Just
over a month after Israel's first occupation of Gaza,
Israeli military governors and Arab notables hold a ceremony
commemorating the establishment of the local council December 20, 1956
in Deir el Balah in the Gaza Strip. In late October 1956, shortly
before the British and French invasion of the Suez Canal Zone, Israeli
troops seized the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip and used it as a
springboard for its advance against the Egyptians in the Sinai
Peninsula. On March 6, 1957 the United Nations Emergency Force replaced
the Israeli troops, and Cairo regained control of the Gaza Strip.
(Photo by GPO via Getty Images)
Blaming the customer is the second-to-last refuge of any crappy industry, business, or organization (the last refuge being asking for a handout on Capitol Hill). As my ex-L.A. Times colleague and current Reason magazine Contributing Editor Tim Cavanaugh has noted in our pages, the paper we both short-timed for was filled with people making jokes about whether we could just "fire our readers."
I’m no follower of Schmitt, but I don’t imagine one has to be in order to ask: was Oakeshott too naive about our ability to domesticate or pacify politics? Call it what you want — cruelty, in Shklar’s terms; ‘the world’ or ‘the profane’ or ‘despair’ in more theological ones; simply ‘power’, in Foucauldian or pop-Thucydidean language. Isn’t the question the same?
This is, of course, one of the more trenchant criticisms of Oakeshott and an area where Rorty's and Oakeshott's flaws more obviously over-lap. It's a long discussion, but my point was to clarify a problem within conservatism - the logic of power and the logic of freedom.
At some very deep level, the modern liberal state is, of course, founded on violence and the threat of it. All politics is, as Machiavelli and Hobbes explained. Understanding that is not to capitulate to some kind of fascism. But the ability to keep that violent basis for power hidden and to sustain habits of mind of soul and politics that keep it at bay is something Oakeshott viewed as a fragile but wondrous cultural achievement. So the introduction of raw political violence in the West in the 21st Century is an undermining of that achievement. Bin Laden is responsible first and foremost. But Dick Cheney's zest to meet the Islamists on their level is something an Oakeshottian conservative will worry very deeply about. And it is something that should cause all conservatives to stop and think. It is not, to coin a phrase, a "no-brainer".
Is the logic of the Gaza offensive really going to be the lodestar of the West in the years ahead?
The Economist reports on how India is weathering the global recession:
To make a serious dent in poverty, India needs to keep up economic growth of around 8% a year. In the medium term that should not be too difficult. More impressive even than the success of India’s best companies is the zest for business shown by millions of Indians in dusty bazaars and slum-shack factories. They are truly entrepreneurs. It is no coincidence, as is often noted, that Indians have prospered everywhere outside India.
Polls are still open! You can vote for the Dish here. And surf any number of other blogs and vote for your favorites here. Thanks so much for the support.
Now scientists have begun to examine how the city affects the brain, and the results are chastening. Just being in an urban environment, they have found, impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory, and suffers from reduced self-control. While it's long been recognized that city life is exhausting -- that's why Picasso left Paris -- this new research suggests that cities actually dull our thinking, sometimes dramatically so.
Frederick Buechner, who wrote "Wishful Thinking", is one of my
favorite authors, and I don't think even he would give credit to
Tucker Carlson's claim to hear the audible voice of God. Buechner writes,
"chances are that this side of Paradise we will never hear his voice
except in the depth of our own inner silence and in each other's
voices."
As for the phrase "Wishful Thinking," a bit of context helps:
"Christianity is mainly wishful thinking. Even the part about
Judgement and Hell reflects the wish that somewhere the score is being
kept... Sometimes wishing is the wings the truth comes true on.
Sometimes the truth is what sets us wishing for it."
A member of Berlin's ice swimming club 'Berliner Seehunde' (Berlin seals) takes a dip in Orankesee lake on January 10, 2009 in Berlin, Germany. Around 120 ice swimmer nationwide celebrate the 'Berliner Seehunde' 25th anniversary. By Andreas Rentz/Getty.
There's no reason why spell-check dictionaries need to be so behind the times. All the technology to build a relevant, timely spelling database already exists in search engines like Google and Microsoft's own Live Search, which have a vast vocabulary of words and names and update their dictionaries in near real time.
A theory: When kindness is performed out of social necessity by those without the privilege of inward-looking selfishness and individualist isolation, it doesn’t register as “kindness.” When one finds they must make a conscious effort to be kind and must trumpet their efforts to have it recognized as such, it’s probably already too late for them to be worrying about kindness—they have already become the beneficiary of an unequal society to the degree that they are conscious of being or not being kind. If you think, “how kind of me,” how kind have you really been? Being kind has already become an expression of class privilege, not human fellow feeling.
Massie explains why the new atheists can seem preachy:
...their religious counterparts...generally confine themselves to arguing that you are wrong (and, of course, damned) whereas Dawkins et al also demand that you acknowledge they are right. Worse still - and I say this as someone with a faith deficit - they insist upon going on and on and on about it. We get it, chaps.
