Saturday, October 6, 2007
06 Oct 2007 06:31 pm
There had to be some explanation:
"Extra time spent grooming has a positive and significant effect on both men's and women's earnings, but the effect is considerably larger for men," they said in a paper called "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: The Effect of Time Spent Grooming on Wages." "For men, every extra 10 minutes daily grooming increases their weekly wages by 6 percent. However, women would have to nearly quadruple their daily grooming time to receive that much in additional wages."
06 Oct 2007 05:16 pm
"One of the most irrational things I have ever seen in my life in the law." The full story of copyright infringement insanity is here.
06 Oct 2007 04:34 pm
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner] ... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country," - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775.
06 Oct 2007 04:14 pm
A quote to ponder:
"I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right," - Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote.
I haven't a clue about these things, but apparently history has proven him wrong.
06 Oct 2007 02:29 pm
I tried once. I failed. This post is appearing on a Saturday afternoon on a holiday weekend. And you keep enabling me. A 40 percent increase in traffic over last year is crack to hacks like me. Of course, I'm not alone:
Nearly as common as the abandoned blog is the "final comments before I reclaim my life" post. Followed by "an update to something I said in my final comments." And, "Well, I couldn't let this story go by." And on it goes.
One of the best resignation letters came from Alan Jacobs in Books & Culture. "Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the blogosphere is the friend of information but the enemy of thought," he wrote in "Goodbye, Blog" (May/June 2006). A year later, in addition to writing a regular column for Books & Culture, the Wheaton College literature professor blogs thoughtfully at two different sites.
06 Oct 2007 01:26 pm
Florence, Italy, 9 am.
06 Oct 2007 12:20 pm
A testament from Hitch:
I feverishly clicked on all the links from the article and found myself on Lieutenant Daily's MySpace site, where his statement "Why I Joined" was posted. The site also immediately kicked into a skirling noise of Irish revolutionary pugnacity: a song from the Dropkick Murphys album Warrior's Code. And there, at the top of the page, was a link to a passage from one of my articles, in which I poured scorn on those who were neutral about the battle for Iraq … I don't remember ever feeling, in every allowable sense of the word, quite so hollow.
06 Oct 2007 11:18 am
Perhaps our most important ally, left hanging in Iraq, and increasingly abandoned by a myopic Europe:
Mutual hostility between Turks and some countries in the European Union has risen in recent years. According to a recent poll conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Compagnia di San Paolo, an Italian foundation, 49 percent of people in France, and 43 percent of people in Germany, where there is widespread hostility toward the country's large number of immigrant Turks, regard the prospect of Turkish membership as a "bad thing," while a mere 40 percent of Turks support membership in the union—a big drop from the 73-percent figure for 2004.
Turks' enthusiasm for the union seems to have fallen in proportion to their declining confidence that they will be admitted. According to the same survey, barely a quarter of Turks expect the union to let them in. Since coming to power, Nicolas Sarkozy has said that he may not carry out his campaign pledge to block accession negotiations on further "chapters," but he continues to favor a "privileged partnership" for Turkey, not full membership.
06 Oct 2007 11:11 am
A reader writes:
Do you really think that any other non-Hillary candidate will somehow be free of attack from the Limbaughs, JPods, and Hannitys of the world? They already call Obama "Osama" and have suggested that he was educated in a madrassah. Any Democrat that is elected will be subject to polarizing fire from the right, especially if the right loses badly in 2008. It doesn't matter if it is Hillary or anyone else, it will be 1998 all over again. Except this time, with a "stab in the back" betrayal of all that is good and right and favored by Jesus to spice it all up.
In that context, casting a vote to poke these guys in the eye with a stick seems as good a reason as any to vote for HRC. It certainly isn't a reason NOT to vote for her.
I don't know how to get the toxic genie back in the bottle. I hope, but doubt, that Obama has the unifying "it." But for the moment and for the foreseeable future, the genie is out. For this I blame the Republican Party, and only the Republican Party.
I think the only way that the polarizing toxicity gets drained away from national politics is if the source of that toxicity - the culture warrior wing of the GOP - is decimated, and a new GOP can grow free of its power.
Another adds:
Now as far as Hillary goes: She'll be equally corrupt and
wrongheaded as the former Cheerleader and his band of merry neocons,
just as devious, and she will be just competent enough to keep the ship
of state on an even keel. Then in 2017, she can hand off the controls
to the next half-bright disaster in waiting.
