Meanwhile, Back in Philly

Glad to see the ballot questions easily won. Businesses that want city contracts are going to have to pay their employees a decent wage, and they'll be required not to discriminate against gay employees. And that's as it should be: there's no reason my tax dollars should be subsidizing discrimination or enabling companies to keep their employees poor. If the contracts are worth it - and I'm guessing they will be - good behavior will be worth it to those companies.

Will the GOP Really Cut Spending?

Jonah Goldberg:

"To listen to all of the liberals on CNN and MSNBC tonight, the most outrageous position you can hold is opposition to raising taxes. To listen to Maddow, Spitzer, et al., raising taxes is simply what all non-extremists think is necessary, even decent. Cutting spending? Well, that’s foolish."

Not so much foolish as "unprecedented." Republicans have always cut taxes; they've never had it within them to cut government spending enough to balance the budget on its own. And that's fine! The reason they don't is because those spending programs have constituencies!

I don't think British-style austerity measures would be beneficial to the economy or to the American people, really, but you've got to respect what the UK government has done: It has promised big cuts and delivered them, in a serious attempt to balance the budget. The Republicans have not told us how they would balance the budget. I don't expect them to make any serious attempt.

Depressed, Liberals? Give Thanks for Kentucky's Gay Mayor

I can't get too depressed that the GOP is taking over the House of Representatives. Not my favorite thing, but I'm confident that gridlock will carry the day. Some of my liberal friends are feeling depressed, though, so I'd like to point them to this:

"Kentucky’s second-largest city has elected an openly gay man as its next mayor. Vice-Mayor Jim Gray was victorious tonight in his second campaign for the city’s top job, beating incumbent Mayor Jim Newberry."

Now, Lexington is a university town ... sort of. (I kid!) It's just one of two Kentucky counties that Obama won in 2008. But with those caveats out of the way: Hey! One of Kentucky's largest cities just elected a gay man as mayor!

It's not much. Maybe even not enough. But I think it's a sign that, despite whatever losses Democrats and liberals are taking at the polls tonight, the culture is slowly but surely sliding to the left in some important and very meaningful ways. Congratulations to Jim Gray.

Rand Paul Successfully Does Not Insult Jewish People

David Frum Tweets:

Re Rand Paul: notice no attacks on Federal Reserve, no coded attacks on Jews ... he's going national.

I guess I should feel encouraged that subtle anti-Semitism must be abandoned if one wants a voice at the national table. But something about this Tweet doesn't make me feel encouraged.

Did Bush Almost Drop Cheney?

New York Times:

"President George W. Bush considered dumping Vice President Dick Cheney from his 2004 reelection ticket to dispel the myths about Mr. Cheney’s power in the White House and “demonstrate that I was in charge,” the former president says in a new memoir."

Wait for it...

"The idea came from Mr. Cheney..."

OK, then.

Sarah Palin Endorses Tom Tancredo

Sigh....:

"In Colorado, Sarah Palin's voice is making thousands of robo-calls, as the former Alaska governor made a last-minute endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Tom Trancedo (who was deemed too conservative for the Bush White House)"

Seems the Palin is firmly casting her lot with nativist demagoguery. I'm starting to suspect she doesn't have any real criteria for her endorsements, save the "maverickyness" of the candidate in question.

Republicans Don't Really Care About the Deficit

Jonathan Chait does the history:

"It's so clear cut that Democrats care more about reducing deficit than Republicans that the more interesting question is why this is even a matter of debate. We don't, after all, debate which party cares more about regulating greenhouse gasses or keeping low marginal tax rates -- and the evidence on those issues is no more ambiguous than the evidence on the question of who cares more about deficits"

I Don't Usually Agree With Ramesh Ponnuru

But I think he's a pretty honest guy.

Making Street Harassment Illegal?

New York is considering a bill that, essentially, would make it illegal for construction workers (among others) to whistle at women walking down the street. I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the idea. But I'm a dude, and I don't really ever have to deal with this:

in its less extreme, and probably more common forms, street harassment takes a seemingly innocuous tone -- "smile, beautiful," or "hello, gorgeous," comments I'm willing to bet nearly every city-dwelling woman has heard. That tone, which in a normal situation could be taken as complimentary, might lead some to misunderstand the point, as they do in the video above. Some of those interviewed wondered whether some women enjoy being talked to on the street, and regard it as a pick-me-up on a bad day. But it's less about whether anyone enjoys it, and why; it's that men who shout at women, regardless of what they say, are claiming public territory in a way that asserts control. I've lived in many different neighborhoods in New York and now live in D.C., where I regularly run along city streets, and I've heard the full range of talk from men. The fact of it -- and the fact that being shouted at by men is not a possibility but a certainty -- is inherently hostile and all seems designed, unconsciously or not, to make me feel not as though these men want to talk to me but that they have a right to.

