« May 13, 2007 - May 19, 2007 | Main | May 27, 2007 - June 2, 2007 »
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Last Wednesday
26 May 2007 07:35 pm
I didn't notice either - but it was a global demographic landmark.
Who Needs To Work Out?
26 May 2007 06:51 pm
Men's Fitness photo-shops even Andy Roddick's guns. Their cover-story is on how to get "big arms." Fake 'em, I guess.
How Much Is That Algerian In The Window?
26 May 2007 06:33 pm
France improvises a new immigration policy.
Lamest Lawsuit Ever
26 May 2007 05:32 pm
Overlawyered has the goods.
The View From Your Window
26 May 2007 05:21 pm
Cambridge, England, 5.40 pm.
For an interactive gallery of Dish readers' window views across the world, click here.
Romney and Jeb
26 May 2007 04:52 pm
The latest flim-flam from the Republican who makes plastic look real.
A Troop, Not A Pack
26 May 2007 04:45 pm
A reader writes:
In the caption for your "Face of the Day," the Boy Scout placing a flag on a grave, you wrote:
"David Matthews of Pack 308 places a flag on a grave at Zachary Taylor National Cemetery May 26, 2007 in Louisville, Kentucky."
This is a minor point, but if he's a Boy Scout, which he is, he would be in Troop 308, not Pack 308. "Pack" is the term for a unit of Cub Scouts, which is for boys under 11. "Troop" is the term for a unit of of Boy Scouts, who are older than 11. By using the term "Pack," you're implying that he's in Cub Scouts, and therefore under 11. As I said, it's a minor point, but, to a boy of that age, it can be a big deal.
Also, a point of trivia: I can tell that the boy in the picture is a Boy Scout, as opposed to a Cub Scout, by the uniform. That particular uniform has been around for a while, but it was originally designed by Oscar de la Renta back in 1980.
Oscar de la Renta! That old queen Lord Baden Powell, who founded the Boy Scouts, would be pleased.
The Withdrawal
26 May 2007 04:15 pm
The debate within the Bush administration appears to be deepening. Joe Klein reacts here.
The Right and Iraq
26 May 2007 03:31 pm
Have Republicans made an historic decision to back global hegemony over liberty in the wake of 9/11? Here's Greenwald:
There is an orthodoxy of militarism to which major political figures in both parties feel compelled to pay homage notwithstanding the fact that such orthodoxies are opposed by large numbers of Americans (Chris Floyd regularly documents this dynamic as well as anyone). And any questioning of those orthodoxies single-handedly removes one from the mainstream (see e.g., Ron Paul and Mike Gravel). But what are emerging as the defining principles of the Republican Party go far beyond a mere belief that the U.S. should maintain global military hegemony in the Middle East and around the world.
Here's Jim Henley:
This isn't quite right. Rather, the Republican Party is just definitively embracing the moral costs of maintaining global military hegemony. From the 1930s to the 1990s, paleoconservative critics and their counterparts on the left worried that militarism and interventionism were inevitably corrupting of republican (small-r) principles, that there was no nice way to rule the world, that the United States would have to choose between hegemony and liberty. All the Republican Party base and its candidates are doing is finally making a choice that, thanks to the bipartisan orthodoxy, always loomed.
The Left and Iraq
26 May 2007 02:24 pm
If the Democrats are smart, they will immediately start figuring out and debating the way in which the US withdraws and redeploys in Iraq. How we do this strikes me as more important than the simple fact that we will do it. How do we do so while strengthening the Anbar tribes' hand against al Qaeda? Which of the Shiite and Sunni factions are we going to grant more sway in Baghdad as we disengage? How do we keep control of the Turkish-Kurdish border? What constellation of diplomatic initiatives best complements the withdrawal - and what is our game-plan? All I can say is that I hope someone in the Pentagon and State Department is figuring a serious strategy out. The Darfur Dems, in particular, are going to have a serious quandary if they do not advance a realistic and hard-nosed strategy for the most advantageous withdrawal - for the West and our friends. They're against a genocide in Africa but in favor of one directly precipitated by US forces in Iraq? Run that by me one more time.
