« June 3, 2007 - June 9, 2007 | Main | June 17, 2007 - June 23, 2007 »
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The Unraveling
16 Jun 2007 08:35 pm
A major witness to this White House's direct link to Abu Ghraib and the torture regime has come forward. And he couldn't have better credentials: General Antonio Taguba. More on this tomorrow, but for now: don't miss the piece. Money quote:
During the next two years, Taguba assiduously avoided the press, telling his relatives not to talk about his work. Friends and family had been inundated with telephone calls and visitors, and, Taguba said, “I didn’t want them to be involved.” Taguba retired in January, 2007, after thirty-four years of active service, and finally agreed to talk to me about his investigation of Abu Ghraib and what he believed were the serious misrepresentations by officials that followed. “From what I knew, troops just don’t take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups,” Taguba told me. His orders were clear, however: he was to investigate only the military police at Abu Ghraib, and not those above them in the chain of command. “These M.P. troops were not that creative,” he said. “Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box.”
Justice is coming.
(Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.)
Sozzled Sarcozy
16 Jun 2007 08:14 pm
As long as a French president can get completely shit-faced at lunch with the Russian president, I feel relatively secure the world isn't coming to an end:
Media Bias
16 Jun 2007 07:09 pm
So the media is under-covering Iraq, immigration and Paris Hilton. But not the election. I'm not sure what this says about Al Gore's "Assault On Reason" thesis. Burt somehow I don't think he believes the media is not covering the Hilton scandal enough.
Face of the Day
16 Jun 2007 05:03 pm
Richard Hale of Port Angeles, Washington, joined about 30 people on the National Mall near the Washington Monument during an anti-illegal-immigrant rally sponsored by the Minuteman Project June 15, 2007 in Washington, DC. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
Why Public Education?
16 Jun 2007 04:01 pm
A good question, and Jonah has an excellent column on the subject. Steyn agrees. But is there a contradiction in Steyn's argument? Brian Beutler:
Interestingly, in the middle of making the case against the whole public school system, he's pointed out the fact that state-run schools can be run successfully. They're run successfully in other countries, and, additionally, they're run successfully in plenty of municipalities around this country. What that means is that there are plenty of templates--and no shortage of data--that the government can use if it wants to actually fix (as opposed to grenade) the problems. That would, of course, be both simpler than privatizing everything and would allow us to avoid all the problems that would no doubt arise if we instituted the sort of voucher/magnet system which - similar data shows - is riddled with problems of its own.
One of the recent lowpoints of an Obama speech was his invocation of "crumbling" schools in DC. If Obama thinks the problem with public education in DC is insufficient funding, he really should visit more often.
Triumph At The Tony Awards
16 Jun 2007 02:57 pm
An insult comic dog and a bunch of mainly obscure actors? Sublime:
Quotes for the Day
16 Jun 2007 02:14 pm
"Were our founding fathers here, they would surely look on Iraq with horror and judge that the nation they created had fundamentally lost its way. If the war in Iraq leads the United States to return to its traditional, restrained grand strategy, then perhaps the whole experience will not have been in vain.
Either way, the Iraq syndrome is coming. We need to be prepared for the divisiveness, vitriol, self-doubt and recrimination that will be its symptoms. They will be the defining legacy of the Bush administration and neoconservatism's parting gift to America," - Christopher J. Fettweis, an assistant professor of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College.
"Reader Brett Conner, who sent word of this, writes: 'One of the reasons I left the military was being stabbed in the back by our fellow countrymen. It happened to my father in Vietnam, and I didn't want to continue living through the same experience.' I'm afraid a lot of people will view Harry Reid's statement that way. Of course, some folks like the way the Vietnam War turned out," - Glenn Reynolds, dress-rehearsing the "stab-in-the-back" canard he will surely use to scapegoat, rather than understand, the total failure of the president he voted for twice.
The pro-war right is surely not going to take defeat in Iraq or at home gently. If we withdraw from Iraq in the next year, and a terror attack occurs in the U.S., regardless of its provenance, watch Giuliani blame the Democrats and try to win the election on a classic "we-were-stabbed-in-the-back-we need-a-strong-leader" message. The constitutional dangers of such a move are, of course, grave. I can indeed see a scenario in which a classic fascist-style appeal to wounded nationalism - combined with a call to suspend constitutional protections in favor of a presidential protectorate and a Weimar-style "stab-in-the-back" smear against the MSM - will become the mantra of the Southern-dominated GOP in the next election. If you can't see it coming, you don't know who they are.
Continue reading "Quotes for the Day" »
The Logic of Kaus
16 Jun 2007 01:02 pm
A reader writes:
Can't we also apply the ticking bomb scenario to regular criminals?
Let's say you have a father/son serial killer team.
You have the son in custody. The father is out there. He has kidnapped N children and is going to torture, rape and then kill them in a secret location. How big does N have to get before you start torturing the son to find out where he is? It works just fine for regular US citizens too, you see.
Now imagine the guy has TWO sons. One of them knows where Dad is, but the other doesn't, and has nothing to do with the crime. Only you don't know which is which. How big does N have to get before you torture them both?
Now imagine the innocent son is Mickey Kaus.
The point of torture is always torture.
