Thursday, October 19, 2006

19 Oct 2006 03:42 pm

Kuo's Democratic Parallel

This reader makes a good point:

The perfect parallel to the Kuo and Christianism post is the Democrats' treatment of blacks the past 30 years. I'm sure senior staff in the Clinton administration would roll their eyes at the antics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and call them 'the nuts'. But when election time rolled around play 'race card' and poverty pimp games to gin up African-American turnout.

Gays too. But neither gays nor African-Americans believe that their various issues are all God's will, in the way Christianists do. What you have with Christianism is the worst of liberal special interest group politics with the worst of Republican intolerance and rigidity.

19 Oct 2006 03:05 pm

Free Speech on Campus

You cannot even put a Dave Barry quote on your office door at Marquette university? Perhaps it has something to do with the message:

"As Americans, we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."

That's "patently offensive"? It's funny and too often true.

19 Oct 2006 02:15 pm

The View From Your Window

Forest Hill, Maryland, 6 pm.

19 Oct 2006 01:59 pm

YouTube of the Day

Vernon Robinson, the Republican candidate responsible for this disgraceful ad, self-immolates on cable television. Even Hannity cannot rescue him.

19 Oct 2006 01:45 pm

The End of Multiculturalism?

The British Labour government wants Muslim immigrants to integrate, not separate. It's something of a volte-face. The Telegraph comments here. Some of you have argued that my opposition to public school teachers wearing the full, face-covering veil is contrary to my generally laisser-faire approach to cultural and social issues. But the distinction in the case of a public school teacher is obvious: in representing the state, and doing a job paid for by the government, you are obliged to follow the rules. One of those rules is that teachers should be able to explain fully what they are teaching, which is somewhat hard when everything but a small slit for your eyes is covered. Dress codes in public offices are not an infringement of freedom. We require many public officials to wear uniforms. No one is suggesting making wearing the chador illegal. What many are urging is an attempt to discourage meretricious cultural separatism. I see no problem with that.

19 Oct 2006 01:28 pm

Kuo and Christianism

A reader challenges me:

During the past week I became dimly aware of the Kuo book, but only from skimming over posts about it on your blog and the Corner, etc. I heard him interviewed on Fresh Air tonight and got up to speed on the theme of his book. I'll take him at face value - he seemed like a straight shooter.

The thing I was most struck by is that the gist of what he said amounts to a strong contradiction to your thesis that the Christianists are running the White House, Congress, and the Republican party in general. His main point is that the White House doesn't take the religious people seriously and mostly just uses them for political purposes. That's pretty unseemly, but it also suggests that you're wrong to think that a bunch of fundamentalists have the Republican party in their collective pocket.

The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes that Christianist dominance of the GOP policy agenda and cynical exploitation of it by party operatives are mutually exclusive phenomena. They're not. What Kuo is arguing, it seems to me, is that the base is genuinely committed to Republican politics for their own religious reasons, and that the party leadership sees this - or, simply by using it, came to see it - as a political tool and lever to win elections. And so cynicism crept in at the top and rage built at the bottom. And each reinforced the other. In fact, if the base weren't sincere it would be impossible for the elite to condescend to them.

But have the Christianists gotten nothing from this deal? Kuo's case is that not enough federal money was shoveled into their coffers. He was expecting an $8 billion bonanza - and got one percent of what Bush promised. But we also have the following set of facts: a party platform committed to criminalizing all abortions (including rape and incest) and banning legal same-sex unions by federal constitutional amendment; unprecedented federal and presidential intervention in the Terri Schiavo case; advancement of Christianist activist judges at all federal and many state levels; 39 states where same-sex unions are banned or gutted; the promotion of religion as science in the classroom; a federal ban on funding for stem cell research; restrictions on Plan B contraception; explicitly religious appeals by political leaders like Tom DeLay; a stepped-up federal war on state medical marijuana decisions; a concerted effort to withdraw Catholic communion from many Democratic politicians; and sectarian worship within the Armed Forces. Have Christianists overhauled the entire country? Of course not. Have they had unprecedented access to power and influence? Ask James Dobson and Jerry Falwell who gets to vet Supreme Court Justice nominees. Have the Christianists been bamboozled? To some extent, yes. But the radicalism of their agenda is self-limiting in a diverse, liberal society. There was simply no way that their cherished constitutional amendments could leap the hurdles the founders set for such drastic changes in one presidential term. But in the long term, the foundations have been laid - in organization, structure and policy. The shift in the judiciary is palpable - and would become far more permanent with another presidential term.