See it really isn't all that bad, is it?
And it's Jeb, after that, I presume.
(Photo: Mannie Garcia/Getty.)
06 Oct 2007 10:16 am
Greg Djerejian surveys the wreckage:
And so it went, with the fundamental strategic reality little acknowledged, namely, that Iraq cannot be stabilized without political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shia, that Kurdish federalism (notably Kirkuk) remains a massive sleeper issue, and that no regional diplomatic approach to integrate our Iraq efforts into the larger strategic situation was being addressed with requisite seriousness. But little matter, Petraeus festooned with medals looked good, as did the no-nonsense demeanor of Crocker. The upshot: we’d keep surging then (like the gravity-defying markets, no one can keep Surge Nation down)!
The default option is in place: policing a Middle East empire for the indefinite future, broken piece of Iraq by broken piece of Iraq. But, hey, maybe things will improve. What else can we have but baseless optimism?
06 Oct 2007 09:51 am
Some disturbing developments in the Mountain West:
A growing and ferocious anti-gay movement in the Sacramento Valley
is centered among Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking immigrants. Many of
them are members of an international extremist anti-gay movement whose
adherents call themselves the Watchmen on the Walls. In Latvia, the
Watchmen are popular among Christian fundamentalists and ethnic
Russians, and are known for presiding over anti-gay rallies where gays
and lesbians are pelted with bags of excrement. In the Western U.S.,
the Watchmen have a following among Russian-speaking evangelicals from
the former Soviet Union. Members are increasingly active in several
cities long known as gay-friendly enclaves, including Sacramento,
Seattle and Portland, Ore.
Vlad Kusakin, the host of a
Russian-language anti-gay radio show in Sacramento and the publisher of
a Russian-language newspaper in Seattle, told The Seattle Times
in January that God has "made an injection" of high numbers of anti-gay
Slavic evangelicals into traditionally liberal West Coast cities. "In
those places where the disease is progressing, God made a divine
penicillin," Kusakin said.
06 Oct 2007 08:13 am
Did they hack Syria's network to rumble the alleged weapons from NoKo? Or were Syria's air defenses inadequate?
Friday, October 5, 2007
05 Oct 2007 09:11 pm
The Burmese opposition, i.e. almost all the country, reacts cautiously to the regime's offer of a dialogue.
05 Oct 2007 06:29 pm
A Republican candidate and a public restroom. I should say my sympathy is ultimately with the Republican. I don't think this stuff is a threat to public order or should be subject to police stings. But, sadly, if you are representing a party that believes in the necessity of publicly stigmatizing homosexuals, you're pretty vulnerable to this kind of trauma.
05 Oct 2007 06:10 pm
A reader writes:
That email was horrifying. This from the party that purports to be progressive? The only functional difference between the reader's "argument" and the argument for, say, creationism is that at least the creationist acknowledges a force outside the bounds of reason; the reader, on the other hand, actually says, "My reason tells me this doesn't make any sense, but I'm deliberately sublimating it and letting my raw emotions take over." I think that once you start down that path, it becomes habit-forming, and that's the reason the great religions tell us not to act in anger: it has a lot more to do with how the anger affects us than how it affects the people we get angry with.
05 Oct 2007 05:28 pm
Four young kids whose mother has a drug problem and whose father is absent have been taken in by their uncle. The Utah authorities now insist on removing the four kids and putting them in foster care. Why? Their uncle is gay and has a partner:
The men have been together for five years, both are natives of Utah, both are employed, and neither has a criminal history. The state will have to split the four siblings up if it succeeds in removing from their uncles’ home; it’s almost impossible to find a foster home that will take four children.
The eldest kid, eleven years' old, explains:
"I would rather live with my mom. But if I can't, I’d rather live here."
Utah disagrees. Dan Savage has the rest.
05 Oct 2007 04:59 pm
Republican presidential hopeful and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani pauses while speaking during a summit October 5, 2007 in Washington, DC. Members of the Americans for Prosperity foundation, a group dedicated to reducing government spending, hosted a summit where presidential candidates spoke. By Brendan Smialowski/Getty.
05 Oct 2007 04:22 pm
There's a general in it. Retired, of course.