The View From Your Window
16 Jun 2007 12:06 pm
Kaneohe, Hawaii, 1 pm.
For an interactive gallery of Dish readers' window views across the world, click here.
Respecting Ron Paul
16 Jun 2007 11:10 am
The GOP and media establishments have no interest in the man. But his electoral track record is pretty impressive:
Ron Paul is the only current member of Congress to have been elected three times as a non-incumbent. Given the 98 percent reelection rates for House members, it’s no great shakes to win three terms — or 10 terms — in a row. It’s winning that first one that’s the challenge. And Ron Paul has done that three times.
And he may be out-fundraising most of the minor candidates.
The Problem With McCain
16 Jun 2007 09:49 am
Rich Lowry diagnoses it: too much integrity for today's GOP:
The tricky thing about political leadership is that it has to involve some followership, too. Mitt Romney would have no chance to lead the Republican party as a relatively moderate northeasterner, because that’s not where the Republican party is. Nor would Rudy Giuliani, which is why he has distanced himself from many of his positions as mayor (although in not as jarring a fashion as Romney).
McCain's record is more conservative than that of both of those rivals, but, temperamentally, he's a go-it-alone crusader. That's not a good fit for leading a political party. McCain's political persona says, "Here I stand, I can do no other." The emphasis is always on his personal honor and integrity. When he was crusading for campaign-finance reform, McCain seemed to disdain political parties and offered in contrast his lone voice of righteousness... The flaws of the other Republican presidential candidates are so manifest that McCain could yet come back. But who can doubt that when John McCain essentially says he'd rather be right than president, he means it, and it could prove prophetic?
(Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty.)
The Democrats And Taxes
16 Jun 2007 07:12 am
David Boaz understands what motivates the left on raising revenue:
"Let's go and get it from those who've got it."
The Barbarism of Hamas
16 Jun 2007 06:26 am
Hugh Hewitt is absolutely right to note the barbarism of Hamas, and some of the MSM's squeamishness in reporting such (much of Hugh's evidence comes from the MSM, of course). Dean Barnett is also on the mark, I'd say, on this point:
Hamas was the popularly elected government in the Gaza Strip. It reflects the will of the Palestinian people. For those who fantasize about a great silent majority in that part of the world hungering for peace, the events of this week should provide a needed reality check.
But I'd like to know more about this Hewitt aside:
The connections between Sunni Islamist radicalism and Shia Islamist radicalism are also obvious, and do not appear to be at all troubled by the savage sectarian blows one delivers the other in various cities around Iraq.
Can Hewitt substantiate the "obvious" connections between al Qaeda and, say, Ahmadinejad, between Wahhabists and Persian Shiites? Whether we are facing two foes who can be pitted against one another or one homogeneous group called "Islamist terror" is surely critical to crafting a strategy for victory. Everything I have read suggests deep, deep division within the Islamist world, and deep, deep distrust between the Shia and Sunni forces. Yes, they all hate the Jews. But that could be said for almost everyone in the Middle East. My fear is that by conflating the two groups, we not only miss important opportunities but also risk fomenting such a unity. And why on earth would we want to do that? Except for the purposes of crude Republican electioneering?
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Cowardice of the Democrats
15 Jun 2007 10:00 pm
I think Kos is onto something:
Many Democrats, especially its pathetic consultant class, still believe that the way Democrats show "strength" is by huffing and puffing and threatening to bomb the "f" out of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or whatever the latest boogeyman of the moment might be.In reality, Democrats are seen as weak because they are afraid to stand for those things they believe in. And if they won't fight for what they believe in, how can voters trust them to fight for anything that truly matters, whether it's national security or anything else?
The lesson of Reagan and to a lesser extent Thatcher - the pre-eminent conviction politicians of my lifetime - is that even those who deeply disagreed with them eventually respected their ability to stand for something unpopular and to lead. When I look at the Democrats today, I see no such conviction. That's a problem. No one is worse than Clinton, of course.
The Future Of Campaign Advertizing
15 Jun 2007 07:26 pm
What's not to like about the YouTube age? Imagination, skill, humor, subtlety - all the stuff they pay campaign consultants millions for and still don't get. Now it's all free, and they can't even police free speech in peer-to-peer free advertizing. Yay! Of course, these ads are probably too good to actually sway anyone. But they're making this campaign one of the most unpredictable and democratic ever. This Calvin-Klein-Obsession-style Gravel ad was on the Daily Show last night. Here's more (no, you're not stoned):
Jon Stewart's Line
15 Jun 2007 07:02 pm
My quote for the day was originally Jon Stewart's.
An Honest Conservative Roll-Call
15 Jun 2007 06:36 pm
Brad Delong analyzes who on the right sussed out Bush when. I'm in the Class of 2004. But I'd like to mention that my complaints about runaway spending date from well before that. If 9/11 hadn't happened, I think I would have bailed sooner. I hated the Medicare bill, compassionate conservatism, and the FMA. And as the years pass, the happier I am I bit the bullet and refused to endorse Bush the second time around. That strikes me as the real litmus test, although Bruce Bartlett should be forgiven for finding Kerry a pill too bitter to swallow:
It's true that I never said I would vote for John Kerry. What I did say, publicly, was that if Bill Clinton had been running in 2004 I would have voted for him.