I think of the GOP and Christianists as being in an alliance of mutual use and abuse. After a while, who is using whom can become blurry. Both would be better off, in my view, with a lot more clear sky between them.

19 Oct 2006 12:39 pm

Republicans and Pork

Here's another handy graph when people like Rush Limbaugh start telling you that today's GOP is conservative. He's lying. This graph is from the Heritage Foundation, which, last time I checked, was conservative. And don't be deceived by the reduction of earmarks in 2006. As Heritage explains:

There were more earmarks in 2005 than from 1991 to 1999 combined. Although the number of earmarks went down in 2006, their cost increased $6 billion in one year - from $23 billion in 2005 to $29 billion in 2006.

19 Oct 2006 11:30 am

Quote for the Day

"All conservatism begins with loss.

If we never knew loss, we would never feel the need to conserve, which is the essence of any conservatism. Our lives, a series of unconnected moments of experience, would simply move effortlessly on, leaving the past behind with barely a look back. But being human, being self-conscious, having memory, forces us to confront what has gone and what might have been. And in those moments of confrontation with time, we are all conservatives...

The regret you feel in your life at the kindness not done, the person unthanked, the opportunity missed, the custom unobserved, is a form of conservatism. The same goes for the lost love or the missed opportunity: these experiences teach us the fragility of the moment, and that fragility is what, in part, defines us...

Human beings live by narrative; and we get saddened when a familiar character disappears from a soap opera; or an acquaintance moves; or an institution becomes unrecognizable from what it once was. These little griefs are what build a conservative temperament. They interrupt our story; and our story is what makes sense of our lives. So we resist the interruption; and when we resist it, we are conservatives," - "The Conservative Soul," Chapter One.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

18 Oct 2006 11:51 pm

Please Stop

Well, I asked for it. I now have well over a hundred 80s videos to sift through. (And a book to promote; and a blog to write; and two columns due.) Thanks much. But I can't watch any more! Results as soon as I'm able.

18 Oct 2006 10:48 pm

Rush vs Glenn

Instapundit is making the right enemies.

18 Oct 2006 09:43 pm

Quote for the Day

"I remember a time when, following an event of international significance, the world would wait to hear what the president of the United States had to say about it. In Britain we would have an impatient few hours before America had woken up. Because until the President had spoken, you couldn't be sure of even the shape of what might happen next.

On Monday we woke to the news of North Korea's nuclear test, and to a banal commentary of people who didn't really know what to say about it. Just when you wanted some real insight and even facts, the [BBC radio] Today programme again indulged its tiresome obsession with Iraq, focusing upon whether Tony Blair's actions there had made this move by Kim Jong Il more likely blah blah. That didn't surprise me. What did was my instinctive reaction when George W. Bush did speak much later in the day. There he was gravely intoning on one or other news channel that this "constitutes a threat to international peace and security", and "Oh sod off" I heard myself muttering, with no desire to hear any more. It was as much ennui as irritation: I didn’t believe he would have anything useful to say and found it faintly annoying that he spoke as though the world would care.

One reaction from a completely insignificant voice in the political process. Yet it reveals, I think, a sad truth: the 43rd President of the United States of America has squandered the political authority of a great country," - Alice Miles, The Times of London.

18 Oct 2006 09:30 pm

How The GOP Can Win

Mike Allen explains it all for you.

18 Oct 2006 09:01 pm

C.S. Lewis and Sexual Sin

He wasn't obsessed with it, as a reader reminds me:

Note one important corollary [about Lewis' distinction between civil and religious marriage]: Lewis wouldn't have regarded such a distinction as permissible if he thought that "non-Christian marriage" and relatively easy divorce was a really serious sin, any more than he regarded, say, murder or thievery as morally permissible for non-Christians. The same thing is true of his attitude toward homosexuality - as far as I can determine, he mildly disapproved of it but was simply too morally sane to regard it as a serious sin:

"I have never been able to understand how sexually normal people can regard homosexuals with anything other than a kind of bewildered pity."

We don't need the pity, but this is certainly infinitely more agreeable than self-righteous hatred. And in the chapter of his autobiography dealing with the year he spent in a horrendous private school that he calls "Belsen", he notes that the top-ranked bullies had an accompanying set of catamites - and then talks at some length about how this was the only sign of genuine human affection that existed in the place, and points out that there are infinitely worse sins.  (He wrote this in the Britain of 1958.)

