Center of Attention
Nov 14th, 2007 | 10 responses
A weekly round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.
Writing at Balloon Juice, Michael D. offers an immigration proposal. While that proposal won’t delight everyone, please remember the first half of our screening criterion for CoA, namely: to feature voices that “attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues.” The operative word is, of course, “attempt.” There’s no promise of success or perfection, only effort, which Michael D. clearly makes in this case.
Dyre42 channels Joe Carter on the question, “Who would Jesus waterboard?”
At Think Progress, Matt challenges the recent counterattack made by Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI) against Catholics United.
In the conclusion to a post from his extended Hillary-Might-be-The-Devil portrait, Andrew Sullivan wonders if the Republicans who aided the expansion of executive authority under Bush will be pleased with the potential backlash when HRC (a.k.a, Her Inevitableness) is installed.
Steve Benen encourages liberals-in-love-with-Ron (Paul, that is) to look twice before they buy.
Ed Morrissey steps away from the neo-cons, favoring the cautionary note sounded by Admiral William Fallon re: Iran. Morrisey’s conclusion:
“We have to leave the military option on the table to have diplomacy taken seriously by our enemies, and make no mistake, the Iranian mullahcracy is an enemy of the US. That being said, we can’t simply expect to have even the most surgical of strikes go unanswered, and a shooting war with Iran will have grave implications for Iraq, especially in the Shi’ite south. We need to solidify our gains in Iraq before looking for another adventure — and we need to act in the best interests of our nation while ensuring that we don’t make the Middle East exponentially more explosive than it already is. Admiral Fallon offers some excellent advice in this instance.”
Shay tackles the age-old question, “What is Centrism?”
At A Second Hand Conjecture, Lance summarizes intriguing data relevant to the larger health care reform debate.
I’m no neo-con, but the Republican in me still favors a strong military, and I perhaps too-often give military spending the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, when I first read the title of and intro paragraphs to Shaun Mullen’s post on the Air Force, published last week, I balked. Then I read this article from The Economist, and the corresponding “Leaders” editorial. Now, while I’m still not ready to agree entirely with my respected co-blogger, his argument clearly has more merit than I originally thought. In fact, while Shaun will probably wince at this suggestion, he might just find an unlikely ally in Gen. Petraeus. From the aforementioned “Leaders” editorial:
A new manual on counter-insurgency co-authored by the man now in charge of the war in Iraq, General David Petraeus, overturns the notion that America doesn’t “do nation-buildingâ€. Counter-insurgency, it says, is “armed social workâ€. It requires more brain than brawn, more patience than aggression. The model soldier should be less science-fiction Terminator and more intellectual for “the graduate level of warâ€, preferably a linguist, with a sense of history and anthropology.
Among other things, Jim Wallis is a “social-justice Christian,” i.e., a Christian who believes that ending poverty and expanding civil rights are of far greater importance than debating issues like abortion and homosexuality. Hence, I was surprised to learn of his opposition to certain farm subsidies.
Daniel DiRito offers a fascinating look at “prosperity theology” and “prosperity politics,” and whether or not their marriage of convenience will last.
Random Item of the Week … This post by Michael Bowen probably doesn’t belong in this column, but I enjoyed it (and related to it) and thought you might, too.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Center of Attention”
Pete:
I would not “wince” at being mentioned in the same breath with General Petraeus. In fact, I’m flattered as someone who did his share of KP in the Army.
All in all, Petraeus has done a terric job and is spot on in saying the counterinsurgency is “armed social work.” But every innocent civilian that is taken out in an Air Force strike sets that effort back.
Shaun,
Good to know. My bad for assuming and not checking first. Also, kudo’s on that Air Force post. It definitely forced me to re-think certain assumptions, and that’s one of the reasons I’m proud to be associated with you, other TMV authors, and of course, our readers. All of you challenge my comfort zone.
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt [IMG balancing_act.jpg] A weekly round up of recent commentary by assorted voices who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view. ————————– Writing at Balloon Juice, Michael D. offers an immigration proposal. While that proposal won’t delight everyone, please remember the first half of our screening criterion for CoA, namely: to feat [...]
Related to Rice: Chevron is settling its Food For Oil case. (Go, Shaun, go.)
Oops. Drug testing of the crew that spilled oil in the Bay was delayed and incomplete. (Go, Shaun, go.)
I really dug that except from the evangelical on the use of torture. Especially the part where its use somehow became an actual topic of debate instead of reflexively denounced.
The text from the evangelical deserves a repeat.
Hi Pete — perhaps I’m not understanding or perhaps this line was incorrectly written: “Hence, I was surprised to learn of his opposition to certain farm subsidies.” Isn’t the current farm bill responsible for the glut of cheap corn, cotton, etc, which is here (US) pushing out lots of small-time farmers growing anything else and worldwide negatively affecting farmers of the subsidized goods? Not to mention making the crap corn-based food much cheaper than healthier food? It seems to me very much in the interest of quelling poverty to oppose a lot of the current farm bill. Could you clarify?
Ro,
I was surprised because I have generally made two sets of (admittedly unfair and simplistic) assumptions.
FIRST SET
A) Those who support subsidies for farmers do so because they see it as a form of social justice
B) Those who support social justice would consistently view farm subsidies as good
SECOND SET
A) Opposition to farm-subsidies has been a longstanding cornerstone of the U.S. conversative movement. (Barry Goldwater devoted an entire chapter of Conscience of a Conservative to a tirade on the subject.)
B) If conservatives are generally anti-farm-subsidy, progressives must generally be pro-farm-subsidy.
Hence, what surprised me (in the end) was not so much Wallis’ position, but my own inability to think beyond a very narrow scope. Net: I was ultimately surprised at my own ignorance.
Pete — Thanks for the clarification. I know I have a lot to learn about all sides of the argument as well. My only background with the farm bill is the literature and accompanying hippy talk I acquired while helping out in the gardens of co-op living situations in Berkeley, which is just about as liberal an environment as you can get. My assumption was, therefore, that liberals thought all farm subsidies were bad.
[...] House Center of Attention » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]