I admit, with the benefit of hindsight, that I should have seen the light sooner. My defense is that I didn't believe anything George W. Bush said during the 2000 campaign. I thought "compasionate conservatism" was just BS cooked up by Karl Rove or somebody because it got a good reaction in focus groups.
I assumed it was bullshit as well - bullshit designed to put a Clintonesque gloss on old-style conservatism. I didn't quite appreciate that Bush might actually believe it - and I deserve a shellacking for my naivete. Still, no one beats Ed Crane in foresight.
Ponnuru on Giuliani
15 Jun 2007 05:58 pm
Sticking to his pro-life guns.
Success in Anbar
15 Jun 2007 05:56 pm
Pejman wonders why no one has really noticed or absorbed the broader lessons. They have, I think. Check this new NPR story out that Pejman links to. Yes: NPR. The dynamic of Sunni tribes deciding they cannot tolerate Jihadist foreigners is the only paradigm that will eventually work - just as Iraqi Shiites will have to turn on Persian extremism. The question is whether an indefinite occupation of the whole country helps or hurts that process. A smart withdrawal that exploits these fissures as they occur is the key, it seems to me. In fact, a smart withdrawal, if done with finesse, might conceivably undo some of the damage of the dumb occupation. But we also need to be cautious here. As soon as we get news of tribal alliances, we get news of tribal discord. This is Arab culture. They will support you one second and murder you in cold blood the next. And they will do exactly the same to one another.
The Diversity Scam
15 Jun 2007 05:21 pm
David Friedman is onto something:
At least in my observation, the people and departments most inclined to favor "diversity" in the conventional sense are among those least likely to want to hire professors whose viewpoints differ from the consensus. What they want are people of the desired gender or skin color who agree with them.
Quote for the Day II
15 Jun 2007 05:19 pm
"The only thing worse than an al Qaeda attack would be a gay man stopping that," - fired military linguist Stephen Benjamin, summing up the core of the Republican position on military personnel policy in the terror war. Full Colbert clip here.
From The Libby Love-Letters
15 Jun 2007 04:41 pm
A small nugget from the file:
"Despite the pressures of his personal and professional life, Scooter consistently cares about his friends. For example, our eldest child was on an externship in Ghana during the tragic events of September 11th. Upon learning this (and of our concern), despite the enormous pressures of state facing Scooter, he researched the situation in Ghana and called us at 11 pm (having just gotten home from work) to discuss what he had learned."
Perjury? He's our friend. We only prosecute perjurers when they're little people. Or Democratic presidents.
Threat-Down
15 Jun 2007 04:38 pm
Bears on the battlefield! And I don't mean hot guys with beards. Get your Colbert fodder here.
Face of the Day
15 Jun 2007 04:06 pm
Supporters of firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr carry Iraqi flags and chant slogans during a protest after a Friday prayer service on June 15, 2007, Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq. The protests were in retaliation to a bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra. By Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty.
Monstering
15 Jun 2007 03:26 pm
Matt reviews a new book revealing more grisly details of the Bush administration's torture regime in Iraq. These are American soldiers, you keep reminding yourself. This is what this president has turned this country into.
Always Bush's War?
15 Jun 2007 03:05 pm
Not so fast, says the Cunning Realist:
Whoever sits in the Oval Office on Inauguration Day 2009 is going to own Iraq just as Nixon owned Vietnam after 1968. To be sure, the extent of that ownership -- in both the public's mind and the history books -- will depend on what happens in Iraq after 2008. But those hoping for a dramatic change in policy may be disappointed. Occupations tend to be self-perpetuating. And remember, Nixon had huge anti-Communist credibility but still felt compelled to prove his toughness once in office. If Hillary wins, will she have any less to prove as a Democrat and a woman?
Follow-up here.
Gloriously Incoherent America
15 Jun 2007 02:37 pm
A reader writes:
I think you did capture the essence of the truce and what makes the U.S. so great, bar one sentence:
"Given the huge differences between, say, a born-again evangelical in Georgia and a pot-smoking post-boomer in Seattle, no single cultural strait-jacket can ever hold America together."
Change "pot-smoking post-boomer in Seattle" to "pot-smoking post-boomer in Atlanta" and you really capture the U.S. - born-again evangelicals living in the same friggin' city (Atlanta) and working with and shopping with pot-smoking post-boomers. Hell, I was just wished "A blessed day" on the elevator by a complete stranger.
What other U.S. city has simultaneously hosted the Southern Baptist National Convention and a Gay Pride of 300,000 attendees on the same weekend with a parade on the same street on the same day (June, 2005)? Granted, they both started at Civic Center and the Southern Baptist Parade went south on Peachtree and the Pride Parade north on Peachtree, but within a 20 block stretch on a major American city you had over 100,000 born-again baptists and 300,000 gay men and women with no major conflicts.
Yep: that's the dream. Equality under the law - and a million different ways to live. Why are so many so afraid of this?