18 Oct 2006 08:25 pm

K-Lo and Mitt

Hold the vapors. And watch the swoon.

18 Oct 2006 07:31 pm

Republicans and Spending

Here's a graph that helps illustrate the astonishing leap in federal spending under the Bush Republicans. It's from the conservative think-tank, the Heritage Foundation. There are more helpful graphs here. Note that in the 1990s, spending plateaued and even fell slightly. As soon as Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress, it took off. Whatever else these people are, they are not fiscal conservatives.

18 Oct 2006 07:19 pm

YouTube of the Day

It's South Park's version of the anti-immigrant campaign ad I posted yesterday. "They took our jobs!"

18 Oct 2006 07:07 pm

Goldwater vs Bush

A reader writes:

I saw your interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span last night. I think if Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were alive to have seen it, they would have been cheering you on. They would have been saying, he has got it. He understands us, in contrast to President Bush who does not. In fact, they would be saying George Bush is not even close to understanding what it means to have a Conservative Soul.

There are more anti-Bush conservatives out there than you'd think. At least judging from my email in-tray.

18 Oct 2006 06:51 pm

Bush on Waterboarding

Someone finally asked the president directly about a torture technique he has personally authorized - waterboarding. A member of the MSM did it - Bill O'Reilly. Money quote:

O'REILLY: Now Brian Ross of ABC said — reported the CIA water boarded Mohammed. That is dunked him in water, tied him down and then that broke him. Is that true?

BUSH: We don't talk about techniques. And the reason we don't talk about techniques is because we don't want the enemy to be able to adjust. We're in a war.

O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

But what the American people need to know is we've got a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people. And we've used it to stop attacks.

The intelligence community believes strongly that the information we got from the detainee questioning program yielded information that made America safer, that we stopped attacks.

Secondly, the courts. Yes, I believe that it was necessary to have military tribunals because I ultimately want these people to be tried. And it took a while to get these tribunals in place.

The Supreme Court ruled that the president didn't have the authority to set up these courts on his own, that he needed to work with Congress to do so. And we did.

What's interesting about these votes that took place in the Congress is the number of Democrats that opposed questioning people we've picked up on the battlefield. And I think that's an issue that they're going to have to explain to the American people.

Good for O'Reilly. Bush's answer is, of course, preposterous. If al Qaeda is not aware that its members could be waterboarded by the CIA, then it has not had access to the Internet for a very long time. Notice also the abuse of English by this president. Here's his description of torture: "questioning people we've picked up on the battlefield." It's a direct lie on many levels. Many of those we have tortured were not on any battlefield. Many in Gitmo are innocent and many have been released as innocent. Secondly, we have moved from the plain English "torture" to "coercive interrogation techniques" to mere "questioning." This is simply lying. If the president were asking for the right merely to question detainees, there would be no debate at all. But he isn't. And we all know that, don't we? Even those who support the president on this have to concede he's lying, right?

18 Oct 2006 06:43 pm

Heads Up

I have three looming talks/book signings. Tomorrow, I'll be reading, debating and signing books at Borders, 1801 K Street NW, in Washington D.C. at 6.30 pm. On October 21, I'll be at the Wisconsin Book Festival, reading and signing at 1.30 pm, at the Memorial Union Theater, 800 Langdon Street, Madison, Wisconsin. And I'll be at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs at the James Hotel in Chicago on October 23 at 5.30 pm. Then on to LA for Bill Maher's show.

Don't forget you can get a signed copy if you email a request to theconservativesoul@gmail.com. And don't forget our Book Club. In three weeks' time, I'll be airing the best criticisms of my book via email on the blog and responding to their points. You can join in by buying the book here and emailing theconservativesoul@gmail.com with your comments, criticisms and questions. Thanks for the many thoughtful emails I've already received. I'm a little swamped, but I will try and respond to as many as I can.

18 Oct 2006 06:14 pm

Best and Worst 80s Videos

I may regret this, but after our spirited discussion of the merits of 1980s music, here's a contest. Ransack YouTube and find either a) your favorite '80s music video from a period you love or b) one that exemplifies all that you loathe about the decade's pop music. I'll post the two best and the two worst. Put "Best/Worst 80s video" in the content line of the email. It helps me sort through the mailbag. YouTube only, please.

