“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: It Takes a Policy
U.S. politicians love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy.
And no, I’m not talking about the contrast between public posturing and personal behavior, although this contrast can be extreme. Which is more amazing: the fact that a long-serving Republican speaker of the House sexually abused teenage boys, or how little attention this revelation has received?
Instead, I’m talking about policy. Judged by what we actually do — or, more accurately, don’t do — to help small children and their parents, America is unique among advanced countries in its utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens.
For example, almost all advanced countries provide paid leave from work for new parents. We don’t. Our public expenditure on child care and early education, as a share of income, is near the bottom in international rankings (although if it makes you feel better, we do slightly edge out Estonia.)
Trevor Timm: Obama is bullish on war, no matter how how you spin it
Barack Obama has now been at war longer than any president in United States history, as the New York Times pointed out on Sunday. Barring some sort of peace miracle in the next six months, he will be the only president who ever served two full terms in office while constantly being at war. And given how he has transformed how the US fights overseas, his wars will likely continue long after he leaves office.
Anytime the media writes about Obama and war, it’s apparently a rule that the author must mention that Obama supposedly fights his wars more reluctantly than his predecessors. But in many contexts, this is misleading. Obama hasn’t attempted to avoid war; he has merely redefined it. In some ways, he has fought them in a far more aggressively than any president before him, just with different tools.
Richard (RJ) Eskow: What’s Killing the American Middle Class?
A new study by the Pew Research Center spurred a rash of headlines last week about “the dying middle class.” But the word “dying” might be more appropriate if we were watching the regrettable but inevitable effects of natural forces at work. We’re not. We’re seeing the fruits of deliberate action — and sometimes of deliberate inaction — at the highest levels of power.
The great American middle was never large enough, even at its height. It always excluded too many people — sometimes, shamefully, merely for their skin color. And now, instead of growing and becoming more inclusive, it’s fading away instead.
It’s true that the middle class is dying, but not from natural causes. It’s being killed. What — and, for that matter, who — is responsible for its slow death?
Amana Fontanella-Khan: How Donald Trump emboldens bigots across the world
If there were a United Nations of the global far right, Donald Trump would be its undisputed leader. His message does not just resonate in the forlorn rust-belt towns of rural America: it travels far beyond the country’s shores. It is bigotry without borders.
Consider the incredible prayer session organized for him in New Delhi by a nationalist Hindu group last week. Amid prayer bells, incense and chanting, good wishes fluttered from the Indian capital all the way to the US. A poster made for the occasion declared Trump to be the “hope for humanity”.
Despite his unwavering “America First” nationalism, Trump’s message has struck a chord with the Hindu right because they share a common enemy. Long at odds with religious minorities in the country, it is no surprise that some Hindu nationalists approve of Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration to the United States. “He’s the only man who can put an end to Islamic terrorism”, said Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta. “He is the savior of mankind.”
Michael Brenner: Bush vs. Obama in the War on Terror: The Lawyers
Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House evoked expectations of drastic changes in his predecessor’s approach toward the War On Terror. Civil liberties, in particular, was the area of anticipated reform. Candidate Obama had inveighed against abuses on matters of detention, rendition, and surveillance — among others. Respect for the Constitution and legal process were to be restored. That radical reorientation has not occurred. Instead, we debate the significance of, and reasons for what has been a strategy of pragmatic modification of inherited practices. The debate concentrates mainly on the deliberations among the administration’s lawyers and policy-makers as to the permissible and the acceptable.
A full narrative of that process now has been provided by Charlie Savage’s book, Power Wars. A reflection on the issues raised in an earlier commentary has led to two strong impressions. One is that the higher one goes in the hierarchy the more disingenuous the legal debate becomes. At the White House and in the Attorney General’s office, the paramount question is not one of legality per se; rather, it is: ‘can we get away with skirting the law — and, if so, how should we represent it. Should we strictly obey the law and observe the Constitution or can we maneuver around it?’
Recent Comments