Neocons and Gaza
15 Jun 2007 01:22 pm
The cognitive dissonance on display gets a useful airing by Ralph Peters in the New York Post. In a sign of obvious desperation, Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday. Read the whole thing. On the one hand, according to Peters, Arab culture is obviously permanently incapable of constitutional self-rule. On the other, we have to stay in Iraq indefinitely to ensure a success in Arab constitutional self-rule. Elegantly self-refuting, isn't it? Here's the regional analysis:
Look at Gaza, at the orgy of self-destructive savagery, the macho idiocy, the junkyard-dog religion and the murder-suicide cult sweeping Arab civilization. Then note that, barring a few fringe players, only two sides are fighting in the Gaza Strip.
In Iraq, we have foreign terrorists fighting everybody, Sunni Arabs fighting Shia, Shia fighting Shia, Sunni fighting Sunni, Christians and other minorities persecuted by Sunni and Shia, Kurds struggling to preserve their patch of civilization, with American troops and our allies in the middle . . . on a quiet day.
Of course, not only the Arabs are to blame: We went to Baghdad with a fantasy instead of a plan; Israel tried to compromise with genocidal killers; media commissars abetted terrorists, and our generals placed more emphasis on ducking blame than on defeating our enemies. But for all that, it's the Arabs who failed themselves, again and again and again.
When Lebanon tried to achieve a semblance of democracy, Syria embarked on a killing spree that, to this day, has had no tangible consequences for the Assad regime. When elections came to the Palestinian territories, the Palestinians voted for terrorists. When elections came to Iraq, the Iraqis voted for ethnic separatists or demagogues.
Get the picture? Now what would be the logical inference from this powerful critique of Arab culture for our current policy in Iraq? Obviously: withdrawal.
Continue reading "Neocons and Gaza" »
Clinton Ties McCain and Giuliani ...
15 Jun 2007 12:31 pm
... in Texas! I wonder if the GOP has any idea what may be about to hit them. Marc has more campaign crack here.
The Unlikely Triumph Of Marriage Equality
15 Jun 2007 12:03 pm
I'm still pinching myself. What happened yesterday didn't get much press, but it's an earthquake. It was the day that marriage equality came to America for good. A reader exults:
I fully expect that the social right will react just as you predict, claiming that only a popular vote could give gay marriage genuine legitimacy. But the fact of the matter is that there have been multiple popular referendums here in Massachusetts on the issue, in the form of elections to the Legislature. If there were really a hidden swell of opposition, presumably it would have punished the politicians who supported gay marriage, ushering in a new class of legislators dedicated to overturning it. What we've seen is the opposite: anti-gay marriage politicians being voted out en masse in favor of those who support it. The people have spoken, over and over, and the result is one we can all be proud of, a wonderful example of our republic in action.
This is a historic moment and one every supporter of individual freedom should be celebrating. I hope you have a smile on your face.
Ear to ear. And it will soon be a personal epiphany as well, which is something I truly never expected.
Looking back on two decades of struggle, past the ashes of so many, to the clearing on which we now stand, it's hard not to weep. Two decades ago, marriage for gays was a pipe-dream. Some of us were ridiculed for even thinking of the idea. And yet here we are. Past the vicious attack from the president, past the cynical manipulation by Rove, past the cowardice of so many Democrats, past the rank hypocrisy of the Clintons, past the inertia of the Human Rights Campaign, past the false dawn in San Francisco, and the countless, countless debates and speeches and books and articles and op-eds. Yes, we have much more to do. Yes, we still have to win over those who see our loves as somehow destructive of the families we seek merely to affirm. Yes, we don't have federal recognition of our basic civic equality. Yes, in many, many states, we have been locked out of equality for a generation, because of the politics of fear and backlash. But look how far we've come. From a viral holocaust to full equality - somewhere in America, in the commonwealth where American freedom was born. In two decades. This is history. What a privilege to have witnessed it.
It was driven above all by ordinary gay and lesbian couples and their families - not activists, not lobbyists, not intellectuals. Couples and their families. It was driven by a brutal, sudden realization that we were far more vulnerable than we knew. In the plague years, husbands reeled as they were denied access to their own spouses in hospitals, as they were evicted from their shared homes in the immediate aftermath of terrible grief, and refused access even to funerals by estranged and often hostile in-laws. This day is for them, for all those who were abused and maligned and cast aside because they loved another human being. It's also for all the lesbian mothers who realized in the last two decades just how much contempt and hatred existed for their care of their own children, who lived in constant insecurity, or who, at best, had to endure erasure from visibility. It's for gay families in Virginia today, denied dignity and protection multiple times over, enduring popular votes of meretricious contempt, and carrying on regardless, living their lives, building their relationships, cherishing their homes, caring for their kids, honoring their parents. And it's for the countless, countless gay couples throughout human history - who for so long had to live lives in which their deepest longings and loves were denied, crushed, ignored or threatened.
The media didn't much notice yesterday. But America changed. The world changed. And an ancient and deep wound began, ever so slightly, to heal.
(Photo: Greg Kimball and Brian O'Connor kiss outside the State House June 14, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts. A special convening of the congress voted to kill a referendum that would have placed the Gay Marriage issue on the ballot in 2008. BY Darren McCollester/Getty.)
