'Suicide Bomber' Is an Aspirational Category

To: Mickey Kaus
Re: The 'Madrassa Myth' Myth

Here's a theory for why so many suicide bombers are relatively well-off and well-educated: suicide bomber is an aspirational category in the Islamist world. Just as America has a hard time encouraging kids from lower socioeconomic groups to believe they can grow up to be doctors and lawyers, so Islamists have trouble encouraging poor kids to imagine themselves as terrorists. Poverty can be cruel to dreams!

P.S.
The solution, in both cases, is probably social equality. When university-educated terrorists start sending their kids to madrassas, we should worry.

Were You There When They Crucified My Rove?

To: Josh Marshall
Re: The Short and Sweet of It

Karl Rove is the conscience of the Republican Party.

LAT: The Price of Accuracy

To: Mickey Kaus
Re: The Case Against Copy Editors

The LA Times charges $3.95 to read old corrections.

Note: calling Bill O'Reilly 'ultraconservative' was an error of etiquette rather than description, but an inexhaustive survey reveals the paper charges for archived 'For The Record' articles, where corrections appear.

Note #2: If a reporter grants a source adjectival immunity, doesn't he have an obligation - however slight - to inform his readers? If Hilburn had written, 'Bill O'Reilly, who spoke on condition that an adjective not be placed in front of his name...' he would have fulfilled his pledge, skewered O'Reilly, and alerted the copy editor.

Note #3: I didn't spend the $3.95 to see if the correction comes free with the original article. If you want to spring for it, it's here.

The Anonygenie

To: Jack Schafer
Re: Pataki Will Test '08 Winds in Iowa

Adam Nagourney writes:

His associates, who said they would discuss Mr. Pataki's plans only anonymously in deference to his wishes,

Do they mean his wish they speak anonymously, or his wish they not speak at all? The former would be interesting, and the latter make 'deference' inaccurate.

What's Love Got to Do with It?

To: Mickey Kaus
Re: Double Super Secret Balkanization

Since Wilson wrote that he was sent by the CIA, what does his wife's job have to do with casting doubt on his report via the 'CIA are Saddam huggers' theory? It was an ad hominem, meant to suggest he was on vacation, not assignment.

Also, 'exculpatory' is the wrong word, if you're talking about the legal case. Rove can't argue that he was justified (legally) in deliberately outing a covert CIA agent in order to discredit her husband, rather than merely exact childish revenge upon him. And if the White House was 'peddl[ing] the identity' of Wilson's wife -- as opposed to sputtering it in apoplexy at the end of a conversation about welfare reform, say -- doesn't that increase the odds that someone knew what they were doing (i.e. that she was covert)?

Also, don't fall for a lawyer's trick. It's not necessary to literally name someone in order to identify them and hence violate the law. It's possible that the WH leaked 'Wilson's wife' and a reporter was first to say 'Valerie Plame'. That's not exculpatory, either.

Demand-Side Economics & the Perpetual Cash-Flow Machine

To: Daniel Gross
Re: Savings Glut

The special irony of Bush Co. blaming other countries for excessive saving is that, as supply-siders, they've insisted that saving and investment alone produce wealth, and that, therefore, tax cuts should be directed to those most likely to save and invest (i..e. corporations, the rich) rather than those more likely to spend (i.e. the middle class).

I'm sympathetic to demand-side economics, simply because it's less speculative, and speculation is the root of most economic catastrophe, but you need a proper mix, of course. I'm glad Bush Co. finally realizes this, but I don't expect to see it reflected in their policies. Also, this 'mix' is actually a separation-by-country, which means political tension could cause economic disaster, healthy demand or no.

To your followup on corporate savings, I'll add two things:

1) The situation could be described as an overcapacity of capital -- apparently, this is possible -- caused by above-mentioned tax cuts (also, spending via interest-group conservatism), and, therefore, we should wait until this overcapacity is spent down before embarking on further cut-and-spend policies, deficit aside.

2) Corporations aren't literally stowing their cash beneath the boardroom table: directly or indirectly, they're lending it to consumers -- in essence, financing purchases of their own products. No wonder the bankruptcy bill was so popular! There may be a gruesome whine as the perpetual cash-flow machine stops. Then we'll have a lesson in the tragedies of demand-side economics.

