“Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Paul Krugman: Donald the Menace
For the past couple of months, thoughtful people have been quietly worrying that the Trump administration might get us into a foreign policy crisis, maybe even a war.
Partly this worry reflected Donald Trump’s addiction to bombast and swagger, which plays fine in Breitbart and on Fox News but doesn’t go down well with foreign governments. But it also reflected a cold view of the incentives the new administration would face: as working-class voters began to realize that candidate Trump’s promises about jobs and health care were insincere, foreign distractions would look increasingly attractive.
The most likely flash point seemed to be China, the subject of much Trumpist tough talk, where disputes over islands in the South China Sea could easily turn into shooting incidents.
But the war with China will, it seems, have to wait. First comes Australia. And Mexico. And Iran. And the European Union. (But never Russia.)
Angelina Jolie: Refugee Policy Should Be Based on Facts, Not Fear
Refugees are men, women and children caught in the fury of war, or the cross hairs of persecution. Far from being terrorists, they are often the victims of terrorism themselves.
I’m proud of our country’s history of giving shelter to the most vulnerable people. Americans have shed blood to defend the idea that human rights transcend culture, geography, ethnicity and religion. The decision to suspend the resettlement of refugees to the United States and deny entry to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries has been met with shock by our friends around the world precisely because of this record.
The global refugee crisis and the threat from terrorism make it entirely justifiable that we consider how best to secure our borders. Every government must balance the needs of its citizens with its international responsibilities. But our response must be measured and should be based on facts, not fear.
David Kaye: How do you solve a problem like Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley?
The modern story of free speech on American college campuses began in Berkeley. Will it end there, too? I doubt it, but President Trump’s tweet threatening federal funding for UC Berkeley should raise alarms across the political spectrum.
The events in Berkeley on Wednesday evening, truly idiotic violence and vandalism by a small number of activists, should force us to think about this moment – not just the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech. Our constitutional commitment to debate, dissent and freedom of expression is bumping up against hateful, attention-seeking speakers who rush up to, and often cross over into, incitement to violence, harassment and hatred. [..]
It’s difficult to imagine the president registering the nuances and dilemmas of managing a university campus today. Those dilemmas are real. And as public authorities with real responsibilities to educate resolve them, they should keep in mind the message Mario Savio delivered from atop a police car, thousands of students around him, over 50 years ago in Berkeley.
Amanda Marcotte: Democrats find their collective spine: Now it’s time to push back against years of GOP obstructionism
It was the second week of the Great Orange Presidency when Democrats finally found their spine. It may have been the massive street protests, it may have been their phones ringing off the hook and it may have been that the “Muslim ban” clarified exactly what kind of president Donald Trump would be.
It was likely a combination of those things, but the results are clear: Senate Democrats have already gone to unprecedented lengths to stymie Trump’s ability to form a Cabinet of unqualified cronies and kleptocrats, boycotting committee votes and making public commitments to vote against numerous Trump nominees. Those initial missteps, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren giving her committee vote to Ben Carson as HUD secretary, are giving way to a fully fleshed-out obstructionist agenda.
Gloriously, many Democrats have already committed to doing what they can to stop Trump from getting Neil Gorsuch, a frightening reactionary, onto the Supreme Court.
To be clear, Trump’s probably going to get all his picks anyway. As Brian Beutler of the New Republic argues, liberals need to understand down to the tips of their toes that Democrats have no real power to stop any of this. Even the most steadfast of obstructionist strategies will likely only slow things down a little. Blaming the Democrats for not stopping the unstoppable is not fair and not reality-based, and liberals need to wrap their minds around that.
With that caveat in mind, there’s plenty of reason to be celebrating the Democrats’ sudden demonstration of backbone. It’s energizing the base, it’s angering Republicans and sowing chaos in their ranks, and it is remind President Trump, every single day, that a majority of voters opposed him and that he can claim no mandate.
Steve Waldman: How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit
President Trump just reiterated his campaign promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” the law prohibiting churches and other nonprofit tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
This change would be horrible for politics — and even worse for religion.
The law, known as the Johnson Amendment, was written by Lyndon B. Johnson, then a senator from Texas, in 1954. It prohibits tax-exempt churches from endorsing political candidates. Mr. Trump on Thursday said repealing the rule would “allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution,” adding, “Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is under serious threat.” [..]
The rule does not even prohibit clergymen from endorsing a candidate. Rather, it says that if a religious leader endorses a candidate, then his church cannot receive the significant benefit of tax exemption, and that people cannot, therefore, make a tax-deductible contribution to that church.
Eliminating the endorsement rule would mean that your tax dollars would now indirectly subsidize a church’s support for a particular political candidate. For instance, conservative taxpayers would indirectly support the Rev. Al Sharpton if he decided to endorse a candidate — or the local mosque that wanted to endorse a candidate. And progressives would indirectly support churches that endorse candidates who are opposed to same-sex marriage.
Recent Comments