As Spencer Ackerman points out, Memorial Day is also a good time to remember that the troops themselves may not all be glad to be given their marching orders:
The uncomfortable reality is this: nothing in Iraq worth fighting for remains achievable, and nothing achievable in Iraq remains worth fighting for. Democrats have made the decision — rightly, I think — that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, "I don't want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission." This matters, because pretending that in ending the war they're doing the troops a favor hurts Democrats politically. They risk looking condescending, and, worse, oblivious — which has the broader effect of undermining public trust in the Democrats to handle national security. More basically, it does a disservice to those who serve. For soldiers who are optimistic, being told that the war can't be won is bad enough. But to be told that politicians are doing them a favor by extricating them from a mission they believe in is downright insulting.
The moment of maximal Democratic political ease may be this summer. It gets much more complicated after that.
The Clinton Machine
26 May 2007 01:19 pm
Like a book-shredder.
Face of the Day
26 May 2007 01:01 pm
David Matthews of Pack 308 places a flag on a grave at Zachary Taylor National Cemetery May 26, 2007 in Louisville, Kentucky. Boy Scouts from the Seneca District and the Lincoln Heritage Council, which represents the Louisville area, participated in the flag placing. This was the 25th year that scouts have been placing flags on the graves at the cemetery. By Andy Lyons/Getty Images.
John Edwards' Pirate Booty
26 May 2007 12:39 pm
That amazing sunken treasure they just found? John Edwards owns a stake in the company that found it.
Quote for the Day II
26 May 2007 11:54 am
"I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it," - Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, yesterday.
Quote for the Day
26 May 2007 11:12 am
"I have found, in short, from reading my own writing, that my subject in fiction is the action of grace in territory largely held by the devil. I have also found that what I write is largely read by an audience which puts little stock either in grace or the devil.
You discover your audience at the same time and in the same way that you discover your subject, but it is an added blow," - Flannery O'Connor, "In the Devil's Territory," 1961, collected in "Spiritual Writings."
(Photo of the barn on Flannery O'Connor's Milledgeville farm by Patrick Davie.)
Channeling Cartman
26 May 2007 10:01 am
Al Qaeda and Torture
26 May 2007 08:50 am
I see I'm getting razzed a little for not linking to the Pentagon's strange and sudden decision to release graphic drawings of al Qaeda torture techniques. I don't think I have a record of believing anything other than that al Qaeda - and the Shia death squads in Iraq - are monsters. I mean: I linked to the Nick Berg video, for example, and have never, ever shied from exposing and reviling the evil of the enemy. As for the torture images: alas, we know it all already. We see the tortured bodies every day in Iraq. And we also know - and those of us who have campaigned against the use of torture by the U.S. have never for a second disputed - that what these monsters do is indeed in most cases far, far worse than anything the U.S. has done to prisoners under Bush. The unhinged sadism of these Jihadists is hard to fathom, but impossible to deny.
Two points, then, I guess. The first is to reiterate the plain legal and treaty definition of torture: the infliction of "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" in order to extract information. The key concept for me is coercion, the abuse of prisoners to the extent that they have no effective choice but to tell their torturers what the torturers want hear. This can be done in many, many ways, and human beings, over the centuries, have devised many sophisticated techniques to achieve the same end. What al Qaeda and Saddam did was an extreme form of sadistic torture, the kind that psychopaths enjoy and inflict. But that does not make, say, freezing someone to near-death, reviving him, re-freezing him again any less torture. Yes, we did that, carefully monitored by Rumsfeld. It does not make the Khmer Rouge waterboarding technique any less torture. It does not make contorting a prisoner into an excruciating stress position and then smashing his head against the wall any less torture. We should not forget that there have been more than a hundred deaths in U.S.-run torture chambers under George W. Bush either.
So I really don't get the point. Unless it is the following: If we are not as evil as al Qaeda, we are not torturing. This is logically and legally and morally a complete non-sequitur. And it is truly mind-boggling to believe that the arbiters of our moral compass are now the men who murdered 3000 innocents on 9/11. I don't know about you, but that's not the standard against which I believe America should judge herself. Or ever, ever has.
(Picture: the after-effects of a torture session conducted by U.S. soldiers under the command of president George W. Bush in Abu Ghraib prison.)
The View From Your Window
26 May 2007 08:24 am
Seattle, Washington, 4.48 pm.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Obama's Liberalism
25 May 2007 07:11 pm
I've called him a proponent of "big government." It's only fair to quote his own explanation of what he's for:
"Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.
No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice."