I used the construction worker example, incidentally, because I'd seen the stereotype depicted for years on TV and in movies. It wasn't until I moved to Philadelphia, though, that I actually witnessed construction workers calling out to attractive women passing by on the streets. I confess: I don't get it. Do these guys think that's actually a way to get laid? (I have the same question about Brett Favre sending pictures of his penis to an attractive woman?) Two possibilities exist: They do think it'll help them get laid, in which case they're just stupid. Or they don't think so, and they really are just harassing women in a public space. If that's the case, what's to be done? I'm not inclined to criminalize every uncomfortable interaction in the public sphere, but this is ridiculous.

Can We Stop Talking About Christine O'Donnell?

This is embarrassing:

"Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell didn't get too much national media coverage before upsetting the Republican establishment and winning the Delaware primary in September. But since then, O'Donnell's been all over the news—confirming she's not witch, questioning the separation of church and state, appearing in newly surfaced 'Politically Incorrect' clips from the late '90s, and starring in a salacious Gawker story."

Of course, O'Donnell has never been within striking distance of actually winning the Senate seat -- which means all the bloviating outside of Delaware about her witchiness, weirdness and sex life was just a distracting sideshow. Which we're used to getting from the media, granted, but it's still a shame and waste of limited coverage resources.

The 10 Most Obscure American Wars

An interesting list from Tom Ricks.

Zachary Chesser: One More Problem With Stateless Terrorism

Interesting Washington Post article on the Virginia kid convicted of threatening the "South Park" guys for their portrayal of Mohammed:

"While much about what prompted Chesser's transformation remains a mystery, he illustrates a growing phenomenon in the United States: young converts who embrace the most extreme interpretation of Islam.

Of the nearly 200 U.S. citizens arrested in the past nine years for terrorism-related activity, 20 to 25 percent have been converts, said Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. More than a quarter have been arrested in the past 20 months."

This is why I find demography worrywarts like Mark Steyn somewhat nonsensical. His idea is that extreme Islam will eventually be ascendant because of the birth rates of Middle Eastern immigrants in the West. But radical fundamentalism isn't embedded in anybody's DNA: It's an idea that people are free to consider, accept or reject. Thanks to the Internet, we can't really quarantine that idea, so we should be spending more time and effort trying to counter it. Sure we need to arrest and, occasionally, kill those who threaten America. But we need to take a look at these converts and figure out the attraction of violent fundamentalism. And then we need to find a compelling counterargument. It won't always work, but it might work enough to save a few lives.

Does a GOP Win Mean Unions Lose?

Probably not. We have to get all the way to the end of this times story about labor fears of a GOP-controlled House to get this paragraph:

"Mr. Samuel predicted that labor could stop any Republican legislative offensive. “When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, they tried to roll back 60 years of labor protections for workers, but we fought them to a stalemate,” he said. “If the Republicans attempt that again, I think this story will repeat itself.”"

Well, of course! Tomorrow, Democrats will still probably control the Senate -- albeit by a narrower, more easily filibustered margin. They'll also still control the White House. What this means is that unions will find it nearly impossible to advance their agenda -- but union-busting Republicans really won't have much room to run, either. It'll be gridlock, for better and for worse.

The Problem With Stateless Terrorism

Is that this kind of stuff will only work for so long:

"On Monday, Germany, France and Britain said they had banned cargo shipments from Yemen, following a similar move by the United States. Britain prohibited passengers from carrying printer cartridges aboard flights, and Germany halted passenger flights from Yemen as well."

Remember, we're at war in Afghanistan to keep Al Qaeda from re-establishing a foothold there. We're not invading Yemen, but it's clear we have stepped-up military operations there. And now we're going to isolate the country. Each small step, I think, makes sense on its own -- but the accumulation of steps appears to be that we''ll either be bombing or quarantining most countries where Al Qaeda decides to constitute itself for a time, with each act of defensive-minded aggression and isolation serving to isolate the Muslim world from the West. Not incidentally: That's what Osama bin Laden wants! I'm not sure how one constructs a strategy to use a fly swatter on Al Qaeda wherever it happens to be instead of clamping a lid down on the whole Middle East, but the current process doesn't seemed destined to serve our security or cultural interests over the long-term.

Afghanistan Quagmire Watch

New York Times:

"In Khogeyani, a volatile area southwest of the capital, the entire police force on duty Monday morning appears to have defected to the Taliban side. A spokesman for the Taliban said the movement’s fighters made contact with the Khogeyani’s police force, cut a deal, and then sacked and burned the station. As many as 19 officers vanished, as did their guns, trucks, uniforms and food."