That Welsh Dude
15 Jun 2007 11:28 am
Many readers have asked me to keep tabs on the astonishing cell-phone salesman who overcame his nerves to rock the house with opera in "Britain's Got Talent." He was in the semi-finals yesterday. Here's the clip:
Kaus and Wright On Torture
15 Jun 2007 10:57 am
Mickey comes out for torturing terror suspects, as part of a third category of detainees who are neither civil not military. He uses the hoary notion that if you concede the ticking time-bomb exception, everything is on the table, including torture in non-ticking-bomb scenarios. Why am I not surprised? Bob worries that establishing a new international norm that allows torture will help North Korea and Iran. You think? America's endorsement of torture under Bush has been the biggest set-back for global human rights in my lifetime.
But what I do not understand is how this debate can happen at all. The law is clear; and the Geneva Conventions are clear; and the U.N. treaty on torture is clear. These abstract debates are not available to us until we repeal such laws and renege on such treaties. If the GOP wants to propose this, fine. But the current debate is surreal. Mickey, by the way, still believes that the worst that happened at Abu Ghraib was leashes and panties on the head. This means he has the same grasp of the basic facts as Rush Limbaugh. The only possible reason for not knowing the truth, at this point, is a desire not to know.
Ferrets For Freedom!
15 Jun 2007 10:47 am
The latest YouTube assault on Rudy:
We Win
15 Jun 2007 10:45 am
That was quick, wasn't it? Mike Kinsley writes about the quiet gay revolution here. Money quote:
We still argue about it, but the whole spectrum of debate has moved left. A right-wing thug like Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich probably has more advanced views about homosexuals than dainty liberals of the past century like Adlai Stevenson or Hubert Humphrey.
My only dissent is with the concept of "left." I know, I know. The GOP has clearly been on the other side of this issue, for the most part, for years now. But the basic argument for gay equality these past two decades has not been "left". It's been a classic integrationist argument: let us serve openly in the military; let us embrace the responsibility of family; leave us alone. In some ways, as I have quixotically been arguing for too long, the gay movement since the 1980s has been pretty conservative. (And Kinsley got me to write the first serious conservative argument for gay marriage back in 1989.) For example: Can you think what people would call a mobilization of African-Americans to tackle HIV without government assistance - a mobilization that helped arrest the HIV epidemic in a matter of years? They'd call it a paragon of self-help and individual responsibility. But we're gay, and so we don't qualify for conservative support, help, or encouragement, let alone what we deserve, which is admiration ad respect. One day, the conservative movement will realize what a terrible mistake they have made, and how only callousness and prejudice can explain it. One day.
Busted
15 Jun 2007 10:23 am
A reader writes:
You wrote:
"The Man Can't Shut Up". This is a pretty staggering figure, don't you think: Clinton made 352 speeches last year.
And how many days did you blog in the last 12 months?
The View From Your Window
15 Jun 2007 09:21 am
Iowa City, Iowa, 5 pm.
For an interactive gallery of Dish readers' window views across the world, click here.
Hippies and Christianists
15 Jun 2007 08:09 am
One of the premises of Brink Lindsey's new book, "The Age of Abundance," is that the prosperity of 1960s and 1970s spawned two genuine social movements - the rebellious spiritual counter-culture of the Summer of Love and the religious right's attempt to put the genie of sexual and personal liberation back into the fundamentalist bottle. Brink's thesis is that capitalism's post-war success in creating unprecedented prosperity led to widespread spiritual yearning and the leisure to express it fully. Neither hippies nor Christianists fully won, and their forced truce helped cement modern America's libertarian, federalist politics. Count me convinced of the case for forgoing moral certainty in politics in favor of a shallower, skeptical formalism of live-and-let-live.
The genius of America, it seems to me, is its capacity to include people of radically different worldviews within a loose, flexible and constantly adjusting constitutional system. Given the huge differences between, say, a born-again evangelical in Georgia and a pot-smoking post-boomer in Seattle, no single cultural strait-jacket can ever hold America together. That's why we mercifully don't have such a strait-jacket, despite the excesses of the cultural left and right. We have a constitution that allows us to live together and even learn from each other in a morass of competing life-choices. This kind of politics eschews the dictatorial uniformity of Roe vs Wade and of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Both spring from the same controlling, moralistic urge to compel coherence in a society where freedom and sheer time will always spawn glorious, always-shifting incoherence and moral doubt.
George Will gives "The Age of Abundance" a rave in the NYT:
"Americans," Lindsey writes, "have become a different kind of people," transformed by capitalism's fecundity. Although often "derided for its superficial banality," materialism has resulted in "a flood tide of spiritual yearning." Various scolds and worrywarts have exclaimed, with Wordsworth, that "getting and spending, we lay waste our powers." To such Jeremiahs, Lindsey provides an essentially cheerful, although not altogether so, counterpoint: affluence has made America a more libertarian, and hence a nicer, place.
Brinks' book-blog can be read here. Danny Finkelstein had some thoughts about it yesterday. I've only read the Reason excerpt. But it alone sold me on the book.
The Problem With Biometric ID Systems
15 Jun 2007 07:08 am
What if someone cut your finger off and used it? Sony, mercifully, has come up with a device to alleviate the paranoid's panic.