Now do you see why I think he is the most rhetorically effective exponent of liberalism in my lifetime?
"Illegals"
25 May 2007 06:02 pm
Just like "enhanced interrogation techniques," it turns out not to be a neologism. Here's an NPR commentary on the subject. Money quote:
We don't usually describe law-breakers as being illegal in themselves. Jack Abramoff may have done illegal lobbying, but nobody has called him an illegal lobbyist. And whatever laws Bernie Ebbers and Martha Stewart may have broken, they weren't illegal CEO's.
It's only your immigration status that can qualify you as being an illegal person, or that can earn you the honor of being "an illegal" all by itself. That use of illegal as a noun actually goes back a long ways. The British coined it in the 1930's to describe Jews who entered Palestine without official permission, and it has been used ever since as a way of reducing individuals to their infractions.
Recovery Blogs
25 May 2007 05:30 pm
Another one - from a recovering HIV-positive former drugdealer ex-con. The honesty is as painful as honesty often is.
Greece 1 Germany 0
25 May 2007 05:05 pm
Despite my trademark "no sense of humor", this Python classic always cracks me up. Especially the dispute after Socrates' goal.
Bush vs Cheney on Iran
25 May 2007 04:49 pm
My friend, Joe Klein, (and you in the netroots can go stick it on Joe, he's a good and decent man, a great writer and superb reporter) backs up the Clemons info on Cheney. Money quote:
I can confirm, through military and intelligence sources, part of Steve Clemons' account of Cheney's crazed bellicosity regarding Iran. In fact, having just received a second-source confirmation of the following story, I was intending to post it today:
Last December, as Rumsfeld was leaving, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 'The Tank,' the secure room in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs discuss classified matters of national security. Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop 'surge' in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed.
Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were - once again - unanimously opposed to taking that course of action. Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating.
Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B - a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News. If Clemons is right, and I'm pretty sure he is, Cheney is still pushing Plan A.
And you wonder who leaked the covert non-military policy against Iran?
(Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty.)
Bunny Pissing Match
25 May 2007 04:25 pm
Info for Derb:
Any old farm boy will tell you these were two male rabbits, and somewhere nearby there was a female. Just a mating challenge, sometimes when the spraying isn't enough they will actually attack each other, but usually one is 'muskier' than the other and it never gets there.
"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"
25 May 2007 03:57 pm
A reader writes:
You asked
"Second, of course, the hideous term: "enhanced interrogation techniques.' I'm not sure where exactly this came from..."
Well, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a fairly decent English translation of the Gestapo euphemism "verschaerfte Vernehmung" which was the code word for torture in the Third Reich. Look it up.
The dictionary confirms it. So Dean Barnett is picking up his terms from the Gestapo. Way to go, Dean.
An NHL Beard-Off!
25 May 2007 03:44 pm
Well, I enjoyed it. And the NHL blog has a great slogan:
After All, Nothing Says Hockey Like A Thoroughly Greased Mullet.
Malkin Award Nominee
25 May 2007 03:38 pm
"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong," - a McCain aide, making his boss look bad.
Another Refugee
25 May 2007 03:29 pm
A reader writes:
I went back today to find a quote of yours:
"When you take a few steps back and look closely, you realize that Bush has managed both to betray conservatism and stigmatize it all at once. That's some achievement."
I have been struggling to identify what has disappointed me so much about GWB since the heady days of the Afghanistan war in the aftermath of 9-11. The betrayal and stigmatizing of conservatism is exactly it!
In 2000 my mostly liberal friends were so furious at the election results that I jumped to defend Bush and Republicans from the crazy onslaught. I overlooked the education program and soft-peddling of the immigration issue because I believed in the tax cuts and a more America-first foreign policy.
Then 9-11 ... as the liberal demagogues called him a coward for avoiding DC and accused his administration of neglecting the threat, I fought back with pointing the finger at Clinton who shouldered more of the blame (a view history seems to share with the information uncovered by the 9-11 commission and less partisan authors). When he stood on the rubble and declared the empire would strike back, followed by the amazement of the world at the shock and awe victory over the Taliban, I was proud he was our president.
The war successes and the security issue made me forget government spending and federalism. Silly me put my trust in the inept Hastert-DeLay-Frist majority. I truly believed GWB that we had to "prevent the most dangerous regimes from getting hold of the most destructive weapons." I cheered on against the axis of evil. In 2003 the quick toppling of Saddam Hussein made Rumsfeld and Franks heroes of mine a rung below the brilliant president. I enjoyed teasing my liberal friends over the trouncing of John Kerry in 2004.