05 Oct 2007 04:16 pm
A reader writes:
You show a billboard of the repulsive Hannity urging "Stop Hillary Now," and you see that as a force against the former first lady. Why can you not see how energizing such items are for Hillary? I like Obama, think he's said all the right things and avoided all potential pitfalls to date -- I could certainly make a case to myself that he is quite presidential and could be the healing force this country needs. But I will vote for Hillary no matter what. I'm as bothered as anybody about the concept of 3 decades of the Bush/Clinton dynasties. It is very possible that Edwards' plans for Iraq and healthcare could be more effective than Hillary's.
But I will vote for Hillary in the primary if Edwards and/or Obama walk on water. Why? Because the Hannitys and the Limbaughs and the Malkins et. al. have made it their mission to stop her. I have voted in every election since 1981 and no vote I have ever cast would make me more proud than one I could use to foil the mission of that revolting scum. Andrew, I am not alone in this. The right wing ranters' audience already hates Clinton and she has already written them off. But the people that loathe the right wing ranters almost have to vote for Hillary specifically because of this scum's terror of her.
So you vote for Clinton entirely to stick it to the right. This is the logic of polarization as its own reward. It is faction and dynasty placed at the core of American politics - something the founders rightly feared would destroy a rational democratic polity. It is the toxin that won't go away. And when this country is attacked again and Clinton needs the trust and support of those who didn't vote for her? What will America do then?
05 Oct 2007 03:58 pm
Dave Weigel was at the GOP confab. Someone tried to hug Ron Paul. Awwwkwaaard. Here's the voice of the new GOP base if ever I heard it:
By far the most opinionated activist I spoke to was Jerry Sawyer, a 67-year old academic from Fort Myer's Beach, Florida and the author of a self-published epistle called Liberalism and the Age of the Woman. Ron Paul was unacceptable because "Libertarianism is an incoherent philosophy. How can you say you'll govern Judeo-Christian principles if you're not willing to enforce them." George W. Bush is a good president "but I want to choke him for his immigration stance."
05 Oct 2007 03:50 pm
A classic:
After Giuliani spoke for nearly 25 minutes, Ron Paul, who may have earned his time to speak with this quarter’s fund raising, took the stage. Speaking for just over 10 minutes, Paul was then cut off by the stage music — a tactic usually reserved for an emotional Oscar-winning actress (or one that gets a little too political) to wrap it up.
(Hat tip: Brian Miller.)
05 Oct 2007 03:47 pm
Some Dems are already ridiculing the logo for next year's Republican convention. The elephant, it appears, has a "wide stance".
05 Oct 2007 03:44 pm
The RNC has now sent out its third mailing this week focused on Hillary. She really is the GOP's last best hope for 2008. Money quote:
The Hillary Clinton fundraising juggernaut keeps on rolling.
This week, the Clinton campaign announced that they have raised $27
million over the last three months, putting Hillary's total campaign
cash at $90 million for the year. She is on pace to raise much more
than $100 million by the end of the year.
Democrats and left-wing special interest groups are raising hundreds of
millions of dollars to put a liberal like Hillary Clinton in the White
House and expand their majorities in Congress. Your secure online
contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today will
help keep our campaign programs on track. Thank you.
05 Oct 2007 03:38 pm
They need each other. So do the polarized, professionalized political and media classes. That's why this race is already over, according to Washington, MSNBC, CNN and Fox. And they all make oodles of money off the classic left-right, McGovern-Nixon, Lib-Con circus. It's win-win. For them.
05 Oct 2007 03:33 pm
A glimpse into Beijing-supported totalitarianism today.
05 Oct 2007 03:30 pm
A reader writes:
So, if we understand that Obama could very well be the "real deal" this country needs, how do common Americans wrest this election from the hands of the media and the punditocracy that is only interested in spinning a narrative? The "cackle" got more play than Obama's speech at DePaul. And this extends beyond just Obama. How can we convince reporters and pundits that we are far more interested in Ron Paul's fund raising coup (is Goldwater back?) than Rudy Giuliani taking a phone call in the middle of a NRA speech? Most people I speak to -- fellow early 30s -- are far more invested in substance over melodrama, but every night we turn on the 24-hour news networks or open a magazine, it seems more and more disgustingly apparent that the media is hellbent on a Clinton vs. Giuliani showdown.
That's what blogs are for, right? I'm going to keep noting the actual arguments of Paul and Obama and spend a little more time on their ideas than their jacket lapels. There's also something called primaries. Paul and Obama and even Edwards show how the Internet can trump MSM easy narratives. My feeling is that the more the MSM assume a Giuliani-Clinton boomer-bust-up next year, the more primary voters may feel cut out of the decision. And they might just rebel against being told what's inevitable. As for cable news programming, there's no hope, I fear. The producers are just craven in doing what's easy and what gets a quick ratings bump. So Hillary and Rudy it is. There's too much money and ratings to lose in any other match-up.