Why I'm Still A Catholic
15 Jun 2007 06:26 am
It's the after-life, stupid:
Why I Switched My Vote
15 Jun 2007 12:31 am
A Massachusetts legislator who once voted against marrige equality explains why she changed her mind.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Dissent of the Day
14 Jun 2007 10:33 pm
A reader writes:
You stated that,
"We tried to construct a constitutional order [in Iraq] for a non-dictatorial, national political settlement."
We did what, exactly? Here's what we did. We disbanded the army, throwing thousands out into the street with no pay, no pension, no way to support their families. We shut down the state-owned industries that produced goods and services basic to the national infrastructure, throwing thousands out into the street with no pay, no pension, no way to support their families. And then we expected investors to line up while we threw reconstruction dollars at Halliburton and KBR and other American firms under no-bid loopholes in U.S. Government Procurement Law. Worse still, we eviscerated the civil service by purging it of Baath party members (who wasn't a member of the Baath Party? The cleaning crew?) thus ripping out the bare bones that would have supported the construction of constitutional order. Never mind throwing thousands out into the street with no pay, no pension, no way to support their families. We sat back while all these constitutionally and economically disenfranchised people looted what remained, said "stuff happens" and then proudly we pointed to purple fingers and claimed victory.
We burned down the house, that's what we did.
Gonzales Sees The Light
14 Jun 2007 10:03 pm
He suddenly regains his memory.
The Man Can't Shut Up
14 Jun 2007 09:53 pm
This is a pretty staggering figure, don't you think:
Clinton made 352 speeches last year.
Basically one a day. I guess you just have to stick a microphone in front of him. Still, I don't begrudge a man who grew up in poverty enriching himself by doing what he does best. Drudge highlights the 9/11 anniversary speech. But it wasn't about 9/11 as such and I don't think it counts as an unethical exploitation of the tragedy. Still it prompts the following thought: the press surely needs to ask Rudy Giuliani just how much money has has made off 9/11 in speaking fees and other gigs. If it's fair to criticize Clinton for this minor coincidence, the vast forture that Rudy has explicitly made off 9/11 deserves full disclosure.
The Family Values of Plants
14 Jun 2007 07:39 pm
One of those science stories that sticks in the brain:
After plants are potted, roots branch out to suck up water and nutrients. But when several plants of the same species are potted together, things get a little nasty: Each plant flexes its muscles, so to speak, by extending its root growth to try and snatch up valuable resources.
Unless, that is, the plants are siblings—each having come from the same mother plant—in which case they become very accommodating, allowing each other ample root space.
Because the interactions between related and unrelated plants only happened when plants were in the same pot, where root space is limited, root interactions are likely what gives plants the cue that their neighbor is related.
(Photo: the European sea rocket, which was the object of the experiment.)
The Evolution of Alan Dershowitz
14 Jun 2007 06:35 pm
The good professor is labeled a "schmibertarian" by John Quiggan. The term applies to libertarians who have recently decided that they're fine with detention without trial, the "anachronism" of habeas corpus, an imperial foreign policy and legalized torture. Not all of them, apparently, are law professors in Tennessee.
Walton Gets Snippy
14 Jun 2007 06:34 pm
Bork's Libby letter is "not something I would expect from a first-year in law school." Meow.
Say. Do. Anything.
14 Jun 2007 05:54 pm
McCain finally unloads on Clinton Romney.
An-Aaargh-chy
14 Jun 2007 05:30 pm
Hilzoy presents two papers on the rationality of pirates.
Watershed in Massachusetts
14 Jun 2007 04:55 pm
It's an extraordinarily important development, a vindication of the marriage strategy which many of us pioneered despite severe resistance from the gay establishment (yep: HRC and the Clinton machine), and a clear sign that marriage for gay couples is now part of the fabric of America. HRC can still believe that this is a long-term goal, but it's here long before their precious and entirely symbolic federal hate crimes boondoggle. For me, the most telling fact is that the legislators and people of Massachusetts have actually experienced the fact of marriage equality for several years now. The more people see it for real, instead of through the lurid, unhinged fantasies of Dobsonites, the more opposition wilts. Now, maybe, inclusive Republicans and leading Democrats can grow some balls on the issue. Quit the defensive crouch. That means you, Obama, Edwards and Clinton. And you too, HRC. Dale Carpenter comments here. Here in Ptown, the champagne is already flowing.
(Photo: Kevin Pilla, 43, and his partner of 23 years Thomas Mannix, 44, with dog Buddy, prepare for their civil union ceremony that took place at midnight February 22, 2007 in Asbury Park, New Jersey. The couple was registered as a domestic partnership in 1993 in New York and 2004 in New Jersey. By Colin Archer/Getty Images.)
My Christianist Base
14 Jun 2007 04:42 pm
A reader writes:
I had to smile at your 11:36am "Christianism Watch," because by the standards of the Christianist mentioned in the linked CBN story - as long as he's OK with Catholics - my credentials are right up there.
I have attended Mass nearly every single Sunday for the past five years, and in the event that I miss one, I usually try and make it up on Wednesday night.
I do a Confession about once every three months on average.
I'm both a eucharistic minister and an occasional lector at my church, and I've served as a greeter/"hospitality minister."
On one occasion I even gave out the Eucharist in place of a priest who'd had polio as a child and couldn't stand for more than a few minutes at a time.