Then came the lack of WMD, our entire reasoning for war.
Continue reading "Another Refugee" »
Politics and the English Language
25 May 2007 03:22 pm
If you haven't read Orwell's masterpiece, now is a good time. Two recent examples of linguistic malfeasance spring to mind. The first is turning the word "illegal" into a noun. I know it's short for "illegal immigrant." But the concision makes a rhetorical difference. It does help subtly to dehumanize the individuals involved. They are illegal immigrants. Which is to say: they are human beings. I'm sympathetic to the suspicion many have about the enforcement issues in the immigration bill. I don't think it's racist or nativist to want to have the rule of law effectively enforced on the border. But equally, I find the demonization of "the other" by this kind of linguistic device to be troubling. It's ugly, period. Maybe it's my Catholic upbringing, but it's morally wrong, in my view. Every person is made in the image of God.
Second, of course, the hideous term: "enhanced interrogation techniques.' I'm not sure where exactly this came from, but George Tenet seems to have been the tipping point. But it's important to note that Tenet has a very personal interest in lying about torture. After all, he will be subject to war crime charges if he concedes that he authorized it. But in his rewording, he has also, it seems to me, conceded something very important. He was clearly concerned that the term "coercive" in the newspeak phrase "coercive interrogation techniques" could be legal peril. It implies physical or mental pressure so severe it renders any choice to cooperate moot. It implies, inevitably, "severe mental or physical pain or suffering," in order to extract information. That is the only relevant legal and moral criterion for torture. Is the information coerced, i.e. is the physical or mental suffering so severe that the victim has no choice but to tell the torturers what the want to hear? If it is, it's torture, under American and international law. And Tenet is a criminal.
Abuse of common English is one of the hallmarks of political mischief. I don't think any journalist should let a politician off the hook on this one. Words matter.
Heads Up
25 May 2007 03:00 pm
I'll be on the Chris Matthews' show this Sunday, talking about the Clinton marriage and the JFK assassination.
Fox News On The Iraq War
25 May 2007 02:50 pm
The coverage dries up. Maybe Mickey's right:
Fox isn't the conservative cable channel. It's the Bush cable channel.
Face of the Day
25 May 2007 02:33 pm
Blind sailor Pamela Habek from the US stands on the deck of her boat "Starship" after arriving in Sydney Harbour May 25, 2007 in Sydney, Australia. Habek and fellow sailor Scott Duncan are attempting to become the first blind sailors to circumnavigate the globe after setting out from San Francisco in 2004. By Ian Waldie/Getty Images.
Life Without TV
25 May 2007 02:12 pm
It's good for ya. A reader writes:
When I was 13, my parents made me a proposal. If I were to not watch TV for a full year, they would give me $1,000. My father was actually generous, and allowed me to watch one sports game a week so I wouldn't miss events like the Super Bowl. I passed the test, and I can say I never 'cheated.' Not once.
The money I earned was not free for me to blow on just anything. It was reserved in a savings account until I was 18.
Today, I am 26 and single. Although my parents paid for my under-graduate tuition and living fees, I'm financially independent, and have saved over $50k on my own for law school. It is quite normal for me to try and save one-third to a half of my paycheck each month.
If I were married with a 13-year-old today, I would make a very similar proposal. If my child did not watch TV for a year I would give my child $1,000 for the first year, $2,000 for the second year, $3,000 for the third year, and so on until he/she was 18. Any time during which my child watched TV would reset the progression. I might also offer the same bonuses for not drinking any soft drinks/highly sugared drinks as well as not eating from fast food chains. If the child were to break any laws during this time, the program would be suspsended.
At 13, I would also inform my child that I was not to be responsible for their tuition expenses during college. I would put all the money the child subsequently earned into an Coverdell educational IRA. As my parents did, upon being granted admission, I would then provide a lump sum account for my child's living expenses during college, which they would have to manage wisely throughout their years in college to give them a sense for personal finance.
I think this is a great way to teach your child financial incentive and independence. It also demonstrates that you trust them. Lastly, it can develop self-discipline in your child and stem off the development of certain poor lifestyle or unhealthy habits. I would never offer incentives for good grades, however.