18 Oct 2006 06:05 pm

Train Them Better

Max Boot makes a practical, constructive proposal for rescuing what's left of democratic Iraq. Money quote:

We have more than 140,000 troops in Iraq, but fewer than 4,000 of them act as advisors. There are barely enough to go around for higher-level Iraqi headquarters; there are no "embeds" available to consistently operate at the company and platoon level, where most of the action occurs. The Iraqi police forces are even more neglected.

What's more, some of the best and brightest American officers are being steered away from Iraqi units. Everyone in the U.S. armed forces knows that the way to the top is to command American units, not to advise foreign units — even if the latter task is more difficult and more important.

We have to make it prestigious within the military culture to be embedded with and training Iraqi forces at all levels. Right now, it isn't. That has to change if we are to have a chance.

18 Oct 2006 05:38 pm

Even Belmont

A passionate war supporter now urges pragmatism, nuance and flexibility even in defining what our actual goals are in Iraq. Money quote:

My only observation is that Iraq is never quite the same place over time. While there are elements about it which endure, the character of the conflict has changed in so many respects that the correct frame of reference (it seems to me) is not back towards some archaic policy expectation expressed in a 2003 or 2004 document but in identifying the drivers of the dynamic and attempting to influence it in ways that only become apparent as you go along. Our goals are something we will have to discover.

I know this sounds awfully wooly and unspecific, so let me try it explaining the thought in this way. Nonlinear dynamic systems like unstable societies are very sensitive to initial conditions. Arbitrarily small perturbations can lead to significantly different effects in the future; hence their behavior can't be predicted confidently very far into the future. You can't treat them in a linear manner. The only way to handle them in by shortening your reaction cycle to manage and so, hope to influence where the system will converge given enough time.

18 Oct 2006 05:06 pm

Conservatism and the GOP

A reader writes:

Only one thing puzzles me about your blogging, which is why you continue to say that Bush, Cheney, Robertson, and vitually the rest of the Republican party are not the real conservatives. I mean, Edmund Burke's been out of the picture for quite some time, now. Your position is a bit like saying that the jihadists and their supporters in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the West Bank and so on aren't the real Moslems, despite their own statements of religious conviction. There's some disagreement over the core teachings of Islam, sure, but it's a bit polyannish and even disrespectful to say of tens of millions of people that they don't know what their own beliefs are.

In terms of American conservatism, I'm 40 years old and throughout my entire conscious life, self-labeled conservatives in the United States have been for regulation of the individual (anti-sodomy laws, anti-abortion laws, flag-burning legislation) and deregulation or (more accurately) empowerment of corporations. They've been for greater secrecy in government, too - more classified documents, notably. The liberals (or progressives or, simply, Democrats) have been for deregulation of individual behavior, coupled with greater controls on corporations and more transparency in government (e.g., declassification of documents under both Carter and, especially, Clinton).

It may be that the liberals are acting like conservatives, while the conservatives are acting like liberals, but accepting that takes a sort of through-the-looking-glass intellectual contortionism. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that, in the era in which you live, you are actually a moderate lefty?

Well, we can argue about these labels indefinitely. I don't think a moderate lefty favors a flat tax, means-testing Medicare and social security, or abolishing agricultural subsidies, for example. But it's a fair point that my own position is obviously no longer the mainstream Republican one. My book is an attempt to say: forget the labels. Here's an actual argument. I think it's conservative and has a proud conservative lineage. But maybe I'm wrong. The real point is whether you agree or disagree, not what label you put on it. Maybe my position is now more appropriately held these days within the Democrats, or, more plausibly, among Independents. Fine. I endorsed Kerry last time, as the lesser of two evils. But I don't want to lose a genuinely conservative tradition - or rather cede the term "conservative" to the religious right without a little struggle. That's the book, in a nutshell. Some of you moderate liberals and liberal conservatives may be surprised by how much you agree with it. And some evangelicals may be surprised by their own overlaps as well.

18 Oct 2006 04:31 pm

Malkin Award Nominee

"Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, and dismal - and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government.

They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote. Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, No. 2 could as well read "eating dog excrement is something."

I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one," - Tony Blankley, RCP.

He begs the question: do the Republicans actually better advance conservative principles in government? Given rampant spending, accumulating debt, reckless warfare, unchecked executive power, legalization of torture, and the suspension of habeas corpus, this question is at least debatable. And it's worth more honest discussion than Blankley's condescension suggests.