05 Oct 2007 03:11 pm
A reader writes:
I was just reading the bit you quoted from Bob Kaplan's WSJ article. I think it should be noted that there is a huge difference between how enlisted soldiers and commissioned officers view war. (I had the privilege of serving as both.) Most officers I've known are extremely dedicated professionals who love what they are doing and have worked incredibly hard to get there. I would even add that many of them are eager to fight and put their proficiencies to the test.
In 1990, I had just turned 18 and found myself serving in Operation Desert Storm. I was scared and to be honest, completely kicking myself for putting myself in that situation. On my second day in country as we waited to deploy into the desert, a Lt. Colonel in my group gave us an impromptu class on chemical warfare. I will just never forget how excited that old guy was about the whole thing. More importantly, I'll never forget when he told us how we would test for the all clear after a chemical attack.
He pointed at me and said, we'll grab the guy with least amount of stripes on his collar, take off his mask and watch him for a few minutes. I've always thought that summed up everything I learned about being at the bottom of the enlisted ladder.
Our Army IS full of brave and dedicated professionals. We do not need to infantilize some 50 year old career officer, but we do need to make sure our younger, enlisted soldiers are being taken care of. Those kids belong to all of us; and if their lives are being needlessly wasted, we all share the blame.
05 Oct 2007 02:49 pm
The web was buzzing this week about Clinton's sudden crushing of opposition and surge in the polls. Much of it was occasioned by the WaPo poll that gave her over 50 percent support. Drudge and the New York Post kept the meme going. Helpful as ever, Pollster.com has looked at the broader data to see if that poll is a fluke. The answer: probably. When you look at all the polls - and remove Gore - you see a much less volatile race for the Dems:
Clinton has done something more impressive than a sudden crushing. She has moved very slowly and gradually upward. Obama has been trending slightly downward since the spring. But it's basically a holding pattern - in stark contrast to the GOP race which is all over the place. Obama is still higher than he was last December. Mark Blumenthal concludes:
The 53% result for new Post/ABC poll is more of an "outlier"
from the regression trend line than any poll conducted this year (it's
the purple dot at the extreme top right of plot area). At 53%, the
polls estimate of Clinton's
support falls a full ten percentage points higher than our current
estimate of
the trend (42.5%) even without Gore in the race.
I doubt it will shift until a critical mass of primary voters pay attention later this year.
05 Oct 2007 02:29 pm
Tempe, Arizona, 5.30 pm.
05 Oct 2007 02:05 pm
John O'Sullivan sees it as a possibility for Clinton. Isn't Webb more in line with Obama on the war? Good idea, anyway.
05 Oct 2007 01:42 pm
It's good to know that while Pete Wehner is unable to discuss the revelations about secret authorization of torture in the administration he served, he is able to take time to write about a lapel-pin. If Wehner really believes that Obama is a closet Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky, he should say so plainly rather than by implication. Dan Radosh comments on how many Christianists have decided to eschew what they call cheesy "witness wear" here.
05 Oct 2007 01:28 pm
Johann Hari reports on Paris' military interventions in Africa. Money quote:
As Mahmoud and Idris talk into the night, it is getting dark, and a suffocating blackness and silence falls on the city. There is no electricity and no moonlight. They explain in this blackness that the French-backed troops began firing and the French military began bombing in March for one reason: the desperate locals had begun to rise up against President Bozize, because he had done nothing for them. People here were tired of the fact "there are no schools, no hospitals, and no roads," they explain. "We are completely isolated. When it rains, we are cut off from the world because the roads turn to mud. We have nothing. All the rebels were asking was for government help." As I stumble around Birao, I hear this every time: the rebels were simply begging for government help for the hungry, abandoned people. Even the bemused French soldiers and the Bozize lackeys sent to the area admit this privately. Yet the French response was with bombs against the rebels' pick-up points. Why? What is there here that they want?
If the US did anything like this, you wouldn't hear the last of it. But this is the first report I've read. Thanks, Johann.
05 Oct 2007 01:04 pm
Jesus, so to speak:
When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.