Maybe it's a trend.
The World According To Derb
25 May 2007 01:32 pm
Planet Earth through some strange, suburban eyes:
I saw two rabbits on the lawn. This was not surprising in itself — our neighborhood is infested with the little critters — but what they were doing was so peculiar I had to stop & watch.
First they face off in a sort of tense crouch, about a rabbit's-length apart. Then one leaps straight up — dead vertically — in the air, as if a spring was just released. Then the other does the same. This drill is then repeated three or four times. but now with some forward movement, as if the jumper was trying to land on top of the other (though this never even comes close to happening).
After a couple of rounds, I notice something odd and probably icky. At the apogee of the second or third jump, a cloud of fine mist is briefly visible beneath the jumper, apparently sprayed out from his underside.
I'm really not making this up.
Blogging Recovery
25 May 2007 01:06 pm
A 19-year-old coke addict blogs his way forward one day at a time:
It's funny the parts of the lifestyle that you miss. Right now I'm thinking about all the crazy, suicide trips we'd make to the cities. We'd drive, oh, 3 hours just for a half. Cut it on the way back, get home with 1.5 oz. Weigh it, bag it, push it, blow it. I loved it...
Who's In Charge?
25 May 2007 12:30 pm
Steve Clemons says there's a power struggle going on within the Bush administration over policy toward Iran. Money quote:
Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.
According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.
Obama's Moment?
25 May 2007 12:08 pm
A reader writes:
You're mostly right and you're partly wrong in your Obama profile. Here' what you don't get in his stump speech but is certainly there and is conservative.
He's willing to engage the other side, listen to their opinions, and accept them if he believes they're right. I know, I took a couple law classes with the guy five years ago at the University of Chicago (no liberal enclave). As a professor and legislator, he was constantly demanding that his students and his colleagues prove to him why their ideas were right, he was constantly playing devil's advocate against his students and colleagues' often liberal ideas, so that he and, also importantly they, realized the strength and power of their views or their flaws. it's nice to be shown through the socratic method that one's views are morally defensible and superior to conservative views, or where they fail.
On the other hand, being a professor at the U of C law school I know he was influenced by the libertarian strain of thought present in the school. In the end, as he often states in town hall settings, he's a pragmatist. He is willing to steal the ideas of anybody, liberal, conservative, libertarian, if it results in what he considers to be the just end result (universal health care, better schools, a better environment). This is why you constantly see him demanding accountability and the need for efficiency from people and government. That's why teachers in his view deserve more money but must be willing to be more accountable. That's why he demands that if we have universal healthcare, we ask people to take better preventative care of themselves and not just throw money into a broken system.
The man is no ideologue.
Continue reading "Obama's Moment?" »
The Future of Iraq
25 May 2007 11:24 am
I have a feeling it will contain many moments like this:
Recently, Mr. Sadr has been taking a different tack. His supporters have met with Sunni Arab tribal leaders from Anbar Province who have been feuding with the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The meetings were billed as an effort to forge a nationalist movement to overcome sectarian tensions, and the message appeared calculated to appeal to war-weary Iraqis. Some political analysts saw it as an attempt to expand his political bloc, and his return may also be an effort to advance this agenda.
It's their country. One day, they will have to fight for it by themselves.
Catholic Bobos
25 May 2007 11:03 am
David Brooks tells the story of my own family:
On the one hand, modern Catholics have retained many of the traditional patterns of their ancestors — high marriage rates, high family stability rates, low divorce rates. Catholic investors save a lot and favor low-risk investment portfolios. On the other hand, they have also become more individualistic, more future-oriented and less bound by neighborhood and extended family. They are now much better educated than their parents or grandparents, and much better educated than their family histories would lead you to predict.
More or less successfully, the children of white, ethnic, blue-collar neighborhoods have managed to adapt the Catholic communal heritage to the dynamism of a global economy. If this country was entirely Catholic, we wouldn’t be having a big debate over stagnant wages and low social mobility. The problems would scarcely exist. Populists and various politicians can talk about the prosperity-destroying menace of immigration and foreign trade. But modern Catholics have created a hybrid culture that trumps it.
Theocons Vs Marriage
25 May 2007 10:19 am
The unintended consequences of homophobia:
Conservative opposition to gay marriage is having unconservative effects, helping to push the boundaries of family law into new territory that challenges the primacy of marriage itself. By opposing gay marriage, conservatives are forcing gay families to seek refuge through untraditional means that could undermine marriage or destabilize family concepts in ways that gay marriage itself would not.