18 Oct 2006 04:01 pm

The Left Versus Gays

The outing crusade gains momentum. Look: I loathe the closet. I despise the hypocrisy in the Republican party. But a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong. They will regret it. It will come back to haunt them. And they should cut it out. The fact that their motives might be good is no excuse. Everybody on a witchhunt believes their motives are good. But the toxins such a witchhunt exposes, the cruelty it requires, and the fanaticism of its adherents are always dangerous to civilized discourse. What you're seeing right now is an alliance of the intolerant: the intolerant on the gay left and the intolerant on the religious right. The victims are gay people - flawed, fallible, even pathetic gay people. But they are still people. And they deserve better.

18 Oct 2006 03:04 pm

The View From Your Window

Hanover, New Hampshire, 3.30 pm.

18 Oct 2006 02:54 pm

Quote for the Day II

"The maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing. And it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to try to do them, you not only may make them ... worse, but you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere ...

The argument for collectivism, for government doing something is simple. Anybody can understand it. If there's something wrong, pass a law. If somebody is in trouble, get Mr. X to help him out. The argument for a free - for voluntary cooperation, for a free market is not nearly so simple. It says, you know, if you allow people to cooperate voluntarily and don't interfere with them, indirectly through the operation of the market, they will improve matters more than you can improve it directly by appointing somebody. That's a subtle argument, and it's hard for people to understand," - Milton Friedman, back in 1975.

I cannot imagine what he thinks of a president who said: "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." But then there are many things that this president seems to find hard to understand.

18 Oct 2006 02:32 pm

Amazon

It's back up, selling books. Here's the link.

18 Oct 2006 02:14 pm

Quote for the Day

"It astonishes me to find ... [that so many] of our countrymen ... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty ... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries," - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, 1788.

Yesterday, president Bush signed into law the suspension of habeas corpus for people he alone decides are "enemy combatants." It is a dark day for freedom. And for America.

18 Oct 2006 01:34 pm

YouTube of the Day

The history of rock and roll - in animated album covers.

18 Oct 2006 01:07 pm

C.S. Lewis Vs Christianism

He makes his point about the separation of church and state in an argument about - yes! - marriage:

The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a  Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammendans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. 

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, and the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought be to quite sharp, so that a man know which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

It's from "Mere Christianity." I should maybe point something out here about my own writing on the subject. I have always been very clear that I am in favor of civil equality in marriage. I am not at all sure that the religious sacrament of matrimony ought to be open to gay couples. My instinct, in fact, is that it should not. The Roman Catholic church's view of marriage is so linked to heterosexuality and procreation that including gay couples within the same sacrament might violate its theological meaning. I'm open to debate on this theologically. But I make the same distinction Lewis makes: the civil and the religious spheres are very distinct and we need to make the distinction "quite sharp". The great blasphemy of Christianism is that it wants to erase the boundary altogether.

18 Oct 2006 11:40 am

Islam, Reason and War

There's a fascinating open letter to the Pope, posted at Islamica Magazine here, that grapples with the question of Islam's relationship to reason, warfare, religious compulsion, and other hot topics. I am struck by the unequivocal statement by a phalanx of leading Muslims about the importance of no compulsion in faith. One is even from Saudi Arabia, where the death penalty for apostasy is still in place in Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. The discrepancy is unaddressed. Are these countries anathema to Islam? Here is the argument about war and Islam:

The authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be summarized in the following principles:

1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.

2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.

3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God. However, this does not exclude legitimate self-defense and maintenance of sovereignty. Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery.

If a religion regulates war and describes circumstances where it is necessary and just, that does not make that religion war-like, anymore than regulating sexuality makes a religion prurient. If some have disregarded a long and well-established tradition in favor of utopian dreams where the end justifies the means, they have done so of their own accord and without the sanction of God, His Prophet, or the learned tradition. God says in the Holy Qur'an: Let not hatred of any people seduce you into being unjust. Be just, that is nearer to piety (al-Ma'idah 5:8). In this context we must state that the murder on September 17th of an innocent Catholic nun in Somalia — and any other similar acts of wanton individual violence — 'in reaction to' your lecture at the University of Regensburg, is completely un-Islamic, and we totally condemn such acts.

I presume they also condemn the bombings of mosques, rampant Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Iraq and the murderous violence of al Qaeda. But they do not use this occasion to do so. I fervently hope that the arguments of this letter are indeed what Muslims believe. Given the empirical evidence in many Muslim countries, I fear this is not the case.

(Photo: Antonio Melina/Agencia Brasil.)

