Joe McGinniss sexually demeans Sarah Palin. Again.

Joe McGinniss is back in the news now that his long-promised book about Sarah Palin is coming out. It apparently contains a revelation—which I'm not linking to—involving Palin's pre-marital sex life, from all the way back in 1987. It's unnecessary and disgusting.

 This, of course, is in keeping with McGinniss' overall leering tone about Palin. It seems he takes every opportunity to cast her in a purely sexual light, a literary-political form of slut-shaming that really has no bearing on our political discourse. I can hear people right now responding with shouts of "hypocrisy!" Since Palin has staked her public persona as being a righteous pro-life Christian, it's only fair to point out that she's got a thing for black guys, right? (Don't think that race isn't part of the titilation here.) I don't think so. There's lots of stuff I did—or didn't do—when I was an unmarried 23-year-old that I wouldn't really want to use in shaping public policy debates. People are complicated, and it's a rare person who always acts in accordance with their publicly stated values. And the truth is, we only rarely hear about the pre-marriage, pre-politics randiness of male politicians—and let's be honest, lots of them were dogs. But Sarah Palin is deserving of more salacious treatment ... why?

 I don't like Sarah Palin. I don't like her politics. But as I've said before: Sarah Palin isn't bad for America because she's a woman or because she's an attractive woman—or even because she was once a sexually active woman. Demeaning her on those counts isn't just sexist and mean-spirited, it also misses the point.

Say, who is backing Yemen's government?

A United Nations report published Tuesday says the Yemeni government has used excessive and deadly force against peaceful demonstrators, killing hundreds and wounding thousands since the beginning of the year.

The report, published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, urged immediate international action to alleviate a humanitarian crisis and prevent the country from falling into further chaos.

A delegation sent by the office visited Yemen’s three main cities at the end of June, according to the report, and found “an overall situation where many Yemenis peacefully calling for greater freedoms, an end to corruption and respect for rule of law were met with excessive and disproportionate use of lethal force by the state.”

via nytimes.com

The Times goes on to note: "Initially peaceful protests against the rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who is in Saudi Arabia recovering from injuries he sustained in a bombing of his palace, have been overtaken by an increasingly violent power struggle among government forces, tribal militias and other armed groups, including Islamic militants affiliated with Al Qaeda. The government had lost effective control of sizable areas of the country, including parts of major cities, the United Nations report said."

What the Times doesn't note is that the Yemeni government has had major support from the United States in its battle with the rivals. I don't know that there's direct link between US support and the civilian deaths, but America—in the name of fighting terrorism—is helping prop up a regime that kills civilians. That, of course, is the kind of thing that...creates terrorists.

Whatever you do, do NOT raise taxes on the wealthy

Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1997.

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard.

“This is truly a lost decade,” Mr. Katz said. “We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we’re looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s.”

via nytimes.com

I'm not sure Pennsylvania is a swing state

After all, we haven't actually given our electoral votes to a Republican since 1988. And that was to George HW Bush—who, everybody knows, wasn't really a Republican. If we really were a swing state, I'm pretty sure the state GOP wouldn't be pushing this plan: 

In 2012, after redistricting, Pennsylvania will have 20 electoral votes and 18 congressional districts. Under Pileggi's proposal, each of the districts would elect one presidential elector; the other two would be apportioned on the basis of the popular vote.

Only two other states allocate electoral votes by congressional district, Maine and Nebraska.

Pileggi and other GOP leaders in the legislature, all of whom are expressing support for the effort, argue the proposed new system will more closely reflect the popular will of voters.

And it would! And that's a good thing! Only problem is this is a transparent ploy by Republicans to take electoral votes away from Democrats and give them to Republicans. I can't imagine that the Republican Party in my home state of Kansas, say, would ever back a similar effort in a state that hasn't voted Dem since 1964. Why take the chance of losing one electoral vote for a Republican president?

So I like the idea—a more democratic, "small d" way of allocating electoral votes. But I don't like that it's just happening in Pennsylvania, in a manner designed to disempower Democrats. So do it. But do it nationally. Doing it or not doing it state-by-state is just political hackery under the guise of federalism.

That testosterone study

In Study, Fatherhood Leads to Drop in Testosterone - NYTimes.com: "Testosterone, that most male of hormones, takes a dive after a man becomes a parent. And the more he gets involved in caring for his children — changing diapers, jiggling the boy or girl on his knee, reading “Goodnight Moon” for the umpteenth time — the lower his testosterone drops."

'via Blog this'

Well. Maybe for those other guys.

Afghanistan Quagmire Watch

Once again, I'll remind you that "winning" the war in Afghanistan requires a central government that serves and protects its people. Who said so? Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose 2009 memo pushed President Obama into doubling down on the war there. From the memo:

The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials,and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government. These problems have alienated large segments of the Afghan population. They do not trust GIRoA to provide their essential needs, such as security, justice, and basic services. This crisis of confidence, coupled with a distinct lack of economic and educational opportunity, has created fertile ground for the insurgency. 

...eventual success requires capable Afghan governance capabilities and security forces.

 How's that working out?

KABUL, Afghanistan — Local police forces trained and financed by the United States have killed and raped civilians, stolen land and carried out other abuses against the Afghan villagers they are charged with protecting, according to a report released on Monday by Human Rights Watch. 

The accusations of violence, theft and impunity raise new questions about whether the local police and government-supported militias in Afghanistan, which are meant to play a major role in defending small villages against the Taliban, are instead undermining security at a critical moment for the country and the NATO-led war effort.

We're not winning. This, in fact, is exactly what it means to be losing in Afghanistan. After 10 years, it seems reasonable to ask if it's possible to ever win, or if the cost is reasonable. On the last count, the answer sure seems to be "no."

National Review is for mandatory service—unless Obama is

At National Review today, Col. Kenneth Allard proposes that all young Americans be pressed into a form of national service—or else they lose the privileges of citizenship:

The draft worked well in the 20th century, but in the 21st we need to create a graduated system of national service. The education benefits now granted more or less freely could be tied to the completion of national service after age 18. Each young adult would be required to complete a year of service in return for enjoying the lifetime privileges of American citizenship. Completing that minimum requirement would also determine future eligibility for education benefits.

I do find it intriguing that a publication that editorializes against the health insurance mandate as an unconscionable infringement upon liberty and against the Constitution seems willing to entertain the idea that citizens should be forced to donate their bodies and labor to the government for a year. 

And I'm just old enough to remember when then-Senator Barack Obama proposed an expanded community service program in which young Americans would freely volunteer for 50 or more hours a year and get a $4,000 tax credit in return—nothing mandatory, but very enticing perhaps—NRO's John Derbyshire responded with this headline: Arbeit Macht Frei. That's a phrase best-associated with Nazi concentration camps, of course.

So: Incentives to volunteer? Reminiscent of Naziism. A year of forced labor as a requirement of citizenship? Consistent with liberty! Welcome to National Review's universe.