A wonderful night to be a New Yorker

Historic, and truly moving.

At long last

Thank god. Obviously, there's ample reason to believe he won't fight hard for it -- but at least he's no longer negotiating with himself in public. At least he's finally attacking his/our opponents -- acknowledging that they are opponents. At least he didn't do the plague-on-both-your-houses crap.

And yes, the plan itself doesn't go far enough (e.g., no Medicare for all). But credit must be given where credit is due. At least he has finally done something politically smart. At least he has finally edged toward "I welcome their hatred," called the Ryan plan out for what it is:

"This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. Ronald Reagan's own budget director said, there's nothing 'serious' or 'courageous' about this plan. There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don't think there's anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol Hill. That's not a vision of the America I know."

And at least he has committed himself not only to the veto, but to a different kind of discourse:

"To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I'm President, we won't."

"... let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations."

"... we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again."

Seems to me Barack Obama has just won the 2012 election. And if we're really lucky, if he can grok the import of what he himself just said, maybe this is even a step toward redeeming his presidency.

Op-idiot

What is one to make of Ross Douhat's column today? One could use it as evidence of an individual's stupidity and lack of knowledge. One could say that the Times is down to Krugman and the seven dwarfs. Or one could generalize it to the hermetically sealed foolishness of the Beltway. Or one could take it all the way out to the devolution of discourse in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Whatever your preferred flavor of head-scratching and/or outrage, I would note that among the silliest attempts of this silly man's silly piece is its attempt to apply the 'liberal vs. conservative' frame to this set of facts. One could point out that the approach critiqued here was that of Bush Pere (and, for that matter, of St. Reagan, who never actually deployed any force anywhere for anything of consequence). One could point out that Bosnia and Kosovo didn't work out badly, in the end -- while one is pointing out that Iraq and Afghanistan haven't worked out anywhere near as well, either from a humanitarian or US strategic interests standpoint. One could point out that the broader historical pattern, for good or ill, is for liberals to be more interventionist than conservatives (FDR, yo? Robert Taft, yo?).

Or one could just bang one's head on the desk.

No-duh observation of the week

It's obvious, and plenty of people say it -- but Krugman's post today prompts me to say it, too. Yes, the Democratic Party has largely been useless for a generation -- and if you are of this frame of mind, corrupted by "corporatism." But the Republican Party is flat-out batshit crazy/evil.

Up in snow - updated

There go Bloomberg's Presidential hopes. Is it something about socially liberal Republican mayors?

Update: Q... E... D.

This is encouraging - update

I've long felt that the rise of new fundamentalist and misogynist strains in every culture -- from Christian fundies in America to jihadis in the Middle East to the gangs of rapists in African civil wars, and more -- were essentially the reaction of traditional society to the rapid emergence of an increasingly feminized, increasingly global, increasingly networked economy and society. And this well-researched article from a few months ago in The Atlantic provides the economic backdrop. Yes, as the piece argues, men are having trouble adjusting to this evolutionary-scale shift -- the discomfort of middle-class Americans being the least of those difficulties (see prior reference to jihadis). But all in all, hard not to feel very encouraged.

And, in a line I never thought I'd type, thanks to David Brooks for pointing to this.

Update: A point of clarification: I don't mean to say that fundamentalism and misogyny began because of modernity -- rather, that their reinvigoration is a reaction to the threat of modernity.

How much dumb can you pack into one column?

Exhibit 1: Charles Blow.

More to come. Maybe we can start a new Web service, Wikidopes. The only criterion for inclusion is that the piece itself must be a hermetically sealed demonstration of idiocy. No commentary allowed, or required. Any gloss, no matter how perceptive, punny or pithy, would only dilute the perfect foolery. It must be ipso bozo. A definitive proof, a priori, of a posterior (vs. frontal) lobe.

Open for submissions.