Ron Paul!
25 May 2007 09:44 am
The phenomenon rolls on. Mike Crowley enjoys the ride.
The View From Your Window
25 May 2007 09:19 am
Rome, Italy, 2.40 pm.
For an interactive gallery of Dish readers' window views across the world, click here.
Art and Commerce
25 May 2007 08:33 am
Today's artists are down with capitalism. And why not? Money quote:
Most working artists split their time among the various sectors fairly evenly, according to a report from University of Minnesota. Roughly 39% spend most of their arts time in the commercial sector, and 42% engage in part-time commercial work. Only 19% of the artists surveyed did no commercial work at all.
"The so-called reclusive artist of fifty or sixty years ago, the Horowitzes who showed up, played their concert and then left, although extraordinary artists, are gone. The world has changed a great deal, especially in America," says Joseph W. Polisi, president of the Juilliard School.
The Ministry of Sexy Walks
25 May 2007 07:57 am
Science reveals how we turn each other on.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Summer Of Our Discontent
24 May 2007 09:15 pm
I don't think even the GOP alarmists expected this:
More Americans — 72 percent — now say that "generally, things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track" than at any time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The figure had been in the high 60's earlier this year.
That's a staggering indicator of how disgruntled Americans are. The numbers on the war in Iraq are grim:
A large majority of the public — 76 percent, including a majority of Republicans — say that the additional American troops sent to Iraq this year by Mr. Bush have either had no impact or are making things worse there. Twenty percent think the troop increase is improving the situation in Iraq.
The 20 percent is the core support for the Republican party. The Democrats haven't won over everyone else yet - but any opposition party in this climate has a massive advantage. Bush has indeed become Carter - except he's had two terms to poison the brand of conservatism. Bush's response is perhaps best summed up by this reader:
Bush said today that we should expect an escalation of violence in Iraq because the enemy know that September is a key date for political opinion. So, let me get this straight: if there is less violence, it obviously means the surge is working, and if there is more violence it means the enemy is desperate to get us out and the surge is working. And the two people who get to decide if the surge is working are the architect of the surge (Petraeus) and the man who gave the surge the go-ahead (Bush). What are the odds we’ll hear in September that the surge is not working?
The Congress ultimately has the power and, in my view, is wise to let this "surge" gain momentum this summer to see if it truly can make an iota of a difference. We should absolutely listen to Petraeus in September. But no general is going to declare his own initiative a failure. We have the critical criteria - political benchmarks and data on sectarian violence and terror attacks. The president himself has given us the benchmarks. And in September, we get to tell him who the real deciders are: the American and the Iraqi people. It's called democracy. It's what we're fighting for.
Woody and Billy
24 May 2007 09:09 pm
Thank God for YouTube. Mr Allen interviews Mr Graham. (Hat tip: Daily Awesome.)
Face of the Day
24 May 2007 08:17 pm
A Red Titi monkey sits in a tree in London Zoo's new exhibit 'The Clore Rainforest Lookout' opens on May 24, 2007 in London. The new $2.1 million development features a central biome housing living rainforest trees that are home to groups of tiny monkeys, sloths and birds. By Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images.
The Founders and Faith
24 May 2007 07:06 pm
We're back to Locke. Jonathan Rowe explains:
Whenever I criticize the more extreme elements of Islam, I always stress that most Muslims say this doesn’t represent the authentic version of their faith. Now, in truth, I have no idea whether I'm right and may well be engaging in a Straussian lie. But, if Islam, as a faith, isn't going away — and I don't think it is — Muslims must be convinced that a more liberal, sober and rational understanding of their faith is the authentic one. This is exactly what Madison tried to do with Christians in his Memorial and Remonstrance.
... The paradox is, the rights of conscience are so profound government has no business saying what is true or false religion. Yet, government indeed does have an interest in promoting the 'right' kind of religion, that is religion compatible with liberal democratic, secular, pluralistic norms. Our Founders did to Christianity what the modern liberal governments and institutions, are, or ought to be doing to Islam (like telling folks extreme Islam doesn't represent authentic Islam).
More comment from a "tolerant atheist" here. Pharyngula prefers the term "do-nothing atheist."