Yet I also favor gay adoption rights, have no problem with gay marriage, oppose the war in Iraq, and think the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have serious negative consequences for this country. Think that Harding University professor, or for that matter many CBN viewers, would be rushing out to vote for me for president? Maybe I should give it a go when I turn 35 in a few years.
Maybe you should. But I bet you that among many actual Christians under 35, your views are not that unusual.
Go To College ...
14 Jun 2007 04:15 pm
... and get religion. Chad Orzel examines a new study of 10,000 students and concludes:
Clearly, militant atheists need to spend less time on education, and more time on the critical task of getting college students stoned and laid.
I'm more interested in why pot, booze and sex would weaken one's religious faith. All three have only validated mine.
Face of the Day
14 Jun 2007 04:09 pm
Sophia Folkesson, a BA Honours student at the Edinburgh College of Art, lays down on her art installation of a floor covered in human hair on June 15, 2007 in Edinburgh, Scotland. The works of over 400 students across 23 art, design and architecture departmentare on display throughout the college. By Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images.
Seersucker Thursday
14 Jun 2007 04:01 pm
Trent Lott's strange enthusiasm.
In Defense of Coulter
14 Jun 2007 03:59 pm
Mark Kleiman goes there.
Iraq and Gaza, Ctd
14 Jun 2007 03:42 pm
Readers have offered their own take on why we can afford to allow an Islamist terror state emerge in Gaza but not in Iraq:
The glaring difference is, we created this problem in Iraq but we did not create the problem in Gaza. By irresponsibly removing Saddam we let loose violent factions. Certainly we have some responsibility to the people of Iraq.
Er, yes. But that logic means that the occupation of Iraq is completely self-perpetuating: The worse things get the more we are obliged to stay. And the longer we stay the worse things get. Wonderful, no? Being trapped in Iraq, moreover, has clearly prevented us from tackling Iran with any traction. One argument commonly made for staying in Iraq makes no sense to me at all. It's McCain's "if we leave, they will follow us home." But if we stay, they can follow us home as well. And by staying, we have clearly created more of them to follow us. The second argument that fails to convince is that by leaving, we give al Qaeda a propaganda coup. Yes, we would, and it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that. Any argument for withdrawal needs to take that into account. But by staying and losing, we also give al Qaeda a propaganda coup. And by constantly giving al Qaeda an anti-imperial narrative, we also prevent Muslims and Arabs from recognizing them for what they are: not anti-imperial liberators but theo-fascists.
It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that if we want to win this long war, we have to leave Iraq. Sooner rather than later.
Another GI's Guide To Iraq
14 Jun 2007 03:38 pm
After that insightful gem from 1943, here's another U.S. military guide to Iraq in 2003. This line is priceless:
Arabs, by American standards, are reluctant to accept responsibility.
You think?
Hitch and God
14 Jun 2007 03:04 pm
A reader writes:
I do love Hitch - I think he's one of the best zinger men since Tynan, etc. But it will be interesting if thoughts of sobriety eventually creep in, as they sometimes will. His calling AA a quasi-cult in VF still rankles. His right, of course, certainly. But once the Hemingway-style high life begins to pall, I do hope he can find the humility to consider the idea of a higher power. As it says in Appendix II of Alcoholics Anonymous (aka the Big Book), which addresses the sometimes slow awakening of spirituality:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation," – Herbert Spencer.
A line in John Updike's Rabbit Redux always makes me think of AA, though the character was speaking of something else entirely: "It is where God is pushing through."
My own position with friends is to accept them totally, or not be friends. I have no desire for Hitch to be anything other than completely himself, and if that includes a fondness of whiskey, more power to him. I have no desire to change him in any way. His fearless brilliance, astonishingly wide reading and great wit are treasures to me and a lot of others. And my own sense from being friends with him for over two decades is that, deep down, his impulse is less hostile to God than to organized religion. He's an anti-clericalist in a long British tradition. Besides, I'm also not in a mood to lambaste atheists these days. I disagree with them, as my long dialogue with Sam Harris testifies. But given the extremes that organized reigion has recently embraced, especially in Islam but to a lesser extent in Christian fundamentalism, there's a reason for an atheist revival. Whatever point anti-theists want to make has been more than eloquently made for them these past few years by the idiocy of so many "believers."
Iran's New Terror Base
14 Jun 2007 02:50 pm
Here's Charles Krauthammer:
This is the beginning of the Palestinian civil war. Round one happened this week, and it's over. Hamas has won in Gaza, it will take it over. And it is the worst elements.
As one high administration official said the other day, these are the extreme elements of the extremists. And this is essentially the first Palestinian independent territory — Israel is out of Gaza — and it will now become a terrorist state.
And it will also be, this is extremely important, a client of Iran. Hamas is supplied and financed by Iran.
And we do what? Invade? Or deal with it from a distance? If we can do the latter with Gaza, why not Anbar? Anbar, after all, is full of Sunni terrorists who would presumably counter the Shia terrorists. Doesn't that make leaving Anbar less dangerous than staying out of Gaza? Just asking.
