Saturday, November 25, 2006

25 Nov 2006 09:49 pm

The View From Your Window

Nora Springs, Iowa, 7.45 am.

25 Nov 2006 08:03 pm

Robbed In Florida

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the simple facts in the Sarasota, Florida, congressional race seem to indicate obvious machine malfunction or malfeasance, rather than the will of the voters. On many ballots in one district, there was a strange absence of votes for Congress. This is the critical fact:

About 15 percent of ballots cast on Sarasota's touch-screen machines registered no choice in the bitterly fought congressional race. That percentage was about six times greater than the undervote in the rest of the House district, which spreads into four other counties.

[My italics]. What evidence do we have that those missing votes might have gone to the Democrat rather than the Republican? Money quote:

The Sentinel reviewed records of 17,846 touch-screen ballots that included no vote in the tightly contested 13th District congressional race to determine whom voters selected in other major races. The analysis of the so-called "undervotes" examined the races for U.S. Senate, governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner.

The results showed that the undervoted ballots skewed Democratic in all of those races, even in the three races in which the county as a whole went Republican. In the governor's race, for example, Republican Charlie Crist won handily in Sarasota, easily beating Democrat Jim Davis. But on the undervoted ballots, Davis finished ahead by almost 7 percentage points.

In the agriculture commissioner's race, Republican Charles Bronson beat Copeland by a double-digit margin among all voters. But on the undervoted ballots, Copeland won by about 3 percentage points.

So what are the chances that strongly Democratic voters would have a position on the agriculture commisioner's race, but not the Congressional seat? These machines either malfunctioned or were rigged. We need a federal investigation to find out which.

25 Nov 2006 06:45 pm

"Are You a Christian?"

That was Hugh Hewitt's first question to me on his radio show. So you'd think he might have some issues with Mitt Romney, wouldn't you? Naah. He's already on the case, with an upcoming book aiming to sell Romney to the evangelical right. Hewitt's abiding faith - in Republican power for ever - never falters. I should add that on two key issues - fiscal restraint and healthcare policy - I find Romney an appealing candidate. If he were not running as an explicitly religious candidate to a sectarian base, and was less draconian on abortion and marriage, I'd like him a lot. His faith is irrelevant to me  if he were running as a secular politician. But, in the GOP primaries, he isn't.   

25 Nov 2006 05:50 pm

Still in the Saddle

The founder of Lexis-Nexis dies in front of his computer. I wonder if his search outlasted him.

25 Nov 2006 05:43 pm

More Chaotic than Civil War

That's Washington Post reporter, Anthony Shadid's description of the almost indescribable anarchy and carnage unleashed by the American invasion of Iraq:

"There was civil-war-style sectarian killing, its echoes in Lebanon a generation ago. Alongside it were gangland turf battles over money, power and survival; a raft of political parties and their militias fighting a zero-sum game; a raging insurgency; the collapse of authority; social services a chimera; and no way forward for an Iraqi government ordered to act by Americans who themselves are still seen as the final arbiter and, as a result, still depriving that government of legitimacy. Civil war was perhaps too easy a term, a little too tidy."

For good measure, we now discover that this anarchy has found a way to sustain itself financially for an indefinite period of time:

"A classified United States government report ... obtained by The New York Times, estimates that armed groups responsible for many of the insurgent and terrorist attacks across Iraq are raising between $70 million and $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says that between $25 million and $100 million of the total comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry that is aided by 'corrupt and complicit' Iraqi government officials.

As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid to save thousands of kidnapping victims in Iraq, the report said. It estimates that unnamed foreign governments — previously identified by senior American officials in Iraq as including France and Italy — paid Iraqi kidnappers an estimated $30 million in ransom last year."

Remember that only lasy month vice-president Dick Cheney was opining that the Maliki government was doing "remarkably well." These people cannot even lie competently, can they?

(Photo: Karim Kadim/AP.)

25 Nov 2006 04:16 pm

Best '80s Video Nominee

Friday, November 24, 2006

24 Nov 2006 10:53 pm

Underwear Prejudice?

A Mormon reader writes:

Many of us consider posting photographs of Mormon undergarments to be sacrilegious and offensive. Yes, we wear these garments at all times, except during swimming, athletic, bathing, and other activities where it would be impractical. They are made from a variety of textiles, and are comfortable to sleep in, being really not far removed from long johns. Many religious groups, and not just ours, wear clothing as a symbol of religious adherence. Ours, we wear as a reminder of our commitments, but not in public view, because we are reminding ourselves, not making a spectacle. Hence, underclothing. Additionally, they are cut in such a way as to require us to adhere to church modesty standards.