Life Without Television
24 May 2007 06:20 pm
You can do it. Or can you?
Negative Advertizing
24 May 2007 05:46 pm
Frm politics to the corporate world. What joy.
Jesus In A Bottle
24 May 2007 05:24 pm
Move over, Calvin Klein. There's a new Christian perfume. And it's called "Virtue."
Immigration, Blacks, Crime
24 May 2007 05:05 pm
George Borjas blogs some striking data. Arnold Kling has a cow:
[Borjas] blogs his research showing that immigration increases black crime by reducing black wages. In other words, "The immigrants made me do it." I'm not surprised by the result, but I'd think the obvious solution (drug legalization aside) is harsher punishments for a few thousand murderers, not exile for millions of hard-working immigrants.
Muscleheads
24 May 2007 04:45 pm
A reader writes:
In old fashioned one-on-one confrontations with nation states (or schoolyard bullies) muscle power can be a leading asset, but when confronting a new era of wide-spread technological empowerment of disparate populations, unrestrained muscle power becomes self-defeating clumsiness. The musclehead approach of this administration and most of the Republican candidates will for now and for the future lead to Gulliver-esque results for this nation and those who align themselves with it. What's happening in Iraq is the future; they're learning from it, but we certainly don't seem to be doing the same.
Cosmetic Neurology
24 May 2007 04:21 pm
Maybe this is Romney's secret:
The researchers found that the new adult neurons showed a pattern of changing plasticity very similar to that seen in brain cells in newborn animals. That is, the new adult brain cells showed a "critical period" in which they were highly plastic before they settled into the less plastic properties of mature brain cells. In newborn animals, such a critical period enables an important, early burst of wiring of new brain circuitry with experience.
What’s more, the researchers’ molecular analysis showed that the plasticity of new adult neurons depended on the function of one of the same types of receptors that is associated with learning-related processes in newborn animals.
Porn Spam
24 May 2007 03:59 pm
It's on the decline. I almost miss my teenage Japanese girls.
Doubling The Surge?
24 May 2007 03:47 pm
A close look at the Pentagon's deployment orders.
Did The Dems Capitulate?
24 May 2007 03:35 pm
I take the view of Obsidian Wings:
The early narrative on the Iraq funding debate is that Democrats "lost" and Bush "won." Sorry, but I don't buy that. People need to view this particular skirmish – and its inevitable, entirely-predictable conclusion – through a longer-term lens. If Bush "won," it's the most Pyrrhic victory of all time.
…the Democrats should stop sulking and be happy with the result – because of their spending bills, the parties are polarized on an issue where the public overwhelmingly and increasingly supports the Democratic position on the war. For this reason, the "capitulation" should instead be a time for offense…
For similar reasons, Bush and the GOP should think twice before celebrating their victory. Very often, people lose sight of the substance of a debate because they get too caught up in the horse race. Sure, in some sense, Bush "won," but what exactly did he win? He successfully obtained blanket authority for endless, escalating war – the one issue that cost the GOP Congress and will likely cost them more in 2008.
Bush on Bin Laden
24 May 2007 03:13 pm
A trip down memory lane:
Romney's Florida Surge
24 May 2007 03:01 pm
Ryan Sager has the goods.
Newsmax Self-Edits
24 May 2007 02:52 pm
They appear to have been embarrassed by this.
Apocalypse Now?
24 May 2007 02:42 pm
Beset by declinists and alarmists, Ross tells us all to take a chill pill.
Beer For Metrosexuals
24 May 2007 02:07 pm
Is the world coming to an end?
Romney and the Christianists
24 May 2007 01:36 pm
They all do look alike, don't they?
The Reagan Of The Left?
24 May 2007 01:21 pm
I went to see Obama last night. He had a fundraiser at H20, a yuppie disco/restaurant in Southwest DC. I was curious about how he is in person. I'm still absorbing the many impressions I got. But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to. And as a simple observer, I really don't see what's stopping him from becoming the next president. The overwhelming first impression that you get - from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines - is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same?
Look at the polls and forget ideology for a moment. What do Americans really want right now? Change. Who best offers them a chance to turn the page cleanly on an era most want to forget? It isn't Clinton, God help us. Edwards is so 2004. McCain is a throwback. Romney makes plastic look real. Rudy does offer something new for Republicans - the abortion-friendly, cross-dressing Jack Bauer. But no one captures the sheer, pent-up desire for a new start more effectively than Obama.