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

17 Oct 2006 11:40 pm

You and the Eighties

Man, that kid set off an email firestorm. Here's a few selected goodies:

I am 25, old enough to know your reader is either a cultural idiot, a loser, or both. Large swathes of the 20-30+ generation have 80’s parties regularly, mostly because people really honestly love the music. Yes it is cheesy, yes much of it is over-synthesized, yes the singers had huge hair, and yes, they wore horrible clothing. Also, by cheesy, over-synthesized, huge, and horrible, I meant totally awesome. There is nothing not to love about what has survived of the 80s.

There's more:

I read the sage counsel of your 23 year old reader. The horrors of 80's music pale in comparison to the ennui-sodden banjo playing that has been foisted on us for the last 10 years. The moment I hear "Cold Play" I run screaming for the nearest bottle of antidepressants. Your 23 year old reader knows nothing!

I tend to share this guy's perspective:

I was 23 in 1988.  Let's see, what was I listening to then? Erasure, Smiths, Prince, Berlin, Pogues, Indigo Girls, Proclaimers, XTC ... And we're talking the WHOLE ALBUM for each of them (and some several times over). What do I listen to now? Erasure, Smiths, Prince, Berlin, Pogues, Indigo Girls, Proclaimers, XTC.  The only CD that I've bought in 00s and listened to all through, was John Mayer's debut. 00 pop is crap. I mean if the Killers could find a singer who was in tune I might go whole hog and buy their album on iTunes, but other than that it's a dearth out there!

There is indeed no pop on the radio any more. Just hip-hop drivel and godawful indie crap or whiny, lesbian complaint-rock. Look at the top ten in any other advanced Western country and pop is alive and well. But in America? Murdered by payola and hip-hop. But maybe that just shows what an old codger I'm becoming. Speaking of which ...

Yes, the 80s, unfortunately, might as well be the 40s. I spent the day with my 15-year old nephew a few weeks ago. We went to a record, I mean "music", store in Berkeley. He steered me over to the rap/hip-hop area and expounded at length about the various artists. As far as I can tell, they seem mostly to have died violent deaths. And none has a proper first name, or last - I can't really tell. In an effort to bridge the 15-40 gap, I mentioned "Eminen".  My nephew gave me the same patronizing-but-patient look as I did when my grandmother would say something about Elvis.

A final word:

OK, the kid was funny. I have kids that age. Let's remind them we control the money!

Not according to the advertizers we don't. Still, my main point is: the PSBs are not '80s pop. They may have begun in the 1980s, but their output has spanned twenty years of consistently excellent musical craftsmanship. Yes, they use electronic sound. Does that make Stuart Price an '80s producer? Some things are timeless. Actually.

17 Oct 2006 09:58 pm

Amazon

For the second time in a week, a technical glitch has removed "The Conservative Soul" from availability for purchase from Amazon.com. Try Barnes and Noble instead. I'll let you know once Amazon is back and functioning. Apologies. But at least the pages are now in the right order.

17 Oct 2006 09:09 pm

Cheney on Iraq

He believes that the war is going "remarkably well":

"Well, I think there's some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn’t over instantaneously. It’s been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don't think it’s surprising that people are concerned.

On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They're off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we've now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They've had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well.

It's still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we're engaged there with this sort of, at present, the "major front" of the war on terror. That's what Osama bin Laden says, and he's right."

If you were at all concerned that this administration has no grip on reality, then you need to become more concerned.

17 Oct 2006 08:17 pm

Too Numb

A reader writes:

I am 23 years of age, and certainly not the only person my age who enjoys your blog. Therefore, I must warn you that the mere mention of 80s pop music has approximately the same effect on us as pouring a bucket of water over the Wicked Witch of the West. It is hard enough for most of us to maintain the tranquil illusion that Madonna, Whitney Houston, Roxette, Richard Marx, and countless others never actually signed recording contracts, and that any music we hear on the radio or television that suggests otherwise has no basis in reality, but is actually a manifestation of a severe psychotic episode. Post photographs taken out of every window in the world if you must, phone each of us personally and repeatedly until we agree to buy your book if you must, but please don't revisit the horrors of 80s music on us ever again.

What have I? What have I? What have I done to deserve this?