My policy on this site is to publish reality, within certain boundaries of religious respect. If I can publish a cartoon of Muhammad, I can sure publish tasteful pictures of Mormon underwear. Until today, I had no idea that LDS members even wore undergarments mandated by their church. The pictures provided come from Wikipedia. Is it sacrilegious for Wikipedia to publish them? I mean no disrespect. It's a largely irrelevant issue. The racial history of the LDS church is far more pertinent to Romney's candidacy. And none of this would be relevant at all, if the Republicans did not now base their politics on explicitly religious appeals. You wanna play by the rules of theoconservatism? Then deal with the consequences.

24 Nov 2006 08:13 pm

Mormon Sacred Underwear

Here's an official guide. Alas, no pictures. (If someone has some visuals, could they please send them to me?) So Mitt Romney will never have to answer the boxers or briefs question. But will he tell us whether he wears Mormon underwear at all times, including when asleep?

Update: we have pictures!

24 Nov 2006 06:44 pm

The View From Your Window

Spencertown, NY, 10 am.

24 Nov 2006 06:06 pm

Best '80s Video Nominee

24 Nov 2006 04:58 pm

Insta-touchy

Glenn Reynolds gets all sensitive about Tennessee again. No, I didn't imply, and my reader didn't, that banning Madonna's concert in favor of "Ferris Bueller" was somehow an attempt to sway votes in the last election. Rather, my Tennessee reader just pointed to it as an indicator of the cultural climate in Tennesee where Ferris Bueller is more morally acceptable than Madonna's prime time broadcast of words from the Gospel. Reynolds, by the way, is very touchy about his Southern roots. I have no idea why. And he doesn't address the actual point, as usual. Does he think Madonna is too dangerous for Tennessee viewers? Does he defend the decision to pre-empt her for Ferris Bueller? Would he have made the same decision? Does he have anything substantive to say about the point of the post? Nah. Just a silly distortion for silly point-scoring. Which is par for the course.

24 Nov 2006 04:51 pm

Underwear?

A priest explains why Mormons are not Christians:

Your original assertion was correct: Mormons are NOT Christians, because they do not baptize in the name of the Triune God. This is the basis upon which all Christian demoninations (including RC's) baptize and recognize each other's baptism. For example, if a baptized Methodist or Evangelical Christian wanted to enter the Roman Catholic Church, we would not re-baptize that individual because we recognize a common baptism by all Christians. The same cannot be said for Mormons.

A reader sets me right on one thing:

Just so that you know Andrew, most Mormons hated the Passion of the Christ.  Mormons have a very strict policy of no watching R-rated movies. Those who did generally hated it. You are right - Romney will fail over a few things: racism, Joseph Smith, and temple ceromonies (including his Mormon underwear). Imagine him trying to explain the underwear issue to the public.

I had no idea about underwear. Is this an urban legend? Or is there something to it?

24 Nov 2006 03:32 pm

Exposing War Crimes

The task of American democracy tackling the kind of issues that were once the province of South American countries has now begun. The authorization of war crimes, torture, and illegal wire-tapping by this administration needs to be thoroughly investigated in order to hold more than a few scapegoat grunts responsible. The definitive proof is in the hands of the administration - and they have a constritutional duty to hand it over to the Congress. Since the Bush administration has repeatedly said that they have never authorized torture or war crimes, then they presumably should be eager to hand over the critical, relevant documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to exonerate themselves as quickly as possible. According to the president, he has never signed any memos authorizing torture - so what does he have to lose?

The usual arguments will be made about "national security" requiring complete secrecy. But these are not operational secrets that the enemy can use. These are documents that may or may not reveal techniques that have already been exhaustively documented in public, and that any enemy with a modem knows about in full. The only secret is: who signed off on them, and when? The fundamental question is not the content of the memos so much as who authored them and what exactly did they sign off on?  Money quote:

Justice Department officials have long said they will resist efforts to require disclosure of classified documents that provide legal advice to other agencies. But in the interview this week, Mr. Leahy signaled that he expected the department to provide a fuller documentary history on issues like detention.

The senator's letter to Mr. Gonzales requested "all directives, memoranda, and/or orders including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding C.I.A. interrogation methods or policies for the treatment of detainees." It also sought an index of all documents related to Justice Department inquiries into detainee abuse by "U.S. military or civilian personnel in Guant√°namo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison or elsewhere."

We need proof of Bush's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and Gonzales' direct involvement in turning the United States into an international pariah on questions of prisoner abuse and torture. Then we need justice.

(Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty.)

24 Nov 2006 01:44 pm

Romney, Mormons and Race

After a deluge of emails from readers insisting that Mormons are indeed Christians, all I can say is that they are Christians of a very different stripe than most others. The strains between evangelical Christians and Mormons are real, have always existed, and will empirically play a part in restraining some evangelical Christians from supporting Romney.

For a website devoted to evangelical support for Romney, however, see this page. Since the galvanizing force for Christianism (not Christianity, I might add) is the imposition of public policy criminalizing all abortions, banning all legal protections for gay couples, and banning embryonic stem cell research, the theological issues do not seem to me a huge problem for the Christianist Popular Front. Look at the Christianist movie, "The Passion of the Christ." It united Catholics and Protestants and Mormons in the culture war. I suspect that Christianism will trump Christianity in Romney's case, but a minority of Christians who do believe that theological correctness is the central criterion for public office will probably abstain. (A Clinton candidacy alone would save Romney. If it's a choice beteen a Mormon and the Anti-Christ, most Christianists will pick a Mormon).

The bigger problem for Mormons in public office - especially national public office - seems to me to be the long period of racial discrimination in the Mormon Church. While the founder, Joseph Smith, was an abolitionist (after some early prevarication), his sect subsequently banned all African-Americans from the Mormon priesthood. (For Wikipedia's discussion of this history, click here.) Brigham Young, whose eponymous university Romney attended, was particularly emphatic about God's damnation of Africans and African-Americans:

Almost immediately after the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young returned to the old rhetoric concerning African Americans and the curse of Ham. Brigham Young actually subscribed to another common, although less popular theory that the descendants of Ham were also the descendants of Cain, Ham having married a woman of that race ... Some scholars interpreted the mark placed upon Cain as the black skin of the African peoples.

President Young remained very strict in his interpretation. He believed the curse included not only priesthood restriction but also black skin and perpetual servitude. He believed the curse could be removed only by God and that the Civil War effort to free the slaves was in vain. He believed that the Civil War would destroy the United States and spread to every nation until the Saints could return to Missouri and build a temple in Jackson County. The slaves could be freed only by a decree from God by revelation to the prophet accompanied by the removal of the mark of Cain. It was not expected before the millennium.

The first statement linking priesthood denial with the curse of Cain is dated February 13, 1849. It was given by Brigham Young in response to the question, "What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."

President Young never cited Joseph Smith for the source of his doctrine but stated it in his own authority as a prophet, even in the name of Jesus Christ on a least one occasion, as did multiple apostles, including Parley P. Pratt and Heber C. Kimball. In 1852, while addressing the state legislature, Young stated: "Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]...in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

They only changed this position as late as 1978! Romney was part of a church that barred blacks from the priesthood for his first 31 years. The church policy was amended when expansion into Brazil made racial classifications for the priesthood almost impossible because of such high levels of miscegenation.

Of course, other Christian churches also exclude groups of people from the priesthood. Catholics still bar women, and, since last year, also celibate gay men. But the racial exclusion for such a long period of time is unique to Mormonism,  so far as I know, and the racial question in America is still extremely potent. The only sect I can think of as equivalent is the Nation of Islam - in reverse. I don't know if Romney has addressed the question of Mormon racism in its historical practices, or whether he has a record of opposing it in his twenties, when he was a missionary for a racist church. But it strikes me as a matter that will require addressing. It sure won't help increase African-American votes for the GOP.

24 Nov 2006 12:29 pm

"Profoundly Disturbed"

That's one description of Dick Cheney's response to the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. Money quote from Evans-Novak:

"On the day after the election, Rumsfeld had seemed devastated - the familiar confident grin gone and his voice breaking. According to Bush Administration officials, only three or four people knew he would be fired - and Rumsfeld was not one of them."

I wonder if Cheney was one of them. I hope he wasn't. And I further hope his marginalization continues apace. Almost every decision Cheney has taken in the past six years has been disastrous for the country and his own administration. The weaker his grip on power, the better for all of us. But I suspect his being "profoundly disturbed" is also about the removal of his last shield. Once Gates finds out what the Pentagon has done these last few years, Rumsfeld might not be the only one scared to leave the country for the indefinite future. (More from Novak here.)

(Photo: J Scott Applewhite/AP.)

24 Nov 2006 05:54 am

Quote for the Day

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them...

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'" - Barry Goldwater, prophet.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

23 Nov 2006 05:51 pm

Madonna - Banned in Tennessee

A reader writes:

For those who believe Bob Corker won because of racism, rest assured he won on religious fundamentalism. Proof in point: last night in Chattanooga, TN (Bob Corker's hometown) NBC aired "Ferris Bueller’s Day Off" instead of the Madonna concert. Our children and grandchildren learn to cut school, be cool, borrow Dad's Ferrari and tell a few harmless lies. But by the Grace of God, our community protects impressionable youth from that sexual and religious deviant Madonna. Our children will know only the true Virgin Madonna not the "Like-A-Virgin" Madonna.

Just as an aside, Chattanooga has progressed some. I am an avid hockey fan. Every time the major networks broadcast the Stanley Cup Finals, area stations always air a Billy Graham Crusade around 1970. So Ferris is a big step forward in a little step town!

The Madonna NBC concert was, to my mind, astonishingly good. I'd seen the concert live, but the filming took concert-movies to a new level. Stuart Price's remixes of old Madonna songs were also easier to appreciate. It was like a two-hour music-dance-video. I should also add that I believe Madonna is often an authentically Catholic pop-artist. Case in point: a whole set last night focused on chidren orphaned by AIDS in Africa, and used as its leitmotif a verse from Matthew's Gospel. Here is a pop performer, reaching millions, and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (It was, in my view, more effective by omitting Madonna's gratuitously provocative appearance on a crucifix.) The simple image of the cross on stage as the Gospel injunction to help the poor and feed the hungry was displayed in words above it was one of the most effective fusions of Christian evangelism and pop-culture I have ever seen. And yet she is banned in Tennessee. As a reader once put it to me, these fundamentalists may believe in Jesus, but many sure don't believe Jesus.

Madonna is closer to Jesus' authentic teachings in this respect than many Christianists.

23 Nov 2006 04:53 pm

Federalism and Limited Government

A reader adds to our recent debate:

Your reader's critique,

"At what point do individual rights, as protected at the federal level, expand to the extent that state governments are non-entities?"

makes the very common mistake of forgetting there are more than ten amendments to the US Constitution. The point the writer seeks occured on 9 July, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The one that extended all the rights and privileges gauranteed in the US Constitution to residents in every state. People often forget that one when it gets in the way of their prejudices. And you should be taken to task for letting "At what point does the federal government shoulder such a burden of protecting rights, so conceived, that limited government becomes unworkable?" slip by without a suitable bitchslap. It is farcical to argue for "limited government" while at the same time arguing the government right to intrude upon consensual, private behavior. Too many conservatives have a limited idea of what constitutes limited government.

23 Nov 2006 01:56 pm

A Thanksgiving Verse

"There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now."

- Walt Whitman.

23 Nov 2006 12:39 pm

Things To Be Thankful For (2006 Edition)

There has been no 9/11-style attack on the U.S. homeland in over five years.

Bird-flu has not broken out into a full-scale epidemic.

Torture is now illegal again in the U.S. military.

Donald Rumsfeld is no longer defense secretary.

Washington has divided government.

The self-destruction of Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise.

Saddam found guilty in a reasonably fair trial.

Kids can still fly kites in Kabul.

Jim Webb and Bob Casey Jr.

Air-conditioning.

Downloading the new Pet Shop Boys album onto an iPod.

The exposure of Ted Haggard and Mark Foley.

Netflix.

The quiet car on Amtrak.

Patrick Fitzgerald.

Dolly Parton.

South Park is as good as ever.

YouTube's early days.

Protease inhibitors.

23 Nov 2006 10:25 am

Federalism and Conservatives of Doubt

Another book-reader adds more criticism:

On the whole, the book is a very solid account of what you term "the conservatism of doubt." Your first principle, that we cannot know the will of the Divine, leads very logically to what I call a theistic libertarianism. That is, in the absence of concrete mandates from God, each person should be free to follow what their own conscience dictates.

You contrast this with fundamentalism, the strain of thought that holds a Divine Truth is knowable, understandable to humans, and (most importantly) permanently applicable to human organization. The book does its best work when it pokes and prods the inconsistencies of this doctrine: you debunk "natural law" as an all-encompassing regimen in a particularly adept passage.

But there are bumps.

When you discuss the political origins of the country, I fear you conflate the objectives and limitations of the nascent federal government with the objectives and limitations of the several states. Yes, it is very true that - as you state on Page 131-132, for example - the U.S. Senate did not hold the new American government to have been founded on Christian religion. But it would be a stretch to apply this same principle to the individual states! At the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, the state of Massachusetts was still a legal theocracy. In fact, Massachusetts kept Congregationalism as its established denomination until the 1830s.

So while the federal goverment was, from the outset, designed to be religion-free and kept out of sectarian squabbles, this was not the case for the states. One could go a step further and say the separation of church and state was created at the federal level precisely to preserve the unity of church and state at lower levels. Connecticut didn't want its theocratic preserve overthrown by Virginians, nor did Maryland want its religious laws undone by, say, Vermont.

This is significant because it is the very foundation for the federalist experiment. And here the "conservatism of doubt" has its greatest tension. It must be allied with federalism and the principle that government closest to the ground is best. But can it then allow an unflinching application of this principle? In discussing morals legislation, for example (page 126), you refer to the government's ability to "criminalize private, adult consensual activity," as though 'the government' referred strictly to the federal branch. True, the federal branch does not have - and should not have - the authority to criminalize masturbation, sodomy, or pornography. But it simply doesn't follow that the states are held by identical strictures. Until 2003, as you well know, they weren't.

Under what interpretation, then, would the Lawrence decision - which essentially mooted morals legislation at the state level - be considered one in line with the conservatism of doubt? Can you take away another element of local self-government, as Lawrence did, and still have a functioning federalism? At what point do individual rights, as protected at the federal level, expand to the extent that state governments are non-entities? Apply these same principles to the economic sphere and you have an inkling of the dangers presented: once something is a federal right, local self-determination is gone. At what point does the federal government shoulder such a burden of protecting rights, so conceived, that limited government becomes unworkable?

This unresolved tension leads one to believe that while limited government and federalism are suffering sudden death at the hands of the current Administration, a conservatism of doubt would subject them to the death of a thousand cuts.

I'm really grateful for such a smart and insightful critique. The reader is right that this is a real source of tension in the book and in my own thinking. I've even experienced this as a political actor - in weighing states rights and individual autonomy with respect to marriage equality. My answer, such as it is, is that the federal Supreme Court, as much as the federal government, should be extremely leery of intervening at a state level. My position is Goldwater's.

I guess what I'm saying is that I favor minimal interference with states' rights, and I would prefer even the states to have a minimal interference with individual liberty. Would a conservative of doubt be able to endorse "morals legislation" at a local level? I think so - as long as the laws were reasonably congruent with a reasonable social objective. And the judgment of the reasonableness of such a congruence will vary from state to state and from time to time. What might seem eminently reasonable to one generation may not to the next one. The conservative of doubt will carefully navigate these changing social and cultural waters. The fundamentalist will simply insist an on eternal and unalterable moral order, from which all laws should flow. That's the difference.

23 Nov 2006 09:52 am

The View From Your Window

Boston, Massachusetts, dawn.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

22 Nov 2006 09:05 pm

Quote For The Day

"If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly," - Ronald Reagan, 1982.

22 Nov 2006 08:58 pm

Christianism Watch

An evangelical student burns down an Episcopalian church for its theological waywardness. Money quote:

Cleveland said Lussier confessed to robbing the Christ Church and setting fire to both houses of worship. He also allegedly admitted to sending threatening letters to three churches in his hometown. He was charged with two felony counts of third-degree burglary and a count of third-degree arson, a felony.

"He didn't think they were following the Bible the way they thought they should," Cleveland said. "He holds to the principle, but he said he went about it in the wrong way."

Why has this not been national news? This really was a church-burning. Does it have to have racial overtones to make the news?

22 Nov 2006 08:30 pm

My Moral "Relativism"

A reader of the book offers this critique:

You haven't broken any new ground in discovering that "doubt" is a permanent fixture of the Christian life. St. Paul told the first Christians what you have gone to such great lengths to discover - that we will never know God fully here on earth. We must make do with sufficient but incomplete glimpses, most powerfully seen in the life of Christ:  "Now I see dimly, but then face-to face." This is a day-to-day reality for every Christian who has ever tried to walk the walk, and the idea that the orthodox, the evangelical, the fundamentalist, as you like to put it, is immune from doubt is absurd. Do you have any evangelical friends? Ever been to there church picnics? Ever sat in a small bible study and listened to there fears and doubts? Doubt is everywhere and we wouldn't be human without it.

You quote Benedict XVI for the proposition that the individual conscience takes a back seat to papal authority. The statement you cite was made in response to the argument that a Nazi executioner acting according to an ill-formed conscience would be blameless. Ratzinger's conclusion regarding the interplay between conscience and authority is quite different. He approves of this statement by Cardinal Newman: "I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please, - still to conscience first and to the Pope afterwards." Ratzinger concludes:

"The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it.  For this reason the toast to conscience indeed must precede the toast to the Pope because without conscience there would not be a papacy. All power that the papacy has is power of conscience."

You and Ratzinger agree that conscience is preeminent. But Ratzinger believes that the conscience must be formed by the truth – an objective categorical truth; whereas you believe that conscience is purely subjective. And that idea of the preeminence of the subjective conscience is the heart of your argument.

This is, indeed, an argument close to the core of the book. But my reader misunderstands my point. I go to great pains to insist that skepticism is not the same as moral relativism. A relativist believes that there is no truth as such, no objective moral reality. A skeptic may affirm, as I do, the notion of an objective truth - but insist on the weakness of the human mind to know it fully. And so, in practical life, we eschew the moral certainties of fundamentalists.

Ratzinger's view of the conscience is that if it contradicts the Pope, it is not a real conscience. I disagree. And, yes, this does mean living in the knowledge that we do not know everything, and believing that the source of faith is always a mystery, not a transparent truth. This requires the nerve of living in a world without an easily accessible objective truth. Some possess this nerve; others don't; still others see that nerve itself as a sin, or as a rejection of God. I think it is an intelligent person's best option in the modern world. And I rest my cautious, doubt-ridden politics upon this fragile foundation - convinced merely that it less fragile than all the others.

22 Nov 2006 07:47 pm

The Carnage

The latest news from Iraq is even grimmer:

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in sectarian violence last month has reached a new high of more than 3,700, a report for the United Nations said today. Despite the Iraqi Government's commitment to address human rights abuses, the influence of armed militia is growing, and torture continues to be rampant in the country, the report by the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) said.

The civilian death toll for October was 3,709 - the highest to date - according to the UN figures. The report also said that more than two million have fled their homes since the US invasion to escape the rising sectarian violence. "Hundreds of bodies continued to appear in different parts of Baghdad handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing," the report said. "Many witnesses reported that perpetrators wear militia attire and even police or army uniforms."

Tragically, the "government" we have instituted cannot meaningfully represent all Iraqis, because the sectarian divisions, deeply exacerbated by the anarchy of the last three years, have become too deep. The goverment forces themselves - police and military - are increasingly indistinguishable from sectarian militia forces. The Maliki faction is indistinguishable from the Sadr militia. We do not even know at this point which Iraqi faction is capable of delivering order, or where. Which Shiites have actual control of the streets in the South? Which Sunnis can deliver stability in Anbar? Torture and murder have become endemic. We can retrain as many Iraq soldiers and policemen as we want, but it's no use if we are merely training them to be more skillful in a civil war. That's our fundamental dilemma.

We have only one lever over Iran and Syria - and it is - paradoxically - the chaos we have unleashed. Those regimes do not want to see Iraq completely disintegrate. So a policy of drawing down troops, redeploying to Kurdistan, and waiting to see who emerges from the hideous process of ethnic cleansing and civil war is just about the only option we have left. Iran and Syria will have to ensure that a regional conflagration doesn't tear their entire neighbor apart. That is both a blessing for them - how profoundly they would have loathed a democratic Iraq - but also a curse. It means that both neighbors have to worry about instability spreading from outside to within. This is the silver lining of the Iraq failure. And it is a very slim one.

22 Nov 2006 07:06 pm

Romney's Double Standard

The Massachusetts governor has described John McCain's federalist position on gay unions as "disingenuous." But what is Romney's position on abortion? Here it is:

The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.

As Jon Rauch puts it, "So there's room for moral variance on whether to slaughter unborn children, but not on whether to marry gay couples." I think Mitt Romney needs to clear this up, don't you? Why is he not in favor a federal constitutional amendment to ban all abortions?

22 Nov 2006 07:00 pm

No Quayle Jokes, Please

We're the conservintern.

22 Nov 2006 06:41 pm

Mormons and Christians

A reader writes:

I'm sure I won't be the only one to correct you on this, but Romney is a Christian by any meaningful definition of the word. All Mormons are Christians.  Christ is unquestionably the central figure of the faith; in fact, the official name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."  Some other Christians have decided that because Mormons have a different view of the Trinity, spend a lot of time talking about church founder Joseph Smith, and believe that each person has the potential for godhood, they are not Christians. Ask any Mormon if he or she is a Christian and they will say yes. Who gets to decide this important question: Mormons themselves who profess a profound belief in Christ or exclusionary Christianists who want to denigrate the faith of others?

I say this as an atheist ex-Mormon who really doesn't give two cents about the underlying theology, but it still bothers me every time I see this trope coming from some quarters that Mormons aren't Christians which apparently gets picked up and passed on without a second thought.  And it's something people need to get right as I'm sure it will be discussed ad nauseam once Romney's campaign gathers steam.

I take the reader's point. But Muslims also revere Jesus. And the inspiration for Mormonism's radically innovative understanding of the message and life of Jesus - Joseph Smith's "discovery" - is so alien to mainstream Christianity (and so transparently loopy) that I don't consider Mormons Christians. This is not to say I don't support their religious freedom or their right to play a full part of American politics and society. But they're not Christians as I understand Christianity.

22 Nov 2006 06:03 pm

"Staggering Rudeness"

A reader writes:

As a UK citizen but Canadian resident who travels frequently to the US on business I, and many like me, have basically avoided travelling to the US since 9/11 because of the staggering rudeness and general militarism encountered at the border. I have been pulled out of the line and made to wait for hours in an airless room, not allowed to go to the bathroom, etc. It's pretty standard stuff.

However, travelling to LA last week it seemed as if a veil had lifted. The line-ups were still there, but the border guys were joking. One, a former Mexican wrestling champ, told me I should write a movie about hispanics working border patrol. The guns seemed to have disappeared. Perhaps it is too much to associate it with the results of the midterms, but there was a palpable feeling of what I can only describe as relief. For the first time since 9/11 I felt that a long nightmare might be about to end.

I had the same experience a couple of months ago at one of those mom- and-pop border crossings in Vermont but I got the strong impression seventy year old Jim and Bob had never gotten too caught up in the madness in the first place.

22 Nov 2006 05:31 pm

Yglesias Award Nominee

"I think it's a given that that person should be ethically beyond reproach, certainly in the sense of being someone deemed incorruptible. And I'm just not sure that word applies to Alcee Hastings," - Josh Marshall policing the ethics of his own party.

22 Nov 2006 04:14 pm

The Cruise Wedding

More fun at the Super Adventure Club member's expense:

22 Nov 2006 03:33 pm

The Mormon Question

Mitt Romney will surely provide a fascinating glimpse into the Christianist mindset in the coming two years. He will be the candidate for the Christianist right, but he's not a Christian. And many Christianists may well recoil at the man's Mormon faith. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that 53 percent of evangelical Christians would not even consider voting for a Mormon president. That's more than the 43 percent in the general population. So this emerges as a delicious irony: a candidacy made possible by sectarian politics could subsequently be made impossible by the same forces. I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for Romney's plight. Live by fundamentalism; die by fundamentalism.

22 Nov 2006 02:54 pm

How Did the Pollsters Do?

Rate their performances in the Senate races here. If I were Zogby, I'd be a little embarrassed.

22 Nov 2006 02:37 pm

Theocons Attack!

The Weekly Standard hands over its pages to the Family Research Council for an attack on Dick Armey's critique of Christianism. The writer simply assumes that barring gay couples from any incentives to live together and banning legal protections for their relationships are somehow essential to the stability of heterosexual marriage. Armey and countless others question that strange assumption. The writer also seems to favor federal constitutional amendments banning all abortion and all gay unions. Yep, this is the new "conservatism:" constitutional amendments that remove freedom and impede state experimentation.

22 Nov 2006 02:10 pm

America, Seen From Outside

No big surprise: under the Bush administration, foreign tourism to the U.S. has fallen, and one reason is the brusque police measures enforced at immigration control at airports. My family and European friends say that getting through airports to visit America makes them feel like criminals. They often prefer not to bother. I know for many Americans, that's no big deal. But the p.r. and economic damage is considerable.

22 Nov 2006 02:03 pm

The Death Squads

A chilling Channel 4 documentary on the ethnic and sectarian cleansing now reaching new heights in Iraq.

22 Nov 2006 01:28 pm

A Scene From the Civil War

David Lat reports on verbal warfare between social conservatives and libertarians at the recent Federalist Society meeting. Money quote:

During the part of the discussion when the panelists addressed each other, Anthony Romero got all up in Phyllis Schafly's grill:

Romero: How would allowing me and my partner to get married jeopardize your marriage, Phyllis? How? How?
Schalfly: You want answers?
Romero: I think I'm entitled to them.
Schalfly: You want answers?
Romero: I want the truth!
Schlafly: You can't handle the truth!

(Okay, it wasn't exactly like this; we're paraphrasing. But not as roughly as you might think.)

The highlight of the event was a woman yelling "THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH! THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH! THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH!" into the open microphone. I think Mitt Romney has a new campaign slogan.

22 Nov 2006 12:46 pm

Cruise's Pedestal

If Tom Cruise is 5' 7", why is his 5' 9" wife shorter than him in the wedding photos? The best guess is that she was bending her knees under her wedding gown. The head of the Super Adventure Club presided over the ceremony. Key photographic evidence of his shortness of stature here.

22 Nov 2006 12:35 pm

How Smart Is Lou Dobbs?

Plenty smart, according to Lou Dobbs:

BOB GARFIELD: Now, network president, Jonathan Klein, has said to The New York Times that, in essence, that the Dobbs approach will only be on the Dobbs show. And presumably he means that it would never fly on Wolf Blitzer's show or Paula Zahn's show.

LOU DOBBS: Well, they're quite different people than I am, as you know.

BOB GARFIELD: I understand. But why should you have a different set of journalistic standards applying to you?

LOU DOBBS: Well, immodestly, let me say one of the reasons would be my experience, my education, my analysis of the issues and the empirical evidence, and a demonstrated record of, frankly, of knowing what I'm talking about.

And Wolf and Paula have no idea what they're talking about?

22 Nov 2006 11:25 am

Worst '80s Video Nominee

Two words: Dog Police. Beyond vile. But you didn't hallucinate it.

Click here to see the other entries...

22 Nov 2006 10:28 am

Milton Friedman's World

You're living in it. An appreciation from Brian Doherty.

22 Nov 2006 09:20 am

The View From Your Window

NoHo, New York City, 6.05 am.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

21 Nov 2006 10:11 pm

Conservative Thought Police, Ctd.

The Heritage Foundation hasn't just barred Ryan Sager from their events; they have also recently snubbed Bruce Bartlett. He writes:

The Heritage event to which I was uninvited due to my criticism of Bush's policies was not some ordinary one of the type Heritage hosts every day. It was specifically to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the 1981 tax cut. As far as I am aware, every major living figure involved in the enactment of this legislation was invited except me. I seriously doubt that any are paying contributors to the Heritage Foundation. 

The organization knows full well about my involvement in the 1981 tax cut because I was a senior fellow at Heritage for three years back in the 1980s before leaving to work for Ronald Reagan in the White House. I was, in fact, the staff person on Jack Kemp's congressional staff who drafted the original Kemp-Roth tax cut, upon which the Reagan bill was based, back in 1977. Many others also contributed. Some of those invited to the Heritage event did not.  People can draw their own conclusions about these facts.

21 Nov 2006 09:48 pm

Robert Altman RIP

The best obits are always the British ones. Here's the Guardian's. Two great quotes:

"He always seemed on the verge of some sort of eternal defeat."

That's from Elliott Gould. This is from Pauline Kael:

"Altman's art, like Fred Astaire's, is the great American art of making the impossible look easy."

21 Nov 2006 09:17 pm

Quote for the Day

"That's not bedhead I have. It's a perverse and juvenile form of hathead," - the sweetly nerdy Mickey Kaus.

21 Nov 2006 08:11 pm

How Crazy is Keroack?

Slate reviews the Bush administration's new head of HHS family planning:

This is a guy who takes a neuropeptide and a prairie vole and spins from them science fiction.

21 Nov 2006 07:39 pm

Conservative Civil War Watch

It's growing. A reader writes:

In a Redstate.com discussion thread about the prospects of a Senator Brownback bid for the Republican presidential nomination, I posted the following comment, which got me banned:

"It's funny how everyone likes to position themselves as a True Reagan Conservative. It's always the other guy who is betraying Reagan's conservative legacy. Too funny. Both parties need moderates and Independents to win national elections. Until the Republican party deals with the theocracy wing of the party (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc.), moderates/Independents will likely fall in favor of the Dems. It's really that simple. If you think Brownback is the guy to bridge that gap, you need to stop smokin' that Bible and get back to reality.

The lesson from 06 is that moderation wins general elections and offers the best hope for sustained governability through the art of political compromise. Rigid uncompromising devotion to ideology may feel good but it usually accomplishes little and ultimately undermines the ideology."

I was subsequently banned from the site for using the term "theocracy" in relation to a faction within the Republican party. The denial is deep and perhaps even pathological. I fear it will take more than one election cycle to shock the party back to reality.

21 Nov 2006 07:16 pm

UK RIP?

Scotland may soon be a separate country.

21 Nov 2006 07:04 pm

McCain's Calculation

And Bob Reich's breach of Green Room etiquette.