From the content and structure of Obama's pitch to the base, it's also clear to me that whatever illusions I had about his small-c conservatism, he's a big government liberal with - for a liberal - the most attractive persona and best-developed arguments since JFK.
I fear he could do to conservatism what Reagan did to liberalism. And just as liberals deserved a shellacking in 1980, so do "conservatives" today. In the Bush era, they have shown their own contempt for their own tradition. Who can blame Obama for exploiting the big government arguments Bush has already conceded?
Continue reading "The Reagan Of The Left?" »
A Christian on Einstein
24 May 2007 12:53 pm
A reader writes:
You quoted Einstein:
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God ..."
The trouble is, what does Einstein mean by "personal God"? If, by this, he means the interventionist Santa Claus figure to whom we dutifully give a list of wants and demands every time we pray, then I am totally with him and think Christianity should have abandoned this God long ago. But if, by "give up the personal God" he means abandon a God who relates to each individual on a spiritually intimate level, then I can't go that far.
I myself suffer from a somewhat crippling anxiety disorder, and there have been several times when I have called on God for help and felt something indescribable comforting me. I didn't receive a magic- cure-all that made everything better again. I did, however, receive a spiritual companionship to help me endure the worst the illness had to offer. If atheists accuse me of being weak, I say to them "you're exactly right, I can't fight this illness by myself." Fate is going to throw everyone some pretty unsavory curve balls sooner of later. Christianity is unique in that it tells us we don't have to face those curve balls alone.
Reality Check
24 May 2007 12:31 pm
"The level of sectarian violence is an important indicator of whether or not the strategy that we have implemented is working," - president Bush, May 10.
"More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again. From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan," - Washington Post today.
The Accuracy of Michelle Malkin
24 May 2007 12:01 pm
"How desperately does Andrew Sullivan crave attention? So much so that he is lazily promoting and pandering to idiotic 9/11 Truthers who are pointing to a column I wrote six months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks as proof that I am part of the tinfoil brigade," - Michelle Malkin, yesterday, 3.35 pm.
"No, she's not part of the tin-foil hat brigade" - yours truly, yesterday, 2.24 pm.
Firing Arab Linguists
24 May 2007 11:33 am
The military should surely not be training Arab translators, only to fire them because they're gay. Three more have recently been shown the door. Just crazy.
The Iran Leak
24 May 2007 11:16 am
ABC News says:
"In the six days since we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground. ABC News management gave them the repeated opportunity to make whatever objection they wanted to regarding our report. They chose not to."
Hmmm.
The Complete Ron Paul
24 May 2007 11:04 am
You wannit? You got it.
The View From Your Window
24 May 2007 10:46 am
Asbury Park, New Jersey, 3 pm.
For an interactive gallery of Dish readers' window views across the world, click here.
Thursday Style
24 May 2007 10:29 am
Hats off to David Colman who managed to write the following "could-it-get-any-gayer?" sentence in the NYT today:
Many men relish the chance to dress more casually, if they can do it with style. So this spring fashion has come to the rescue, and as usual, fashion is about as much help as a lifeguard waiting for a pedicure to dry.
Go tell it to Dutch.
American Muslims and Christians
24 May 2007 10:11 am
A reader writes:
What hasn't been talked about much in the just released Pew poll is that, while 47 percent consider themselves Muslim first and American second, 42 percent consider themselves Christian first and American second.
And while 43 percent of American Muslims think mosques/churches should express views on political/social issues, 54 percent of American Christians think likewise.
I certainly hope America has enough genius to assimilate those Christians, too.
Another adds:
Clearly, there are troubling aspects to the poll, the suicide bombing response in particular. However, when it comes to issues of governance and influence there are parallels. A Pew poll from August 24, 2006 yielded the following: "(S)ix-in-ten white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws when it conflicts with the will of the people."
From the same 2006 poll, 67 percent of those polled believe "the U.S. is a Christian nation." I suppose that self identity isn't so much the problem as how one lives his or her civic life -- or more importantly, how that civic life impacts the civic life of others. The problem is when personal faith becomes public oppression, or worse. I suppose naysayers could claim there is no comparison between the two polls, in terms of worst-case outcomes. Yet, we shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two fundamentalisms, should we?