“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
Paul Krugman: The Farce Awakens
Erick Erickson, the editor in chief of the website RedState.com, is a serious power in right-wing circles. Speechifying at RedState’s annual gathering is a rite of passage for aspiring Republican politicians, and Mr. Erickson made headlines this year when he disinvited Donald Trump from the festivities. [..]
Still, his response to the attack in Paris was a bit startling. The French themselves are making a point of staying calm, indeed of going out to cafes to show that they refuse to be intimidated. But Mr. Erickson declared on his website that he won’t be going to see the new “Star Wars” movie on opening day, because “there are no metal detectors at American theaters.”
It’s a bizarre reaction — but when you think about it, it’s part of a larger pattern. These days, panic attacks after something bad happens are the rule rather than the exception, at least on one side of the political divide.
Eugene Robinson: From the Vague to the Bombastic: Republican Reactions to Islamic State
The impact of the Paris attacks on the Republican presidential race may turn out to be minimal, especially since the establishment candidates aren’t making any more sense than outsiders Donald Trump and Ben Carson.
Theoretically, a deadly rampage by Islamic State terrorists ought to make Republican voters think twice about presidential hopefuls who have zero experience in government and no expertise in foreign or military affairs. But the contenders who hold or held high office are offering little more than bellicose rhetoric and overblown pledges of toughness. [..]
For the record, Syrian refugees are not “pouring” into the United States. There’s hardly even a trickle: Since the civil war began, slightly more than 2,000 refugees have been admitted. Compare our meager total with the estimated 2 million Syrians taking refuge in Turkey or the hundreds of thousands flooding into Europe. Boosting the number to 10,000 over the next year, as Obama plans, would still mean that the U.S. contribution to alleviating one of the worst refugee crises since World War II doesn’t amount to a drop in the bucket. I could describe in detail the lengthy pre-entry vetting process, which can take up to two years, but why bother? As far as the GOP field is concerned, generosity of spirit is for losers.
Trevor Timm: Paris is being used to justify agendas that had nothing to do with the attack
The aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks has now devolved into a dark and dishonest debate about how we should respond: let’s ban encryption, even though there’s no evidence the terrorists used it to carry out their crime, and let’s ban Syrian refugees, even though the attackers were neither.
It’s hard to overstate how disgusting it has been to watch, as proven-false rumors continue to be the basis for the entire political response, and technology ignorance and full-on xenophobia now dominate the discussion. [..]
There are plenty of questions to ask in the aftermath of the attacks to learn how terrorism can better be prevented in the future. Instead public discourse has veered so far off-course that it’s hard to see when it will return.
Peter Bloom: ‘Terrorism for Dummies’: Clinton’s Neo-Conservativsm Is Simply Dangerous
A supposedly key advantage of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president is her superior knowledge of foreign policy. Conventional political wisdom suggests that her time as Senator and Secretary of State provides her with an edge over her less experienced rivals – in either Party.
This is despite the fact that as a lawmaker she made “the mistake” of voting for the Iraq war and her significant lack of achievements as Secretary. A legitimate question is just how nuanced and progressive Clinton’s global perspective actually is.
Her much heralded recent speech on fighting ISIS reveals her in fact dangerously simplified view of terrorism and international relations. It is one where the world is divided between “good guys” (The US, Europe and its allies) and the “bad guys” (the terrorists and extremists). This reactionary rhetoric may appeal to many Americans but it makes the US and the world much less safe.
Philippe Sands: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/20/nuremberg-trials-global-justice-law
On 20 November 1945, the criminal trial of 23 senior Nazis opened in courtroom 600 of Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice. Hermann Goering, Albert Speer and Hans Frank were among those in the dock for a variety of horrors, in a case that was cobbled together at great speed.
It was a unique moment, the first time in history that individual leaders of a sovereign nation had found themselves before an international criminal court. The day heralded the promise of a new world constructed on the pillars of justice and law, a world that seems as far away as ever in the light of the current situation in Syria and the barbaric events in Paris. [..]
We need no reminding that the wrongs have continued across time and place, by different and terrible means, and continue to make clear that the aspirations reflected in the trial’s opening would not easily be fulfilled by the simple expedient of putting in place new laws and institutions. A glance across our world today reveals the scale of the struggle we face. Impunity reigns. The state of our world suggests that the memory of the past, and the lessons we hoped to learn, have been permitted to slip from view.
Recent Comments