17 Oct 2006 07:46 pm

Vive La Resistance

Irwin Stelzer has a must-read piece in the Weekly Standard. It's about how the Bush administration's fiscal policy has left the U.S. so indebted to China that we have no leverage over North Korea. Money quote:

It is indeed true that the Bush tax cuts were key to ending the recession the Republicans inherited from the Clinton administration. And it is also true that some of the tax cuts have proved to be revenue generators for the Treasury. That has enabled the administration to gloat over a 22 percent reduction of the budget deficit from last year's $319 billion. But in a booming economy, a continued deficit of $248 billion is hardly chopped liver, as the analysts in New York's delis say. And when those deficits result in stacks of IOUs held by China, America's diplomats are forced to walk softly, lest they antagonize so large a creditor.

It is this fiscal situation, this unwillingness to rein in spending so that the boom in tax receipts can be used to provide support for American diplomacy, that has made it impossible for America to have an effective foreign policy. Indeed, it is arguable that George W. Bush has presided over the largest decline in America's ability to influence world events since, well, since the 1920s, when we decided it was in the nation's interests to let the world take care of itself while we partied at that era's equivalents of today's discos - the jazz joints and speakeasies that offered solace to the Wall Street crowd after a hard day of share-price manipulation.

17 Oct 2006 07:17 pm

Campaign Ad Watch

This one truly takes the breath away. It makes Michael Savage appear like the model of reasonable discourse.

17 Oct 2006 07:10 pm

A Conservative and the War

A reader thinks I'm still naive:

I'm glad to see the Geras quote (and your comments). As a conservative, I'm ashamed of believing in 2003 that the unintended consequences of war would not overwhelm the benefits. Of course I'm surprised by the degree of overwhelming, but not at all by the fact of it. I can‚Äôt honestly say I believed the threat from Iraq was imminent or substantial at the time: I knew it was a war of choice. I so strongly wanted the U.S. to remake Iraq (and was so frustrated with the Saddam regime), that I let hope trump judgment. 

There were better, slower and more careful (more conservative) ways of improving the lives of Iraqis without ripping that society apart. But I fell for the seduction of rapid social change through force, ignoring what may be the most obvious lesson of the 20th Century. I know you believe that if we'd just done things better on the ground it might have worked, but I disagree: this result (or some similar form of it) was inherent in the enterprise.  We should have done things better without going to war. 

17 Oct 2006 07:00 pm

Ohio

If it's a bellwether, the Dems are in good shape. Check out polling data here and here. Presidential tracking numbers for the state can be found here.

17 Oct 2006 06:53 pm

Toadies?

A reader writes:

You know better than that. Neal Boortz is a libertarian, not a religious conservative or a Republican, and he has been all over the president on critical issues, including the war, the deficit, gay marriage, immigration, and Terri Schaivo. He frequently laments the infusion of religion into politics, and you have quoted him approvingly on several occasions, which has never been the case with the others. He was there because because he's "right" on taxes and for no other reason.

You are accused often enough of painting with too broad a brush. Don't give your critics easy ammo.

Boortz is indeed a principled libertarian conservative. Hannity is an apparatchik. I still find the fawning invitation to select talk-show hosts a little creepy. Somehow I don't think they were invited to give the president a piece of their mind.

17 Oct 2006 05:53 pm

True Faith

A brush with death gave David Kuo the strength to tell the truth to power:

At the meeting's end, several of the pastors said they wanted to pray for my healing [from a brain tumor]. They placed their hands on my shoulder and called on God to hear their prayers on my behalf. I listened and loved it and said a prayer of my own: that I would have the courage to tell them what was really going on at the White House.

That was more than three years ago. Their prayers have worked on my body. I am still here and very much alive. Now I am finding the courage to speak out about God and politics and their dangerous dance. George W. Bush, the man, is a person of profound faith and deep compassion for those who suffer. But President George W. Bush is a politician and is ultimately no different from any other politician, content to use religion for electoral gain more than for good works. Millions of Evangelicals may share Bush's faith, but they would protect themselves - and their interests - better if they looked at him through the same coldly political lens with which he views them.

(White House photo.)

17 Oct 2006 05:53 pm

YouTube of the Day

This scene from "Team America" always cheers me up. You can get the masterpiece on Netflix.

17 Oct 2006 04:48 pm

The View From Your Window

Mumbai, India, 11 am.

17 Oct 2006 03:58 pm

The Bush Flacks

Who are these people called in to meet the president for a pep talk? Here are the toadies awaiting instructions and talking points: Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. It forces one to ask the question: what is the difference between journalists fawning on a president, taking spin directly from him, cozying up to him - and paid propagandists whose job it is to advance the interests of those who already wield power? Some of these "journalists" have been critical of Bush policies. Which is why they have been summoned. You want the party line? You now know who to listen to.

