I'm going to list two. One is the Supreme Court case on the Voting Rights Act.
The other is another month of reduced casualties in Afghanistan. Only one coalition death in Afghanistan in February, an American; that means there have been 9 coalition deaths, 4 of them Americans, so far this year. Last year through February there had been 59 coalition troop deaths, including 42 Americans. Remember, fighting in Afghanistan is seasonal, so there's every reason to expect that casualties will rise in the spring. Still, it's a pretty dramatic drop, worth noting just for itself as well as what it suggests about the future.
What didn't matter? Oh, you knew I was going to say the Bob Woodward flap. You are correct.
That's what I have. What do you think mattered this week?
I'm going with the sequester's onset. It might not shock people, but the people it will affect are predominantly in the beltway, so the volume might get turned up pretty loud.
ReplyDeleteAlso the beginning of spring training and WBC is a welcome change, not sure it matters but it was getting pretty boring there for a bit.
I agree with the sequester, which will assume more importance as the year goes on, if it stays in place. It is not my understanding however that it will affect people predominantly in the beltway, but the opposite.
DeleteThe oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act case--and especially a certain racist comment by a Justice--were important, but will assume more or less importance depending on the final judgment.
Washington dc and Virginia are where most govt employees are. Hence, where most layoffs will be.
DeleteI'd put Scalia on the "doesn't matter" side. He's certainly offensive but he's always been that way.
Fair point; the case is important, but the oral arguments probably not very much so.
DeleteThe Keystone pipeline approval.
ReplyDeleteThe Keystone pipeline has not been approved, nor is that decision likely for several months. What happened this week was a State Department study that raised no environmental objections according to its mandate, which Iunderstand was the same conclusion as the last time--when the pipeline was not approved.
DeleteRepublicans have embraced something resembling spending cuts. Perhaps it’s just a temporary tactical maneuver, but it’s still notable that they seem to be happy enough with the previously unthinkable defense cuts. I’d call that progress.
ReplyDeleteAnd who could forget our Vice President’s latest self-defense tip?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door
It happened a little while ago, but I'd like to add to Couves' thread the tragedy of Pistorius, a man who was trying to defend his home with a handgun.
DeleteBut anon, you have to admit, if he wasn’t trying to kill his girlfriend and there really were a dangerous intruder in his bathroom, Biden's advice would be looking pretty good right about now.
DeleteCouves, you don't see. His story is that he woke up, hearing noises in the dark, grabbed a gun and fired without knowing who or what he was aiming at. He says he killed the woman he loved by accident.
DeleteIt's not a hypothetical, it's not advice, it's another gun tragedy. More guns = more death.
I'm the anon who wants you to come to reality when talking about guns, remember? We go over this every week. It's not about talking points. It's about balancing rights and public safety.
DeleteAnon, please excuse my confusion... But if you want me to automatically know who you are, you're going to have to pick a name.
DeleteBased on what I've heard about this case, it looks like murder to me. But let's assume that you're right -- this is a perfect real world example of how dangerous Biden's latest self defense advice is. Pistorius shot through a door at someone who he could not identify and who was not threatening him in any way. His actions were unlawful, reckless and extremely stupid... with predictably tragic consequences.
The point is, if Democrats were really concerned about accidental gun deaths, then they should be troubled by the advice that Joe Biden has been giving out.
VAWA mattered, of course. I thought it was smart timing by Boehner; tea party conservatives were throwing him accolades for holding fast on the sequester, so they were too busy to hammer him too hard on VAWA. At any rate, thank God it's finally passed.
ReplyDeleteThe sequester was an unnecessary and counterproductive blow to the economy. Economists estimate that it will slow growth by 0.5%. That doesn't sound like much, but growth last quarter was recently upgraded to 0.1%, which doesn't really leave a lot of room. Estimates are that 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs could be lost. Negative growth means reduced revenues and thus adds to the deficit.
ReplyDeleteA bit of trivia that I learned this week, although it happened earlier: the added income of the top 1% in 2011 was equivalent to 103% of the total economic growth of that year. That means that the income of the "bottom 99%," as a whole, shrank.
Sorry, seems it was 2010, not 2011.
Deletehttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/50869470
Given the allegations of torture and disappearance of Afghan civilians during February, not sure how much comfort we can take in the reduction in coalition casualties. After all, allegations such as this, if true, do not bode well for future coalition casualties.
ReplyDeleteStrongly disagree with that last point. I'm convinced that Obama (and the other allies) are getting out, more or less regardless.
DeleteWhether that's a good thing or not is obviously open for debate. As is the entire Obama record in Afghanistan, including the casualties coming in the next two years, which even if they're reduced will still be quite a few. But I'm pretty sure that the war is ending for the US.
There's still no proposal by the Republicans to improve infrastructure, increase research funding, or create jobs.
ReplyDeleteAnd it still matters.
+1
DeleteI don't know about ever hoping that a Republican will suggest such a thing. But a more important point is that as long as Republicans, with Democratic help/acquiescence, are creating a series of crisis-deadlines over deficit reduction and debt reduction defined as spending cuts, Democrats aren't talking most prominently about jobs and public investment. There's a March 27 deadline, then a May/June debt-ceiling deadline, then fall appropriation bills, etc. The GOP is well on their way to making the entire year be filled with discussion of spending cuts.
Point being, it doesn't even matter if Republicans get their way ultimately. As long as their concerns are driving debate, then no non-Republican concern is getting sufficient airtime and leverage.
DeleteOkay, then, we'll revise that to a lack of a group succeeding in drawing public attention to the need for infrastructure, research and jobs investment.
DeleteIf you are already exhausted with the sequester like me, James Fallows pointed out that we are coming up to the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. I really like his idea of some of the liberal hawks that supported the war look back.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/as-we-near-the-10th-anniversary-of-the-iraq-war/273504/
(Different Brian here): I'll point to steady progress with California's cap and trade auction system, announcing the second auction hit at the expected price level - enough to incentivize change and finance other efforts, but not so much as to cause economic disruption. This increases the chance that other states/Canadian provinces will join in.
ReplyDelete