“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.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Trevor Timm: Obama, Republicans and the media concur: it’s time for war with Isis
It’s sounding like the Bush years all over again: the administration and Congress want a war and the media’s happy to cover it as the government prefers
After more than six months of virtually ignoring the fact that the war against Isis was illegal by almost anyone’s standards – given Congress’s cowardly refusal vote on it and the White House’s refusal to ask them first – the Obama administration has finally submitted a draft war authorization against Isis to Congress.
That means the media can go back to doing what it does best: creating a “debate” over how many countries we should invade, without any discussion of how our invasions created the very situation in which we feel we have to contemplate more invasions. It’s like the early Bush years all over again. [..]
And, as New York Times’ Peter Baker noted matter-of-factly on CBS this Sunday: “[the authorization] is not going to change what’s happening on the ground. President Obama has made clear whether it passes or not, he’s going to continue to do the exact same thing.”
The only thing more farcical than the White House’s position is the Republican party’s: after months of hyperbolic grandstanding over Obama’s supposed abuses of executive power when it comes to immigration, health care, net neutrality or anything else, his political opposition has suddenly decided that they won’t agree to pass anything that doesn’t give the president absolutely unlimited authority to engage in a forever war with Isis.
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Fifty Shades Of Austerity: The Germans, The Greeks, And The GOP
Cultural references may seem frivolous in the face of a financial crisis, but the Eurozone’s Greek crisis is at least as much cultural as it is economic in nature. It’s partly an anthropology problem: Europe’s negotiators are under the spell of a German-driven economic cult whose adherents seem willing to disregard empirical data in order to protect its norms and folkways.
From all appearances, Germany’s leaders have leavened their misplaced faith in austerity with some quasi-Puritanical beliefs. For example: that debt and poverty are sins, regardless of cause, and that sin must lead to pain.
The United States has its own austerity cult. We’ve drawn parallels between the German government and the GOP before, but the resemblance grows stronger with every passing week. For these cultists, as for the characters in our nation’s newest hit movie, pain seems to have become an end unto itself.
Going after history classes that don’t teach “American Exceptionalism” is anything but patriotic
Oklahoma House Republicans on the Common Education Committee voted on Tuesday to ban advanced placement US history courses, because they think it shows “what is bad about America”. If I were Oklahoma, I’d want to forget about “what is bad about” American history, too, especially in my corner of it! [..]
Just last month, Education Week gave the state a D- on education and ranked it 48th in the nation. Clearly, Oklahoma could move up from being third dumbest, fourth most incarcerated, and sixth fattest state if it just ignored its unpleasant history, right?
Nationally, if history teachers were to banish everything “bad” about America from our classrooms [..] and to instead only teach about what was truly exceptional about America, what would be left to give lessons on?
Neil Armstrong, Toni Morrison, and the snuggie? [..]
This latest anti-education effort, which will only punish really smart kids (who are the ones who want to earn college history credits while in a high school AP course) came about because Republicans think the coursework doesn’t shill for “American exceptionalism” enough. But why would Oklahoma Republicans – who embrace education “options” – want to rob all of their brightest high school seniors of the choice to inexpensively earn college history credits just because their history lessons may be critical and not necessarily full of pro-American propaganda?
Ted Rall: Obama Destroyed Libya
Barack Obama destroyed Libya.
What he did to Libya is as bad as what Bush did to Iraq and Afghanistan. He doesn’t deserve a historical pass.
When Obama took office in 2009, Libya was under the clutches of longtime dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. But things were looking up.
Bush and Gaddafi had cut a deal to lift Western trade sanctions in exchange for Libya acknowledging and paying restitution for its role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In a rare triumph for Bush, Libya also agreed to give up its nuclear weapons research program. Libyan and Western analysts anticipated that Gaddafi’s dictatorship would be forced to accept liberal reforms, perhaps even free elections and rival political parties, in order to attract Western investment.
Libya in 2009 was prosperous. As citizens of a major oil – and natural gas-exporting nation, Libyans enjoyed high salaries, low living expenses, generous social benefits, not to mention law and order. It seems like a mirage today.
Cenk Uygur: You Know You’re a Bigot When…
You know you’re a bigot when you can’t take out the word “Muslim” from a sentence you stated and replace it with “Jew” and still have it be socially acceptable. Let’s start out nice and easy. A sentence I get with great regularity:
“You’re a Muslim apologist.”
Ok, let’s try our simple test here:
“You’re a Jew apologist.”
Wow, that sounded ugly, didn’t it? Wait, let’s be fair and phrase it slightly differently and see if it gets any better:
“You’re an apologist for the Jews.”
Nope, that wasn’t any better.
So, why are you obviously bigoted when you say it about Jewish people and not equally bigoted when you say it about Muslims? It’s partly because there are very few people in America ready to stick up for Muslims. That’s, ironically, because they will be called Muslim apologists.
Robert L, Borosage: The Case for a Populist Challenger in the Democratic Primaries
A raft of reasons are floated for why someone should challenge the prohibitive favorite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries, most of them spurious. Yes, polls show Democrats want a contest, not a coronation for their presidential nomination. The press and talking heads also yearn for a contest, if only to have something to cover. But this doesn’t justify a run.
Contrary to many pundits, Hillary (first name used as shorthand to distinguish her from her husband) doesn’t need a primary contest to get her campaign in shape. She’s already been central to three presidential campaigns, as underdog, incumbent and, disastrously, overwhelming favorite. She has every high-priced operative in the party. If she doesn’t know how to put together a campaign by now, an upstart challenger won’t help. [..]
There are two compelling reasons for a populist challenger to get in the Democratic primaries: a fundamental debate about the direction of the country has only just begun and must be expanded, and a growing populist movement would benefit from a populist challenge to Hillary.
Recent Comments