How The Nazis Defended "Enhanced Interrogation"
14 Jun 2007 02:34 pm
Hint: the ticking time-bomb exception, and the need for better intelligence about an insurgency - the same defense as the GOP establishment has used for exactly the same techniques - hypothermia, stress positions, sensory deprivation, etc. - in the US and Iraq. The terms and specific methods used are the same for the Gestapo's "Verschaerfte Vernehmung," "Third Degree," and Bush's "enhanced interrogation." Of course, we also learn from the documents that
The GESTAPO in general believed that other methods of interrogation, such as playing off political factions against each other, were much more effective than third degree methods.
So Bush has more faith in torture than the Gestapo did. A reader writes:
I read with great interest your 19 May post about the Gestapo directive concerning "enhanced interrogation techniques". I gather that you found the document through a 1948 Norway trial. However, the same directive seems to have also been in evidence at Nuremberg (though there the Tribunal apparently translated the term as "the Third Degree"). At Nuremberg it was used as part of the case against the Gestapo in seeking to have the Gestapo declared to be a criminal organization by the Tribunal.
Interestingly, a report was filed in the Nuremberg proceedings in which a Colonel Neave, acting under Commission from the Tribunal, reported the evidence of witnesses for the defense of the organizations. It is this report that draws the direct line back to the "ticking bomb exception".
The passage that sets out the Gestapo's defense of the "Third Degree" measures and authorization is as follows (pp. 55-56):
"V. DEFENSE OF THE GESTAPO AGAINST CHARGES OF BRUTALITY AND THIRD DEGREE INTERROGATIONS
BEST said that he preferred to describe the so-called "third degree interrogations" as "severe interrogations". He did not hear of the decree which authorized this type of interrogation until sometime after it had been issued and he had once told HEYDRICH his scruples concerning it. HEYDRICH informed him that the measure had been approved by very high authority and similar methods were used in other countries.
Continue reading "How The Nazis Defended "Enhanced Interrogation"" »
Another Hitch Counter-Blast
14 Jun 2007 02:18 pm
From Sam Schulman in Commentary.
Victory!
14 Jun 2007 01:35 pm
Confirmed. A reader notes:
Think about that. The final vote was 151 to 45. Gay marriage opponents couldn't even get 25% of state legislators to support their amendment. That's not a sea change in public opinion, that's a tidal wave.
I expect the social right to argue that only a referendum confirms democratic legitimacy on marriage equality. I'd have been happy to win such a referendum and think we could in Massachusetts. But it is a very strange idea that over 75 percent of an elected legislature does not represent democratic legitimacy. Now: let the legislature have its way in California.
Love Letters For Libby
14 Jun 2007 01:35 pm
The Washington establishment rushes to protect one of its own from the consequences of perjury. Here's the PDF of all the Beltwayers' letters to the judge, demanding superior legal treatment for one of their friends. Enjoy, and if you find a particularly excruciating diamond in the rough, let me know.
Marriage Equality In Massachusetts
14 Jun 2007 01:25 pm
The reports are sketchy but I just got word that the amendment to put civil marriage equality to a referendum next year has just been defeated 151 - 45 in the Massachusetts legislature. That means marriage rights for gay couples are here to stay in America. It means a historic victory for civil rights. Stay tuned for updates.
Romney, Faith and the Jews
14 Jun 2007 01:18 pm
Not an auspicious attempt at ecumenism. His list of religious allies may not have any only have one Jew on it but it includes many Christianists and others deeply hostile to gay dignity and equality.
Giuliani's Iraq Policy
14 Jun 2007 12:39 pm
He has none right now. It's "in the hands of other people." More specifically:
"What I was trying to do was to look at the things, as best as you can predict it now, that are going to be there a year and a half from now. Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people. But what we do know for sure is the terrorists are going to be at war with us a year, a year and a half from now."
So how does Iraq play into the broader struggle against Islamist terror? Has it helped or hurt? Where should we go from here? The country is at a vital cross-roads in this war and the GOP front-runner has no contribution to make as to what we should do. Romney and Thompson are just as vague. McCain and Paul are the only ones with the integrity and courage to speak to our moment. And that's why they are currently the only Republican candidates worthy of any respect.
Iraq and Gaza
14 Jun 2007 12:11 pm
I mentioned this obvious parallel yesterday, wondering why Glenn Reynolds doesn't favor U.S. or allied occupation or re-occupation of the place. Glenn favors indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq to prevent a terror-state emerging in the chaos we helped unleash there. So why is he happy to allow Gaza to become a terror-state without our military intervention? Isn't the threat to the West the same - or maybe worse? Glenn responds by asserting that my point is a "mindless snark." He says
It's not like we invaded Iraq for these reasons, after all.
Well: no shit, Sherlock. But this leads to an obvious further question: why did we invade Iraq four years ago?
A gentle reminder: We did not invade Iraq to police a sectarian civil war for ever. We did not invade Iraq to permanently prevent an al Qaeda presence there with our troops. We invaded to remove what we were told were stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and to pre-empt the development of nuclear weaponry, because, after 9/11, we decided not to take the risk of Sddam handing over such weapons to Qaeda or Qaeda-style terrorists. Removing a brutal tyranny and creating a space for democratic life were secondary and tertiary reasons, and were designed to defuse the logic of Isla