We're not winning.

It's Election Day!

One of my shortcomings as a politically oriented blogger is that I find the whole horse-raciness of today rather exhausting. I'm going to go vote, but I'm going to leave the rest of it to the wisdom of the electorate. Tomorrow, we'll start to figure out what it all means for the governance of America going forward.

Fred Barnes Compares Apples and Oranges

See if you can spot the sleight of hand:

"Yes, the economy is always a factor in elections. But a wretched economy doesn't automatically doom Washington's ruling party to disaster in a midterm election. Since World War II, the average midterm loss by the president's party is 24 House and four Senate seats. In 1982, despite a deep recession and joblessness above 10%, Republicans lost only 26 House seats and none in the Senate. The difference between 1982 and today is that President Reagan's policies—cutting spending and taxes, firing striking air-traffic controllers—were popular."

Perhaps. Of course, in 1982, the president's party was already in the minority in the House -- the GOP lost 26 House seats out of 192. That was a significant blow to a party that was, frankly, already weak in the House. "Only" 26 seats is a more serious loss than Barnes portrays it. Wonder why he doesn't explain that context?

Probably because he's wrong about his central thesis, which is that voters don't really care about the economy -- they care about Obama's liberal overreach. But I'd wager my right thumb that if Obama had done everything he'd done and employment was hovering around 5 percent, we wouldn't see the Democratic losses we'll see on Tuesday. Voters care about results more than anything else.

Cliff May's Confusion About the Left

Cliff May, conservative, writes at National Review:

"Call me crazy but I like it when left-of-center editorialists agree with me."

He then goes on to cite to columns -- one by Fred Hiatt, the other by David Broder -- that make a point similar to his own. Broder, of course, is synonymous with unthinking centrism; Hiatt, of course, was one of the Iraq War's biggest cheerleaders on major mainstream op-ed pages. If these guys are "left of center," then May may not have a good idea where the center actually is.

David Carr on Jon Stewart and the Media

I agree with David Carr on this, but only a little bit:

"I enjoy Mr. Stewart in his regular seat where he is less reasonable, less interested in obvious targets and less willing to suggest that all political ideas and movements are like kindergartners, worthy of understanding and respect if only the media would get out of the way. His barrage against the news media Saturday stemmed from the fact that, on this day, attacking the message would have been bad manners, so he stuck with the messengers."

It's true the "Rally to Restore Sanity" seemed oddly lacking in a point-of-view -- something you can't usually say about "The Daily Show." But it's too easy for journalists to take the "oh he's just blaming the messengers" route in examining the state of our country's affairs. Stewart's done a first-rate job of analyzing and exposing how cable news trafficks in sensationalism and false equivalencies -- the words "breaking news" have become incredibly devalued over the last decade.

Carr knows that, but points out: "In even a good news night, about five million people take a seat on the cable wars, which is less than 2 percent of all Americans." No big deal, in other words. But: walk into any congressman or senator's office -- or hell, walk into the White House -- and you'll more-than-likely find a TV turned on to Fox or MSNBC or (less likely) CNN. In some cases you'll find all three. Bizarrely, it's cable TV that is shaping the elite's view of the public discourse, and the elite returns the favor by going on cable TV around the clock to yell and call names. Karl Rove isn't on Fox every week because it's unimportant.

Reducing the cable TV audience to its numbers also ignores the multiplier effect: the opinions that viewers form in response to their TVs are the opinions they share with their family, friends and neighbors. It's why Glenn Beck, whose audience isn't that large in relation to the national population, is such an outsized influence in Tea Party circles. Or think about Rick Santelli's famous "Tea Party" rant: Who the hell ever heard of Rick Santelli before that rant? Can you even measure CNBC's audience? And yet who would deny that rant had a catalyzing effect in propelling the creation of the Tea Party movement? And do you think, say, Mike Castle or Ron Wyden think that movement was negligible in their own election losses?

Carr's right: we shouldn't rush to blame the media for problems that exist independently of them. But we can blame the media -- and cable TV in particular -- for normalizing screaming polarization: It's what sells best! Carr lets the messengers off too easily.

Philly Makes Me Sad

There's about three things wrong with this headline:

Boy, 15, shot in 2:30 a.m. bar fight:

"A 15-year-old boy was shot and critically wounded early today during a dispute inside a bar in North Philadelphia, police said.

Police said the youth got into an argument with a young man about 2:30 a.m. inside the El Callejon II bar at North Second Street and West Indiana Avenue in the Fairhill section."