In the Long Run, We're All Temporary

To: Paul Krugman
Re: Un-Spin the Budget

You wrote:

It turns out that all of the upside surprise in tax receipts is coming from two sources. One is tax payments from corporations, up both because last year corporate profits grew much more rapidly than the rest of the economy and because the effective tax rate on corporations went up when a temporary tax break, introduced in 2002, expired. Both are one-time events.

You're stretching the meaning of 'one-time event'. The tax break may expire only once, but the new/old rate remains forever; indeed, the depressed rate was the one-time event. And is there any reason to believe that corporate profits will actually decline, rather than increase at the rate of the economy?

Then you wrote:

The other source of increased revenue is nonwithheld income taxes - taxes that aren't deducted from paychecks but are instead paid by people receiving additional, nonsalary income. The bounce in nonwithheld taxes probably reflects mainly capital gains on stocks and real estate, together with bonuses paid in the finance and real estate industries. Again, this revenue boost looks like a temporary blip driven by rising stocks and the housing bubble.

A history of such blips would be enlightening, but might undermine your argument. Didn't a similar blip (the internet bubble) create the surplus whose passing you bemoan? And won't the Next Next Big Thing -- whatever it is -- create another blip in the future? To paraphrase Keynes, in the long run, we're all temporary.

As a long-time admirer, I wish you'd write as rigorously for the Times as you did for Slate. While the Left needs more-effective demagogues, your talent is for analysis.

God Bless America

To: Bruce Reed
Re: What Would George Do?

You wrote:

For a few months after 9/11, the U.S. did just that. Politicians who might earlier have caned one another on the House floor stood together to sing the national anthem on the Capitol steps.

They sang 'God Bless America'. I remember.

As an atheist, on a day when religious fanatics had murdered thousands of Americans, I felt appalled, not inspirited: steamrolled by a vision of not-quite-national unity, and disappointed (gravely so, given the circumstances) that the response to radical Islam was going to be (and I was right) a retreat into Christianity (or Judeo-Christianity, or whatever) rather than Enlightenment.

I'm clearly part of the problem of national disunity. The alternative seems worse. Convince me otherwise!

Advise & Consent: The Clinton-Hatch Example

To: Josh Marshall
Re: Justice O'Connor's Replacement

This passage from Orrin Hatch's autobiography ought to be publicized as widely as possible, in regard to the appointment of the next justice (Kevin Drum recently commented on it. I believe I first saw it mentioned in a Timothy Noah column a couple of years back):

Note: If I had to recommend a conservative, it would be Michael McConnell. He wins megapoints for opposing Bush v. Gore, which was not only good judgement but also evidence he can keep his head in a partisan atmosphere. And he's a shameless intellectual. This is more important than almost anyone allows. It's not just a qualification. He's on 'our team' in a deeper sense than he's on Bush's.

Of course, I share Kaus's view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, & that it would be a good thing for the Democratic Party, and progressive politics generally, if it were.

Those who don't probably want Gonzales, and I think they'll get him. Bush values personal loyalty to a fault, and doesn't mind outraging people with his appointments -- he seems to enjoy a fight (to a fault). Now that he's safely reelected, the Right has no influence over him except the power of persuasion. They may have to start commiserating with liberals over his pig-headedness.

I wouldn't mind Gonzales/McConnell for O'Connor/Rehnquist. It would move the court a little to the right, and improve it intellectually. Garza is my bugaboo, and pretty high-up on Bush's list, unfortunately, as he satisfies the Right's desire to appoint a hack, along with the political desire to appoint a Hispanic.

Judy Garland Played Her in the Film

To: David Edelstein
Re: Entertaining Judy Miller

A film to watch while in prison...

The Wizard of Oz: Naive girl yearning for adventure gets swept up in events beyond her imagination, performs with pluck and courage through terrifying trials, only to find the man behind the curtain is a fraud, and there's no place like home. Judy will relate, and request a transfer to the Metro section.

A Unified Property Theory of Republicanism

To: Mickey Kaus
Re: Location, Location, Location

You wrote:

the fastest-growing states, which you'd think would be states with rapidly appreciating real estate

Not necessarily. Part of the appeal is relatively inexpensive housing. That's what exurbs are: nice houses in the middle of nowhere.

Here's a Unified Property Theory of Republicanism: people bitter they're not elite enough to live in Westchester listening to right-wing talk shows during long commutes to work.