“Punting 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.
Wednesday is Ladies’ Day.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Katrina vanden Heuvel: How Many Times Do the Neocons Get to Be Wrong Before We Stop Asking Them What to Do in Iraq?
an someone explain to me why the media still solicit advice about the crisis in Iraq from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)? Or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)? How many times does the Beltway hawk caucus get to be wrong before we recognize that maybe, just maybe, its members don’t know what they’re talking about?
Certainly Politico could have found someone with more credibility than Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration and one of the architects of the Iraq war, to comment on how the White House might react to the rapidly deteriorating political situation in Iraq today. Certainly New York Times columnist David Brooks knows what folly it is to equate President Obama’s 2011 troop removal with Bush’s 2003 invasion, as he did during a discussion with me last Friday on NPR? [..]
In the current cacophony of Washington, we must remember that there is no equivalence to be drawn between Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq and Obama’s 2011 decision to withdraw U.S. troops. Bush’s invasion, after all, was not just a mistake. At best a fool’s errand, at worst a criminal act, this great blunder helped set the stage for Iraq’s chaos today. The increased sectarian violence stems not from the 2011 withdrawal; rather, it is the fruit of the 2003 invasion, subsequent occupation and much-vaunted “surge” of 2007-08.
Nadya Tolokonnikova: Putin is afraid of any real opposition – just like he was afraid of Pussy Riot
He just conquered Crimea. He has proclaimed himself a unifier. But Vladimir Putin’s meddling in elections is another sign that his power is not as unconditional as he would have you believe
Late last month, Nikolai Lyaskin and Konstantine Yankauskas announced the launch of their candidacies for the Moscow City Duma. They are some of the strongest opposition candidates, and I’ve known them for years. They know how to put up a good fight.
But two days later, their homes were searched and authorities promptly charged the two men with fraud in connection to opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s 2013 mayoral campaign. If convicted, the two may face up to 10 years in prison – but, until then, they can still be elected. Yankauskas, like Navalny, remains under house arrest and is denied communication with the outside world: he’s not allowed any phone calls or even an internet connection. Lyaskin was released pending trial on the condition that he does not leave Russia.
Why would Putin – who just conquered Crimea, who proclaimed himself the unifier of the former land of Russia under the USSR, and who maintains (according to state opinion polls) the support of more than 80% of Russian citizens – be unable to tolerate a little trivial competition (a pair of independent opposition politicians) in even a local election? The answer is simple, and Lyaskin and Yankauskas know it: Putin is afraid of them, just like Putin was afraid of Pussy Riot.
Critics of a foreign policy of ‘neglect’ are still living in George W Bush’s fever dream of rage and fear. The public is fickle, but we’re willing to be patient about war again
Conservative critics of Barack Obama’s foreign policy are right: it’s vague when articulated and contradictory when enacted. He refuses to act decisively and tunes out the rhetorical bravado of foreign leaders. And if the United States is to avoid another round of pointless bloodshed in the Middle East, that’s the kind of foreign policy our country needs right now. Indeed, it’s the one we want. [..]
The terror that has gripped Iraq over the past week is, no doubt, horrific. When militants claim they’ve massacred 1,700 soldiers, it would be foolish not to give yourself options by moving an aircraft carrier here and toughening up an embassy there – which Obama has done, actively, not through “neglect” or “a nap”, as still more critics claimed over the weekend.
But let’s remember the way we got in too deep: it wasn’t by underestimating the threat Iraq posed to US interests, it was by overestimating it.The terror that has gripped Iraq over the past week is, no doubt, horrific. When militants claim they’ve massacred 1,700 soldiers, it would be foolish not to give yourself options by moving an aircraft carrier here and toughening up an embassy there – which Obama has done, actively, not through “neglect” or “a nap”, as still more critics claimed over the weekend.
But let’s remember the way we got in too deep: it wasn’t by underestimating the threat Iraq posed to US interests, it was by overestimating it.
Jessica Valenti: Free speech is a bad excuse for online creeps to threaten rape and murder
Everybody knows about ‘cyberbullying’ and ‘slut-shaming’ by now, but we need modern laws for social-media harassment
Last weekend, a friend of mine was sitting on a park bench when she felt a presence sneaking up from behind – and noticed an older man taking pictures of her exposed back. When she told him to stop, he yelled back at her that it was his “First Amendment right to be a creep”. Little did either of them know that he was articulating the foundation of new legal battle about the internet and, well, the right to be a creep.
The US supreme court announced on Monday that it will hear arguments in a case – Elonis v United States – about whether threats made on social media are protected by free speech. It is a watershed moment for anyone like me who believes that online harassment is often scarier than in-life harassment. When someone catcalls you on the street or says something threatening, you can use your best judgment to ascertain how dangerous he is. When you’re threatened online, you have no way of knowing – and that lack of context is terrifying.Last weekend, a friend of mine was sitting on a park bench when she felt a presence sneaking up from behind – and noticed an older man taking pictures of her exposed back. When she told him to stop, he yelled back at her that it was his “First Amendment right to be a creep”. Little did either of them know that he was articulating the foundation of new legal battle about the internet and, well, the right to be a creep.
The US supreme court announced on Monday that it will hear arguments in a case – Elonis v United States – about whether threats made on social media are protected by free speech. It is a watershed moment for anyone like me who believes that online harassment is often scarier than in-life harassment. When someone catcalls you on the street or says something threatening, you can use your best judgment to ascertain how dangerous he is. When you’re threatened online, you have no way of knowing – and that lack of context is terrifying.
Asta Taylor: Google and Yahoo want to ‘reset the net’. But can it work?
Tech giants are joining forces to attack NSA snooping, but what of the vast data collection that underpins their business model?
Earlier this month non-profit organisations and companies including Google, Mozilla, Yahoo, and Reddit united to organise a day of action called Reset the Net. The event marked the first anniversary of Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Administration’s extensive and illegal dragnet surveillance apparatus.
“Today, we can begin the work of effectively shutting down the collection of our online communications, even if the US Congress fails to do the same,” Snowden wrote in a statement endorsing the campaign. The NSA is not going to stop snooping, but adopting encryption can make the mass collection of personal data more difficult and expensive. Why not put a little sand in the gears of their massive spying machine?
Recent Comments