05 Oct 2007 12:29 pm
I've long enjoyed Peggy Noonan's work (except for one dreadful book even she must regret writing). I don't always agree with her, but she represents for me that brand of blue-state conservatism that came of age in the Reagan era, one that was often Catholic (though not dogmatically so), repelled by the bile of the far left, respectful of religion and tradition but very much at ease with the modern world, often urban and ethnic, and very susceptible to the charm and rhetoric and deep seriousness of Reagan. I guess she reminds me of my mum and sister. These kinds of conservatives are meritocrats. They were much more Reagan than Bush. And they are deeply distrustful of dynasty and inheritance. They're not country club Republicans. But they're not Dobsonites either. And they don't always vote for the party of the right.
The idea of America being run by two families for two decades is anathema to such conservatives, as it is to many liberals. There is something inherently corrupting about it - not just corrupting of them, but corrupting of us. The experience of such power - presiding over the most powerful nation in modern history - cannot but corrupt; and our decision to delegate real decisions to various royal families while boning up on the latest news from Britney Spears is a sign of real decadence. In a war this dangerous, it's positively reckless, especially given the vast new neo-monarchical powers this administration has seized and will, in large part, bequeath to the next president. We have learned how one such succession has worked out. We should be extremely leery of another, especially since so many in the Washington establishment have already decided that this race is over, and it is now the voters' job to crown the next-in-line for the throne. So give Peggy a few minutes of your time today:
Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.
Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."
You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.
I've been following him for a while and got to interview him the other day for a forthcoming cover-piece in the Atlantic. He's still a real human being, a commoner. She's to the Manor wed. I don't believe this race is over. I think it has barely begun.
(Photo: Scott Morgan/Getty.)
05 Oct 2007 12:09 pm
Mark Penn has a client other than Senator Clinton: Blackwater.
05 Oct 2007 12:05 pm
David Brooks diagnoses the patient on life-support. It's not far off the arguments I made at length a year ago (and he's generous enough to mention me). Burke is indeed one key. His understanding of the limits of human knowledge and the dangers of abstract ideas did not, nonetheless, make him stodgy or dull or unable to be passionate about, say, the American Revolution or abuse of executive power at home. Conor Cruise O'Brien's treatment remains, for me, the gold standard. Conservatives can be radical and strident in defense of settled principles. Like the rule of law, and the evil of executive power empowered with the right to detain without charges and torture.
05 Oct 2007 11:40 am
Blogosphere beware! I anticipate many lunches at the Palm. Not. It's a quick burrito bowl at Chipotle for the Dish most days. This gave me the creeps:
Those who write political blogs tend to be skeptical of power, Wallsten says. “Their antagonistic attitude makes them difficult to organize.” But if a lobbyist, an industry, or an advocacy organization “could get all of these people on the blogs writing and coordinating their messages in the same direction, it would be a tremendous force,” he says.
For evil.
05 Oct 2007 11:33 am
"“Now the reason why the N.R.A. has lost all credibility is statements
like that. By definition these are attack weapons. They are
used for offense. It really is absolutely astounding that the N.R.A.
continues to have influence in areas in which they make no sense at
all," - Rudy Giuliani, 1994.
05 Oct 2007 11:11 am
Does Clarence Thomas really have to pitch his book to every hard-right commentator out there? Justices have a right to write books about their lives. But I can't help but feel that a Justice who appears on so many deeply partisan shows is weakening the institution he serves. I'd say this if it were Stephen Breyer going on Amy Goodman or Keith Olbermann. I thought one critical conservative value in the judiciary was restraint. Does Thomas - and his many ideological interlocutors - appreciate that? He's got an extremely powerful job for life. He needs book sales this badly? Or is he behaving like a movement politician?
05 Oct 2007 11:03 am
My Atlantic colleague, Bob Kaplan, had a piece in the WSJ yesterday, which I missed till now. Money quote:
The media struggles in good faith to respect our troops, but too often it merely pities them. I am generalizing, of course. Indeed, there are regular, stellar exceptions, quite often in the most prominent liberal publications, from our best military correspondents. But exceptions don't quite cut it amidst the barrage of "news," which too often descends into therapy for those who are not fighting, rather than matter-of-fact stories related by those who are.
As one battalion commander complained to me, in words repeated by other soldiers and marines: "Has anyone noticed that we now have a volunteer Army? I'm a warrior. It's my job to fight." Every journalist has a different network of military contacts. Mine come at me with the following theme: We want to be admired for our technical proficiency--for what we do, not for what we suffer. We are not victims. We are privileged.