(Photo: Eric Draper/The White House.)

17 Oct 2006 03:49 pm

Kuo Vadis?

The author of "Tempting Faith" blogs about what he's now going through:

James puts it well when he says that there is arrogance in saying what we will do in the future - that we are vapors. That was the birth of Tempting Faith. It is, more than anything, a spiritual book. It is a book about my journey with Jesus through dark times - being part of an abortion, part of a divorce, hating my political "opponents." But it is also about my journey with Jesus through his infusion of life - finding forgiveness, finding love, celebrating life.

Ultimately it is my conviction that Jesus must (must!) be first that led to the book and to my willingness to sit down with "60 Minutes" - and, worse, to have to watch myself on television tonight.

Maybe it is different for others on TV, but for me there was just the overwhelming sense that I was being forced to watch a home movie of myself - with the added bonus of knowing that it was also being seen by millions of other people.

But therein lies my little hope, too - that people who think of Jesus only in a Republican way left thinking that maybe there is more to him than that ... and that those who love Jesus were reminded that putting him first is always a good thing.

Several of us seem to be arriving at the same conclusion at the same time.

17 Oct 2006 03:39 pm

Bush and Maliki

I hear reports of a serious rift between the two leaders. The call Bush placed to Maliki yesterday is a sign of serious strain. Money quote:

Snow said Maliki, who he said brought up the timetable question with Bush, was referring to a "rumor" about "attempts to replace him" if certain conditions weren't met by a certain time.

"The president said, 'the rumors are not true; we support you,'" Snow told reporters.

Well, we know what to make of the president's word. The rumors were, apparently, about the Bush administration debating if some kind of military coup might be better able to stabilize Iraq. I cannot substantiate them but Maliki's call to Bush obviously suggests he's worried that the U.S. might try to pull the plug on him. There are also rumors of new contacts between Bush and Allawi. Is something afoot?

The awful truth seems to be: Maliki cannot restrain the militias; the sectarian violence is getting worse, not better; and yet Maliki is resisting partition or a big new infusion of U.S. troops. I have to say that the rumors of a Bush-backed coup actually reassured me a little. Not because I'd support it - but merely because it suggests that finally the White House seems to understand how dire the situation is. I have a sinking feeling, however, that their fundamental concern is not Iraq itself, but the effect it will have on the November elections. God knows what lies beyond that horizon. But if the Democrats control one or both Houses, the Iraq debate will become electric.

(Photo: Brooks Kraft for Time.)

17 Oct 2006 02:14 pm

A Muslim Against The Veil

In the case that has rocked Britain, a Muslim member of parliament backs the government position. A public school teacher cannot wear a veil in teaching her classes. Money quote:

A [government official] has called for the dismissal of a Muslim teaching assistant who refused to remove her veil in school, as senior Labour and Conservative figures indicated that they were hardening their stance on community relations.

Phil Woolas, the communities minister, whose brief includes race relations, told a Sunday newspaper that Aishah Azmi, 23, had "put herself in a position where she cannot do her job". He added that should the head teacher at the school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire choose to sack Ms Azmi then "so be it".

He was backed by a Muslim MP who said that it would be a setback for common sense in education if his constituent were to win her employment tribunal claim for religious discrimination. Ms Azmi was suspended from her job teaching children English because she refused to remove the veil.

Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "The basic thrust of what Phil says is just common sense. If you are not able to fulfil your job requirements then obviously it will be difficult for you to continue in that particular role."

I get the sense that the Brits are starting to hold the line against excessive sectarianism in public life. And this is a good thing.

17 Oct 2006 01:31 pm

Christianism Watch

Here's a classic on the turmoil in the Middle East. It's from John Doolittle, the Deputy Majority Whip and Secretary of the House Republican Conference:

"As for Armageddon, I just note with interest that's what the Bible says. That it's on the Plains of Megiddo. Right there in Israel. And it makes you wonder where this conflict's all going to ultimately lead. And I happen to believe it will ultimately lead to what the Bible says."

And so we have a Republican leader agreeing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the looming End-Times. And both are looking forward to it. The YouTube clip has his comments at 4:58. The Sacramento Bee comments here.

17 Oct 2006 12:46 pm

YouTube of the Day

If you've ever despaired at a blizzard of inane, contradictory sound-bites that passes for political debate on cable news, then this classic Monty Python sketch is for you. It's two and a half minutes in the argument clinic. As fresh as the day it was first broadcast: