« April 22, 2007 - April 28, 2007 | Main | May 6, 2007 - May 12, 2007 »
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Twenty-Eight Percent
05 May 2007 08:47 pm
Bush is Carter now - with two terms. But Giuliani still beats Clinton and Obama among Independents.
The Christianist Derby
05 May 2007 07:47 pm
Another take on who really won in last week's GOP debate.
Normans In Action
05 May 2007 06:05 pm
An animated version of the Bayeux Tapestry. Hey, it's Saturday.
How Bush Is Connected to Castro
05 May 2007 05:07 pm
Honorary degrees of separation.
Coke With Sugar
05 May 2007 04:01 pm
No more corn-syrup. And it's legal!
Atheism Is Hard
05 May 2007 03:54 pm
A reader writes:
I wanted to let you know that I've enjoyed your dialog with Sam Harris. I have appreciated the civility, the respect, and the acceptance of ambiguity in both of your positions.
I was raised in a religious household, but gradually became aware that I needed more evidence for the existence of a god than I was finding. There was no falling-out with God, no anger, no sense of betrayal or loss. There was simply the realization that we are in fact on our own. Having said that, I still believe that a familiarity with religion is important to everyone. I'm deeply appreciative of the teachings of Jesus, infofar as we can attribute them. I just don't believe in magic.
But atheism is not for the faint of heart, and I don't recommend it for everyone. One must find a way to act ethically without believing in divine supervision. One must give meaning to a life that may have none--and must extend that meaning to others. One must maintain a capacity for awe and wonder. And one must deeply, deeply appreciate the chain of events that have led to beings that can contemplate what it all may mean. And finally, one must be able to live in a world in which the majority consider atheists to be bad people.
But again, thanks for the dialog. I appreciate a religious person who is courageous enough to listen. The actions of fundamentalists (Christianists as you properly call them) belies a deep fear of engaging the world. God or no God, that's no way to live a life.
Face of the Day
05 May 2007 02:08 pm
A man wearing a military uniform watches 05 May 2007 as former Serb fighters from the Balkan wars gathered in a southern town of Krusevac, some 150 kilometres south-east of Belgrade, to form a paramilitary unit to fight for Kosovo if the breakaway province is granted independence as proposed in a Western-backed plan. By Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty. News backgrounders here and here.
Circling the Gitmo Wagons
05 May 2007 01:37 pm
The more the courts find a sliver of legal recourse for the inmates at Gitmo, the vast majority of whom were not picked up by U.S. servicemembers and many of whom are innocent, the more the Pentagon pushes back. The intimidation of prisoners and the deliberate attempt to poison relations between them and lawyers is part of a long campaign to suppress the truth about the camp and the appalling injustices that have occurred there and in the detention system in general. The Pentagon denies this, but at this point, they get no benefit of the doubt from me:
Clive A. Stafford Smith, a lawyer who represents 35 detainees, said one of his clients, Omar Deghayes, a Libyan, had said that in lawyer-client meetings at Guantánamo, “we all know that everything we say in these rooms is being monitored by them.” Military officials say they do not eavesdrop on those meetings.
Mr. Stafford Smith also said several of his clients had described what he said were efforts by Guantánamo officials to foster detainees’ distrust of the lawyers. He said detainees had described investigators’ telling them that their lawyers were Jewish or gay or that prisoners with lawyers were less likely to be released than those without them.
Mr. Stafford Smith and other lawyers also said clients had told them of investigators who posed as lawyers and then questioned detainees.
Gays and Jews. Where the expedience of some meets the bigotry of others.
Redish
05 May 2007 01:23 pm
A reader responds to this post:
Go to local.google.com. Click "find a business." Type in "acupuncture" and "Mississippi." Guess you're not in a red state any more...
Griffin Under Investigation?
05 May 2007 12:24 pm
The latest twist in the US Attroneys scandal.
Dissent of the Day
05 May 2007 12:15 pm
A reader writes:
Congratulations on another "Letter from the Heartland" or whatever you call these exercises in fraud. These "letters" you post are fraudulent in many aspects. Have you ever thought that because you now lean against this current administration, that the Democrats/liberals/socialists/anarchists/Bush haters/other sycophants are attracted to your blog like bees to honey because they stand a good chance of being heard, and more importantly, posted? Of course not.
You, without a doubt, fraud, would howl like a wounded dog if Ponnuru, Steyn, et al posted something like this:
Dear Ramesh Ponnuru,
I live in Berkeley, CA and I was at a coffee house where three twenty something sociology majors were talking and saying that Nancy Pelosi and Reid and Hillary Rodham were taking them and the country down the toilet. This is again, the bluest portion of the bluest state in the country. Does this mean viva la resistance?
My take on the matter: You are a fraudulent, petulant twit who is still pissed at George that he didn't give you full marital rights. All these torture memos have gotten you nowhere!! How does that feel, loser? You couldnt' hold any of the NRO's dudes jockstrap intellectually or maturity wise!!
Before you pass this off as some "Christianist", red-neck hick with missing teeth (by the way, your Christianist meme is prejudicial flat out), I am a Hindu, Indian American, more educated than you (B.A, M.D., double board certified in subspeciality surgery, giving his specialty services for free for over 30% of my patients), and more discerning of the political pulse of this nation than your lousy gay Tory ass could ever do.
On a small point of information: it is not within the power of this or any president to provide marriage rights to anyone. It is a state matter. And only the federal Congress can vote to prevent federal recognition of state's marriages, as it did for the first time in history in 1996. Another reader makes, perhaps, a more pertinent point:
I think I should point out that when you're inside a acupuncturist's office, you're really not in a red state anymore.
Obama and Niebuhr
05 May 2007 12:11 pm
Some reflections on the two. Money quote:
Niebuhr's insistence that the powerful would only relinquish their privileges when confronted with organized force--not moral appeals or progressive education--remains indispensable to any realistic effort to win dignity and a decent life for ordinary people. And his argument that "non-violent coercion and resistance" was the most humane form of mass protest still inspires with its hope for future reconciliation and forgiveness between adversaries. Non-violent protest, a strategy Niebuhr explicitly recommended to African Americans, "binds human beings together by reminding them of the common roots and similar character of both their vices and their virtues."
Quote for the Day
05 May 2007 11:18 am
"You're a good man and have handled this maelstrom with great dignity. Watching it causes me great pain, for the USAs, whom I respect, and the Department, which I love. Regardless, I will not sit by and watch good people smeared. What's that quotation about all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent?" - former deputy attorney general, James Comey, to fired US Attorney Bud Cummins, in an email. Scott Horton comments here.
The View From Your Window
05 May 2007 10:56 am
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, 5.39 pm. For an interactive gallery of Dish readers' window views across the world, click here.
Why No Major Attack Since 9/11?
05 May 2007 09:10 am
I asked the question. A reader suggests the following:
Haven't you listened to Bin Laden? He wants us out of the Middle East and believes that a failed war there will do the trick, just like it did with the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Why would he provoke us with another attack when we're doing exactly what he wants? Namely exhausting our financial and combat strength fighting a war that we're not going to win, mostly against forces that aren't his and alienating ourselves from the people that he is trying to recruit. Do you think he wants to provoke us so much that we'll deploy enough troops to win?
Bob Kagan on Obama
05 May 2007 07:27 am
I missed this, but Kagan likes the tone of Obama's internationalism. Matt Yglesias sounds a note of caution here. I've been impressed with Obama's foreign policy vision. It sure isn't isolationist or pacifist. But I should add that Kagan's dichotomy between "realism" and "internationalism" is a bit of a canard. The critique of Bush is not that he is somehow too internationalist. It is that he is incompetent at internationalism, failed to do due diligence before launching a vital war, and refused to adjust when adjustment was necessary. Part of the critique must also now surely be that nation-building in an Islamic country can fail to grasp the nature of the enemy we're facing. It's more like a disease than an army. And imprudent warfare - and how can the Iraq fiasco be called anything else? - may actually worsen the disease rather than cure it. Certainly the medicine of brute force is not enough. That is surely the lesson of Iraq. That doesn't mean no use of force; but it must mean a much more chastened deployment of it. I think Obama has that chastening almost in his bones. Marty seems to agree. A prediction: there will be some reconstructed neocons in Obama's team at some point.
(Photo: Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty.)
Friday, May 4, 2007
Investigative Journalism Update
04 May 2007 09:00 pm
A scoop on "Leave It To Beaver."
Abu Ghraib and the Sopranos
04 May 2007 07:51 pm
Ron Rosenbaum thinks about some connections. I'm relieved to see that more and more people understand that Abu Ghraib really was
just the tip of an iceberg—a concerted system of abuse run wild.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld concerted it - and then blamed it on the grunts.
Email From the Heartland
04 May 2007 06:25 pm
A reader writes:
I just wanted to relate something that happened to me the other day and made quite an impact. I live in Jacksonville, Florida, an area that is both heavily Republican, and predominantly Christianist. Northeastern Florida, a particularly red corner of an overall red state, and a military town to boot, literally represents Bush's core base. Anyway, this past weekend I pulled something in my shoulder, so Monday afternoon was spent in my acupuncturist's office. I walked into the waiting room and found four elderly gentlemen discussing the events of the day. As I sat reading, I listened as these four men, veterans all of them, discussing their dissatisfaction of the competence of this administration in prosecuting the war, and with the reliance on torture in particular. The money quote, so to speak, was:
"We're supposed to be better than them".
What struck me so strongly that afternoon was that if Bush has lost this crowd, then it truly is over for them.
We can hope.
Romney's Favorite Book
04 May 2007 06:15 pm
Surprise! He's changed his mind.
YouTube Biased?
04 May 2007 05:42 pm
Or conservatives paranoid? It's not a good sign when a movement cannot engage the mainstream.
The Hate Crimes Bill and the Constitution
04 May 2007 05:33 pm
Marty Lederman goes into legal details. The burning issue revolves around a distinction between section 249(a)(2) and 249 (a) (1). The more I read about this bill, the more it seems to me a consequence of various Democratic party interest groups grabbing moolah and raising funds.
Abortion and Gay Rights
04 May 2007 05:19 pm
Where's the connection? Jamie Kirchick asks an obvious question. But HRC is run by a man who is a puppet of the abortion-rights crowd and spent his entire career defending abortion. And NGLTF is a far-left group that sees almost every "progressive" issue as indistinguishable from gay rights. Good luck, Jamie. It's always good to see the next generation throwing themselves into the same ideological buzz-saw as the old one did.
If Brownback Is A Catholic ...
04 May 2007 04:35 pm
... what's he doing questioning evolution?
Dissent of the Day
04 May 2007 04:18 pm
A reader writes:
As an ex-Catholic, now atheist, I don't think Romney's statement in last night's debate regarding Holy Communion is contradictory at all with his order on emergency contraception.
The Eucharist is a sacrament and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It is an article of faith within a private religious institution in which the government of Massachusetts has no interest regulating.
Emergency contraception is a medical procedure by which pharmaceuticals act to prevent fertilization and implantation of an embryo. It is a legal medical procedure in the state of Massachusetts. As a matter of public health policy as well as due process rights, the government of Massachusetts has every right and interest in regulating it.
Faith, Blacks and HIV
04 May 2007 04:05 pm
It's a plus. The broader reality is more disturbing:
In a report on the study, Sian Cotton, PhD, assistant professor of family medicine, said the team found that patients with HIV/AIDS, particularly black patients, claimed to have become more spiritual after diagnosis. However, more white patients felt alienated from their religious communities than did blacks.
"Twenty-four percent of all patients felt alienated in their religious communities, 60 percent did not feel welcome, and 10 percent changed their place of worship because of their HIV status," says Szaflarski.
Something is terribly, terribly wrong with churches that stigmatize the sick.
Tommy Thompson Apologizes
04 May 2007 03:37 pm
He says he "made a mistake" on firing gays in the workplace. His explanation makes no sense at all.
Spidey Sense
04 May 2007 03:31 pm
Ross has seen "Spiderman 3" so I don't have to. But he links to several Neil Cumpston movie reviews which really are something quite special. It's been a while since I perused Cumpston's oeuvre, and they're great Friday afternoon fodder. This one on 300 is a classic.
Face of the Day
04 May 2007 03:25 pm
Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey testifies during a hearing before the House Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee May 3, 2007 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The hearing was to continue investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. By Alex Wong/Getty Images.
Socialized Medicine
04 May 2007 03:16 pm
A cautionary tale from my native land.
Romney and the Islamists
04 May 2007 02:44 pm
Matt catches the Republichameleon in an error.
Saudi Women Journalists
04 May 2007 02:36 pm
Yes, it's tough.
A Straussian Take on Mansfield
04 May 2007 02:27 pm
Take it away, Mark Kleiman. I had no idea we were both Harvey's students. Another smart take here. Energy in the executive is important; its independence from the other branches is important; its limited extra-legal role in times of extreme emergency are not to be gainsaid. But when the prince is completely incompetent, when he decrees that the emergency is indefinite and permanent, and when he systematically and proudly ignores the laws he is duty-bound to enforce, executive energy can actually destroy a republic rather than save it.
Tagg!
04 May 2007 02:15 pm
Hewitt's crush introduces himself:
"An Intolerable Risk"
04 May 2007 02:10 pm
That's McCain's view of openly gay soldiers, of Eric Fidelis Alva, one of the first soldiers to lose a limb serving his country in Iraq. A huge majority of Americans support lifting the ban; every other Western military has done so, 
with no consequences, including Israel and Britain. Alva has said of his own calling to serve his country: "I come from a family of servicemen. My dad, Fidelis, is a Vietnam vet. My grandfather, also named Fidelis, was a World War II and Korean War veteran. I was named after them. My middle name is Fidelis. Fidelis means always faithful." But his country is not faithful to him.
We are sadly learning in the campaign that hostility to the rights and dignity of gay people is now a central Republican platform. They believe we should have no defendable civil protections for our relationships, should be the only minority group subject to being fired at will in employment, should be the only minority group omitted from hate crimes protection, and harrassed if we serve the country in the military. They believe that using the term "faggot" at a major event should incur no consequences for the speaker in conservative circles. That McCain would peddle what is patent nonsense about military cohesion and morale is particularly depressing. He's one of the decent ones. I fear that the space for gay Republicans, already small, is being squeezed into non-existence.
(Photo: Major General Christopher Cortez (left), commends Staff Sergeant Eric Alva on July 13, 2003, calling him "a credit to the Corps." From Wiki: "Staff Sergeant Eric Fidelis Alva was the first U.S. military service member injured in the Iraq War. He was in charge of 11 marines in a supply unit when, on March 21, 2003, he stepped on a land mine, losing his right leg. He joined the United States Marine Corps in 1990 at the age of 19." )
Good News In Anbar?
04 May 2007 01:40 pm
We can hope. What matters more is what's happening in the Baghdad parliament.
Yglesias Award Nominee II
04 May 2007 01:29 pm
"There is no disputing Yingling's cri de coeur: 'As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.' That has to change. And the most effective means of change is not more congressional micromanagement. It is a President who takes his responsibilities as commander-in-chief as seriously as Lincoln or FDR did," - Max Boot, Contentions.
Yglesias Award Nominee
04 May 2007 12:56 pm
"The Republican flavor, I submit, should be an optimistic competence that inspires confidence. That means someone who exudes the ability to run the federal government, to avoid Katrina-like fiascoes, to plan effectively for the use of military force, and who doesn't scrape his fingernails down the Washington chalkboard. That doesn't at all mean the same thing as he who is best suited to do very bad things to very bad guys," - John Hood, NRO.
Quote for the Day
04 May 2007 12:55 pm
"I'm sure they had very intelligent, nuanced, explanations," - Jonah Goldberg on the creationist position of Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee. Heh.
Hewitt Goes There
04 May 2007 12:50 pm
Yes, he does a hard-hitting post-debate interview with ... Tagg Romney, the wonderfully named son of Hewitt's latest pontiff. Money quote:
HH: Joined now by Tagg Romney, Governor Romney’s oldest son. Tagg, good to see you again.
TR: It’s good to be here. Thank you.
HH: You’ve got to be happy.
TR: Very happy. I thought he knocked it out of the park, he was clearly a fantastic candidate tonight, and showed why he’d make the best president.
HH: You’ve sat through debates before. He’s been in a lot of debates. Anything different about his performance tonight? Or is this what you’d see and what you’d get throughout this campaign, and against a Democrat?
TR: What you see is what you get. My Dad is articulate, he knows how to communicate his vision, he’s very relaxed in front of the camera, he’s a fantastic communicator. I think clearly, anyone who watched the debate tonight would say boy, isn’t Mitt Romney, wouldn’t Mitt Romney make a fantastic president.
I've been razzed lately for allegedly not "getting" some joke/parody items I've linked to. I swear I believe this interview is for real. Really, Mickey, I believe this one.
The Wisdom of Crowds
04 May 2007 12:39 pm
An interview with James Surowiecki at The Moderate Voice.
"It's like watching the Democrats in 1988."
04 May 2007 12:25 pm
Another debate reax.
Romney and Catholic Bishops
04 May 2007 12:06 pm
Deal Hudson notices - surprise! - that Romney's refusal to tell Catholic bishops anything in the debate last night is not borne out by Romney's actual record. Money quote:
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney ordered Catholic hospitals to administer emergency contraception to women who claim they had been raped.
According to the Boston Herald on December 9th, 2005, "Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims. In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine."
The man will say literally anything.
The Final Chapter
04 May 2007 11:41 am
If you missed my final entry in the Sam Harris debate on faith and reason, and are interested, you can read it here. The entire debate can be read beginning here.
Debating Mansfield
04 May 2007 11:32 am
A powerful critique at Obsidian Wings. My own view is that my former professor over-states the power of the executive in the American system, but that his view comes from a deeper and more radical take on what politics in the modern age is really about. He is not one of the most accomplished Machiavelli scholars in the world for nothing.
The View From Your Window
04 May 2007 11:01 am
Thimphu, Bhutan, 7 am.
For a flash animation world map of Dish window views, click here.
Go, Ron Paul
04 May 2007 10:43 am
He did quite well in the MSNBC online poll. I guess the libertarian skew of the Internet might help. But he sure did say things no one else would.
Debate Tag Clouds
04 May 2007 10:38 am
Mark Blumenthal has them. RedState agrees with me on the debate. Surprise!
Grandmothers and Governments
04 May 2007 10:27 am
What do they both do best? Money-transfers! Money quote:
While almost 2% of U.S. grandparents live with their grandkids and provide full-time care, the most common type of grandparental support these days is just plain money, a resource that travels across vast distances and is (nearly) impervious to cognitive decline ... While it might not be the same as helping to gather food or help a new mother with domestic tasks, it may just be the modern-day equivalent for the generally well off. Education level is highly correlated with socioeconomic status, which in turn is related to overall health and longevity, so perhaps putting the grandbaby through Harvard is sort of like bringing home a basket of wild veggies every day for 18 years.
Sowell's Gaffe
04 May 2007 09:55 am
Yes, it is slightly worrying that National Review publishes material from people openly hoping for military coups, while it supports a president who backs torture and abridging habeas corpus. But hey, look on the bright side. It's an interesting thought-experiment. Kevin Drum wonders what Buckley is thinking. We know what Buckley is thinking. He's mortified as any decent conservative would be. James Joyner joins in here.
The Blurb Police
04 May 2007 09:20 am
Rex Reed gets his comeuppance in Britain.
Rudy on Hate Crimes
04 May 2007 09:19 am
He's against the bill on federalist grounds. If that's his argument, he's probably right. My philosophical point about double standards and hate crimes stands, and I don't believe for a minute that George W. Bush's real objection to this bill is on federalist grounds. This is a man who signed the Schiavo bill and endorsed the FMA and the Leave No Child Behind Act. But the bill does violate for me a basic federalist principle, and further entrenches a concept of hate crimes that I deeply dislike, regardless of the group involved. I also don't believe that the bill would prevent a single crime against a single person. Jamie Kirchik has a good take on National Review's take, which at least openly champions the idea of excluding gay people from such protections, while allowing others - because of ""historic teaching[s] of our major religions". I had no idea that Christianity teaches hatred of gay people, but NRO appears to believe so. My favorite line from the CBN story is the following:
I know you Rudy haters will say that the federalism argument is a cop out but if you're a social conservative, as long as he's against it, that's all that matters right?
Yeah, they're against it for principled federalist reasons, aren't they? Just ask yourself: what socially conservative argument conceivably exists against treating hate crimes against gays the same as hate crimes against blacks? Unless your "social conservatism" is entirely about legitimizing hatred.
(Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty.)
Bush and Abortion
04 May 2007 08:26 am
On offense.
Hate Crimes and Double Standards, Ctd.
04 May 2007 07:16 am
My suspicion about the real motivation for opposition to the just-passed hate crimes bill is borne out by the responses and statements from the Christianist right. It is clear from this article, for example, that their objection is entirely to the inclusion of homosexuals. It is also clear from the White House's statement that it concurs. Money quote:
"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin."
Why no reference here to the characteristic at issue - sexual orientation? If the White House claims that such protections are already in place, and it supports them, and its only objection is a matter of federal and constitutional propriety, why not say so explicitly? We all know the reason why. The naked anti-gay animus fueling this is also apparent when you read Dobson's quote:
"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law. The American justice system should never create second-class victims and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."
But that is an argument for the repeal of all hate crimes legislation, not just this one. And yet Dobson raises no such objections when it comes to race or religion. Maybe now his position is clear on the principle, he'll elaborate some more. I'd dearly love to see Focus on the Family come out strongly against hate crime laws designed to protect, say, Jews, Mormons and Christians. But somehow I doubt it, don't you?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
The Three Creationists
03 May 2007 10:49 pm
A reader writes:
You've probably had a flood of e-mails already, but the three Homer Stokeses onstage were Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. Brownback and Huckabee didn't surprise me, but I wasn't sure just how big of a moonbat Tancredo actually was until then.
More unqualified offerings from the libertarian wing of your readership: I love Ron Paul, but I think he may have beaten Kucinich for '08 candidate who does the worst on television.
I think the second-tier candidate who did the best job out there tonight was Gilmore. If he can't win, perhaps he can at least kneecap the odious Romney when the field starts to thin.
Overlooked line of the night goes to Tancredo for raising the entitlement specter. Let's hope that problem does get some airtime during the general election.
Yes: kudos to Tancredo for raising the entitlement issue. Boos to McCain for dodging it when asked what he'd cut. Bonus points for Giuliani on Sunnis and Shiites. And Ron Paul actually mentioned a minor issue called habeas corpus. It is depressing, isn't it, that the forces within the GOP that are now committed to individual liberty are on the cranky fringe. No mention of torture, of course. Part of me is relieved. You know the base wants much more of it and that Romney would be all too ready to get the hoods and chains out.
Bottom line: maybe I already know that Romney is a capable candidate and so was unimpressed. But his boundless opportunism really gives me the creeps. He's Clintonian in the worst way. I liked McCain tonight - and felt I could support him again (maybe it was the company). Rudy fizzles upon further inspection. The question I would have asked: Mr Brownback, do you believe in the Rapture?
McCain Wins
03 May 2007 09:54 pm
My debate impression. The good news is that they all understand that the Iraq war has been a disaster in terms of execution. No one defended Bush's handling of it - who can? - but McCain's strong criticism of a "badly mismanaged" war gave him the edge in my book. McCain was easily the strongest on spending (although, of course, my softest spot on that front was for Ron Paul). He also forthrightly supported evolution which puts him in the ranks of sane Republicans, unlike three others (or did I count right? Who were they?). I have to say I found Romney smarmy beyond even my expectations. The man will obviously say and do anything to get power or please a crowd. His low-point: "Gosh, I love America." Really? Giuliani is simply not a very impressive speaker or debater, and his chilling call for a tamper-proof I.D. card for all immigrants sent shivers up my spine. His ability to defend abortion rights was, however, impressive if only because it required offending someone. At this point in the primary campaign, that counts for something. When Thompson was asked if he'd be fine with a private employer firing someone because he's gay, he gave what seemed to me to be a good reflection of what he thought the base wanted to hear. A libertarian defense would have included some bromide about the right to fire anyone. But Thompson knows that the current Republican party rewards the candidate the most hostile to gay people. That depresses me, of course, but it isn't news. They really do despise us - more now than ever.
As for foreign policy, very little nuance, very little subtlety, almost no fresh thinking. Conservatism now means simply projecting something called "strength" rather than articulating something called strategy. On the question of thinking through the lessons of Iraq, they seemed frozen. On the question of Iran, they never seemed to include any understanding of what constraints Iraq has placed on us. Just bomb them and kill them and we'll "win". That was about as sophisticated as it got (with the modest exception of McCain's endorsement of Petraeus). And these people seem more aware of the Islamist threat than the Democrats. That's the state of the country and those entrusted with its defense.
(Photo: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty.)
Defining Security Down
03 May 2007 07:15 pm
A primer on the president's always-shifting criteria for "success" in Iraq.
Einstein and Faith
03 May 2007 06:43 pm
A reader writes:
You're going to get into trouble using Einstein to justify religious faith, doubt, and awe of mysteries. He specifically addressed these points:
"A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt about the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."
[Einstein, Nature 146 (1940), p. 605]
"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of 'humility.' This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism" - cited here.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "
[Albert Einstein (1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press.]
Well, I cited him not to defend my own faith, but to defend the reasonableness of a "modest defense of mystery." I stand by that.
How They Voted
03 May 2007 05:15 pm
A hate-crime bill analysis.
Hate Crimes Update
03 May 2007 05:02 pm
Dale Carpenter makes a point also made by Ramesh Ponnuru: that the new bill adds gays to federal protection but does so by creating an entirely new federal law on the subject. Money quote:
Protecting gays is only one element, though the most publicized. The bill considerably expands federal jurisdiction over hate crimes in general, for all categories, by eliminating the current requirement that the crime occur while the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity. That jurisdictional limitation has kept federal involvement very limited in an area where state authority has traditionally reigned. The new law also calls for more federal resources to be expended on all classes of hate crimes. The veto of an amendment merely adding sexual orientation to existing federal law would pretty clearly reflect an anti-gay double-standard. A veto of this much more comprehensive bill does not.
To test this proposition, and to put gays on a par with other groups often targeted for hate crimes, Congress could simply amend the 1968 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. Then we'll see what the President does.
I take the point. The situation is more complex than my first post argued, although I suspect the president would veto such an addition to the federal hate crimes law as well. But we don't know that for sure from the bill proposed and the veto threatened. That's a missed opportunity. Maybe if the bill is vetoed, a cleaner, simpler one can be brought forward.
Sheesh
03 May 2007 05:01 pm
Yes, of course I was aware that "24 For Kids" is a parody/joke. You can't read two sentences of it and not realize that. Give me some credit every now and again, will ya?
Online Middle Earth
03 May 2007 04:57 pm
(Hat tip: Robert Gale.)
Time and Bush
03 May 2007 04:44 pm
I think Rick Stengel has gotten it wrong again. I don't think Bush has ever been as influential as he is now. If he supports something, vast numbers of people around the world - and a majority of Americans - will automatically oppose it. Whatever else that is, it's influence.
Gulf War Syndrome
03 May 2007 04:41 pm
I mean the 1990 - 1991 war. Ww have what looks like real science backing it up - finally.
Romney on Reagan
03 May 2007 04:39 pm
Just a reminder of where he stood in 1994:
I'll be blogging the debate tonight, because I don't have a life. (Hat tip: Soren Dayton.)
How Reid Helps Bush
03 May 2007 04:35 pm
TNR explains:
The prospects of a passable political solution are remote but real, and the consequences of withdrawing without one are dire. One last try, therefore, seems worthwhile. Moreover, what the administration and its defenders won't admit is that Democratic opposition is one of the things that just might make the new strategy plausible.
God Speaks
03 May 2007 04:25 pm
And she endorses Obama.