Bob's worry is that many of his media peers are no longer part of nationhood, and so cannot warm to stories of derring-do. I don't see that myself. In fact, what's striking about this war is how popular the troops are in a very divisive conflict. And remember the coverage during the actual liberation of Iraq? The trouble is: Leveraging Sunni tribes against al Qaeda is not the stuff of which war-stories are easily made. And that's what most are now doing.
(Photo: David Furst/Getty.)
05 Oct 2007 10:35 am
Denver, Colorado, dawn.
05 Oct 2007 10:13 am
Peter Berkowitz defends conservative intellectual icon, Russell Kirk - at greater length.
05 Oct 2007 09:09 am
The strange story of a peacock, a British aristocrat, and a Lexus. A good excuse to link to Monty Python.
05 Oct 2007 09:05 am
No, not a new contest. A new contender. Full poem after the jump:
Continue reading "Worst Poem Ever" »
05 Oct 2007 08:34 am
The number of young people who do not consider themselves Christians is growing, as is the hostility toward Christianity expressed by the next generation of non-Christians, claims a new book from David Kinnaman of Barna.org. Money quote:
The study shows that 16- to 29-year-olds exhibit
a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous
generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just
a decade, many of the Barna measures of the Christian image have
shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of
disengagement and disillusionment among young people. For instance, a
decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith,
including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in
society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late
teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.
And so the polarization grows. Here's one reason:
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image
that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the
most common perception is that present-day Christianity is
"anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of
young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the
research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians
explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose
homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and
unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent
criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has
made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they
claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching
on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.
There's a reason the gay question looms so large. It is very hard to know what we now know about gays and still treat them as the moral pariahs and "disordered" threats to society that Benedict XVI and James Dobson do. And when Christians are known by their fear rather than by their love, the reputation of the faith suffers.
05 Oct 2007 08:04 am
Selling real estate, what else?
05 Oct 2007 07:21 am
Uh-oh. Well, at least we got a great Larison blog-post out of it:
This strikes me as a really bad idea, and this isn’t just
because I have been such a harsh critic of Santorum on foreign policy. I don’t object to the suggestion that more conservatives should
make documentaries. Conservatives definitely should make more
documentaries, but they should do so because they actually want to
be filmmakers and want to tell stories. They should do this because
they have a talent for doing it, which ensures that they will be doing
the work that best expresses their particular gifts. Conservatives
should not make documentaries just because that’s what leftists do and
we need to counter their propaganda arm with one of our own. As much
as it may stun certain folks to read this, left-wing
politics prevails among actors and artists for the same reason that it
prevails among most journalists: it is a kind of politics that
initially fits very well with the kind of work that these people do,
and these professions attract people who already tend to share these
beliefs.
He also gets why the idea of a career in acting was a non-starter for me. All those dumb-ass, mindless, sanctimonious lefties can turn you into Mickey Kaus or Dennis Miller if you're not careful:
I suspect conservatives don’t get into a lot of acting or art or
journalism today because they know a few things about all of them: they
know that these areas are all full of people who are not like them
temperamentally or culturally, there are some strong entrenched forces opposing the sorts of work they would like to do (consider how difficult it was for Robert Duvall to get The Apostle made) and this sort of work strikes them as unattractive because they deem it less practical or less meaningful.
05 Oct 2007 06:43 am
"The debate I expect to have next fall with Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or whoever's the Republican nominee is whether or not to end this war. But the debate Sen. Clinton would be in is how big a war you're going to have," - John Edwards, upping the ante.
05 Oct 2007 06:02 am
The technology is changing everything:
Prosecutors in the case against former Bosnian army chief Rasim Delic this week filed an urgent motion requesting that an audio recording of a farewell ceremony of a unit of foreign Muslim fighters, recently posted on the internet, be admitted into evidence, because they believe it could be central to their case.
The audio clip in question was part of video footage posted two weeks ago on YouTube, the popular internet site, in which General Delic allegedly says that the El Mujahed unit was part of the command and control system of the Bosnian army.
Delic is on trial for allegedly failing to take the required steps to prevent or punish foreign Muslim fighters, or mujahedin, who apparently executed and mistreated tens of captured Serb soldiers and civilians during 1995.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
04 Oct 2007 09:47 pm
It never dies and now there's a blog-post that's making new waves.
September 30, 2007 - October 6, 2007
Site Meter 
