expects everyone else to bow down before the brilliance or unconventionality of his "insights". His arrogance is completely out of proportion to the value he adds to the discussion.

Two examples from the present podcast:

1. David thinks it's great that the right wing activists are giving congress people a hard time. Sorry, David, but that's just an ignorant perspective. No one is objecting to people showing up at the town halls and asking difficult questions; no one is objecting to the questions being phrased angrily, even rudely; no one is objecting to protests being staged outside. Some people have objected to the hanging in ephigy of congress people (and you are wrong -- that did happen). But the main objection is that they are trying to keep any discussion from happening. They are deeply, deeply, loonily misinformed about (a) the status quo (e.g. whether Medicare is a government program) and (b) the proposed legislation (e.g., that it includes a "death board") and they not only stop their ears to the enlightenment their representative might provide, but they also prevent others from gaining any enlightenment by shouting down everything the representative says. Thank God the other participants were there to point this out! Will someone please tell Plotz that contrarianism is not interesting if it's based on ignorance or arrogant inattention to the rest of the discussion? Simply to propose that maybe the earth is flat without taking account of even Aristotle's arguments for its roundness is ignorance, not contrarianism.

Second example: Dan Gross makes his interesting point that Cash for Clunkers is "propaganda of the deed," and David instantly reduces this point to a completely cynical argument that the program is purely for partisan political benefit.

Gross certainly wasn't leaving such electoral advantages out of the picture, but Plotz completely misses all other dimensions of what Gross is saying. The economy is suffering in part from a lack of confidence. The whole point of stimulus spending is to keep pessimism from feeding on itself and making things worse and worse. The stimulus is a kind of confidence trick -- it's like the advice that you should stand up straight and smile and generally act confident even when you feel shy or depressed, because you can get yourself to feel more confident by acting that way. Gross's point is that Cash for Clunkers gets a lot of confidence building bang for the buck because it is so visible a part of the economy. Plotz misses all this completely. His original objection to the program seemed to be based on a complete ignorance of what stimulus spending is supposed to do -- he assumes that its entire point is environmental. And after Dan provides his explanation, Plotz continues to miss the whole idea of stimulus spending, and he interprets Dan as making an entirely cynical point.

I'm no economist - never even took an economics class - but I know enough to understand the point of stimulus spending. I suppose Plotz was a very bright English major, but reporters really ought to understand something about the world they are reporting on -- something beyond the craft of putting sentences together. This goes double if they expect us to be interested in their opinions. I think Plotz should take a sabbatical and go learn something -- even just read some good blogs -- and let Dan Gross replace him while he bones up.

"Coalition of the sWilling"

theccexperiment — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:48:42 GMT

Just letting you all know, ever since the "coalition of the willing" was formed, I have called it the "Coalition of the sWilling" (Bush still drinks, you know, and is obviously alcoholic, as displayed by his rabid alcoholic behaviors, and took this country to a sorely alcoholic-like debt state).

This phrase usage dates back to the initiation of such a dubious coalition. It usage is clearly published on archives of the original "Bush Sours In The Polls" yahoo message board, which yahoo has politically removed, while it continued running to have well over a million posts.

Love the podcasts. Loved the one with Emily and two guests. Been listening to the podcast for years and years now.

Sabra and Shatila Massacres

mlang46 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:48:51 GMT

The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre; Arabic: مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا‎ Maḏbaḥat Ṣabrā wa Shātīlā) (33°51′40.47″N 35°30′01.50″E / 33.8612417°N 35.500417°E / 33.8612417; 35.500417) was a massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians carried out between September 16 and 18, 1982 by the Lebanese Forces Christian militia group. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF), in control of Beirut, surrounded Beirut's Palestinian refugee camps immediately after the assassination of Phalangist leader and president-elect Bachir Gemayel two days before, then allowed Lebanese Phalangist militiamen to enter two of these refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila. The exact number killed is disputed, with estimates ranging from 328 to 3,500 (see below).

There is a game preserve in Texas where they raise Buffalo for hunters. The cowboys herd the buffalo into a box canyon and then the hunters slaughter these confined animals, shooting from ledges surrounding the herd. The animals panic but have no place to go and die on top of each other because they are crammed in like sardines. The role of the cowboys in the slaughter of the buffalo, exactly parallels the role the Israeli soldiers played in the slaughter of the Palestinian civilians. That someone would partially exonerate these soldiers from the responsibility of this massacre, because they did not themselves pull the trigger is obscene, incomprehensible and indefensible.

The reason this cartoon was banned in Lebanon is not because it was made by an Israeli cartoonist but because the Phalange or Kaleb is now part of the parliamentary majority in Lebanon. If Hezabollah had produced this cartoon, it would have been banned in Lebanon

Gabfest Sarah AND Katharine?

Gatewood — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:23:24 GMT

One noted that while denying any intention to accept bribes from Obama Administration officials that Slate e-zines ultimate owner, Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth actually DID resemble a slutty flight attendant in her televised publicity photos.

Sooooooo are the Slate gabfesters who [via Dahlia Lithwick last week] mostly endorsed those sexual pot shots that David Letterman took at Sarah Palin and her daughters NOW going to mention how slutty their ultimate boss looks and how SLUTTY it is to offer Obama Administration officials bribes for favorable reporting?

Somehow I just don't think so. Meh, ethics and reporting are like oil and water. They just don't mix.

Going Gets Tough; Sarah Quits

Mmmmm — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:30:33 GMT

Now that the economy and lower oil prices are creating budgetary problems for Alaska, Sarah Palin has the perfect solution (for Sarah Palin): quitting before her term is up.

MATERNITY LEAVE IN SWEDEN

Skrufsweden — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:56:52 GMT

In Sweden, the mother and father (who do NOT have to be married) can divide 14 MONTHS (!!!) of leave, which is paid at 80% of their full salary. They can take it simultaneously (and go to Portugal, for example), or consecutively. But the father must take some of the time. We have no idea of the extent of such benefits around the world. Their unemployment benefits can last up to 3 years--it goes on and on. We're living in the third world here in the USA.

Saw Emily on Morning Joe...

KrisH — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:23:26 GMT

great job! (btw... can we get a vidcast, 'cause she is SUPER-cute!)

Love the show.