Axis of Evil Update
03 May 2007 04:18 pm
From Contentions:
As Kim Myong Chol, often described as North Korea’s “unofficial spokesman,” wrote at the beginning of this year, “Kim is now one click away from torching the skyscrapers of New York.” This is an exaggeration: even with a perfectly-functioning Taepodong-2, the worst the North Korean leader could do is to incinerate Anchorage or Honolulu. But if North Korea’s arms development continues at this pace, in five to seven years, Kim’s technicians will be able to miniaturize nuclear weapons, mate them to missiles, and deploy them in a launch vehicle that can reach any point in North America.
Drum on Luttwak
03 May 2007 03:47 pm
Useful counter-points.
Mormons!
03 May 2007 03:36 pm
Scott Horton reviews the PBS series here; Bob Novak reviews an upcoming movie about the Mountain Meadows Massacre here; Martin Marty writes about the mainstreaming of the LDS church here. I watched both nights of the PBS series and must say it struck me as an exemplary piece of public broadcasting: very fair, very candid, very informative. After watching it, I see no reason why a Mormon should not be president of the United States, and think Romney is currently the most plausible GOP nominee, even if it means stocks in Jello soar.
(Image: from San Francisco rendered in Jello, a Mormon delicacy, by Liz Hickok, whose gallery of Jello-sculptures can be found here.)
Face of the Day
03 May 2007 02:40 pm
Joe Baker, 63, smokes next to a shopping cart holding his belongings May 2, 2007 in New York City. New York City released its Homeless Outreach Population Estimate (HOPE) today which concluded that unsheltered homelessness is down 15 percent from 2005. The report also showed that among the homeless, 19 percent fewer individuals are living on city streets or in parks since January 2006. By Mario Tama/Getty Images.
Hate Crimes and Double Standards
03 May 2007 02:05 pm
There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws. The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they 
purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence.
But the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays. Gays are among the most common victims of hate crimes, and straight people are also targeted for being gay even when they're not. If you're going to buy the whole concept of hate crimes, it makes no sense to exclude gays - none. Notice we need no discussion of the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. All that is being punished is the perception of someone else's identity. A straight, evangelical married man could have recourse if he was bashed because someone merely perceived him to be gay. A celibate gay man in reparative therapy could have recourse as well. So no serious moral argument can be made to distinguish the gay victims of hate crimes from other victims.
The federalist argument equally applies. If it is the position of the feds that this should be left entirely to the states, fine. But to say that the feds have a role in matters of race and religion, but not sexual orientation again makes no logical sense, unless the federal government wants to send a strong message about the moral and human and political inferiority of gay people.
Perhaps making these logical arguments is futile. The reason for this veto is quite simple. Christianists simply regard homosexuality as an evil and a sickness. Any law that implies that being gay is an identity and deserves equal respect and protection as other identities is anathema to them. Implicit in their worldview - and absolutely implicit in the position of the president - is that it's okay to attack gays in a way that it's not okay to attack, say, Jews or blacks. This is the core position of the Christianists - which is why I refuse to call them Christians. Bush, we now know, is a captive of this bigotry and an enabler of it. Whatever your general views of hate crime laws, this argument holds. And this president should be ashamed.
(Photo: my friend and former editor of the Washington Blade, Chris Crain, gay-bashed by Islamists in Amsterdam. By William Waybourne.)
Bush To Veto Gay Hate Crimes Law
03 May 2007 01:10 pm
That's the gleeful message from an email just sent out by the Concerned Women of America. The president will apparently prevent inclusion of gay victims of hate crimes within the federal statute. Here's the press release:
"We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America. The Executive Office of the President has issued a statement promising to veto "hate crimes" bill H.R. 1592 should it be approved in Congress today.
The White House statement runs as follows:
"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State’s own hate crimes law."
"H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.
"Moreover, the bill’s proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.
Commentary to come.
Pax Christi
03 May 2007 12:36 pm
Sam,
I've waited a while before my final response - and the end of this dialogue - because this debate is about as important a one as we can have in any time, and yet it seems particularly urgent at this time. The reason I have found our dialogue helpful is because we actually agree on some core issues. Maybe it's worth pointing them out. We both accept the role of some mystery in the universe, something we cannot yet explain, something humans may never be able to explain rationally. You air this at the end of your book, "The End Of Faith," where you describe your own Buddhist experimenting and meditation. We also both