Some years ago I started studying Islam. It didn’t take long to recognise the problems of that religion’s texts — the repetitions, contradictions and absurdities. Unlike Christianity, scholarship on these problems in Islam has barely begun. But they are manifest for anyone to see. For a holy book which in its opening lines boasts ‘that is the book, wherein is no doubt’, plenty of doubt emerges. Not least in recognising demonstrable plagiarisms from the Torah and the Christian Bible. If God spoke through an archangel to one illiterate tradesman in 7th-century Arabia, then — just for starters — why was he stealing material? Or was he just repeating himself?
Gradually, scepticism of the claims made by one religion was joined by scepticism of all such claims. Incredulity that anybody thought an archangel dictated a book to Mohammed produced a strange contradiction. I found myself still clinging to belief in Christianity. I was trying to believe — though rarely arguing — ‘Well, your guy didn’t hear voices: but I know a man who did.’ This last, shortest and sharpest, phase pulled down the whole thing. In the end Mohammed made me an atheist.
Fallows' 2003 article on the case of killed Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura seems all the more timely this week:
The truth about Mohammed al-Dura is important in its own right, because this episode is so raw and vivid in the Arab world and so hazy, if not invisible, in the West. Whatever the course of the occupation of Iraq, the United States has guaranteed an ample future supply of images of Arab suffering. The two explosions in Baghdad markets in the first weeks of the war, killing scores of civilians, offered an initial taste. Even as U.S. officials cautioned that it would take more time and study to determine whether U.S. or Iraqi ordnance had caused the blasts, the Arab media denounced the brutality that created these new martyrs. More of this lies ahead. The saga of Mohammed al-Dura illustrates the way the battles of wartime imagery may play themselves out.
A team from Stony Brook University in New York scanned the brains of
couples who had been together for 20 years and compared them with
those of new lovers. They found that about one in 10 of the mature
couples exhibited the same chemical reactions when shown photographs
of their loved ones as people commonly do in the early stages of a
relationship.
Picture taken on February 10, 2006 shows wild boars near Allersberg, Bavaria. The number of wild boars in Germany has grown in the last years due to a milder climate. They come closer to cities and private houses, devastate gardens, dig in the rubbish and scare people. By Timm Schamberger/AFP/Getty.
A full accounting of the man's crusade against any recognition in law or even public culture of the dignity and equality of homosexuals has yet to appear in the various obits. But Neuhaus was central to redefining Republicanism as Christianism, to seeing religion as indistinguishable from politics, and to cementing the marginalization and disdain of gay people as a pillar of the Christianist movement.
It was therefore unsurprising that it was Neuhaus to whom president Bush turned when deciding whether to back amending the federal constitution to ensure that gay people were for ever defined as inferior to straight people under the law; and it was Neuhaus' influence that allowed Bush to pursue this agenda without ever even acknowledging the existence of the human beings whose families he was seeking to penalize and stigmatize in the founding document. The homophobia of the Bush administration cannot be understood without understanding how Neuhaus personally pioneered and shaped it.
With Neuhaus as with Ratzinger, the gay issue was central and passionate and personal. This needs stating for the record.
In contemplating the continuing Gaza offensive, statistics of the civilian dead never quite sink in as a human event. That is why this piece on one single clan caught in the crossfire is useful, if brutal and sobering. One wonders what Washington's opinion would be if thirty members of a single Jewish family were killed - even unintentionally - in the Middle Eastern conflict. No wonder talk of war crimes is surfacing, even in the Wall Street Journal. And Arab opinion seems increasingly moving toward Hamas. The chance of the PA establishing some post-war stability in Gaza certainly seems more remote. And the emergence of a poetntial terrorist training and recruiting ground in a failed and radicalized society in Gaza all the likelier. Friends and supporters of Israel should worry about this.
I haven't commented on the latest circus routine, but it is worth noting David Foster Wallace's Atlanticprofile of the circus-master, John Ziegler:
KFI's John Ziegler is not a journalist—he is an entertainer. Or maybe it's better to say that he is part of a peculiar, modern,
and very popular type of news industry, one that manages to enjoy the
authority and influence of journalism without the stodgy constraints of
fairness, objectivity, and responsibility that make trying to tell the
truth such a drag for everyone involved. It is a frightening industry,
though not for any of the simple reasons most critics give.
...it is an iron truth of politics that prolonged success sows the seeds of future downfall. Revolutions run out of steam. They cannot be permanent. More damagingly still, what begins as an unorthodox and surprisingly successful approach calcifies into a stubborn orthodoxy that brooks no dissent, even as times and circumstances change.
When I came to America from Britain, the gay rights movement was way ahead here of the old country. No longer. Here is a list of the most powerful openly gay people in Britain. The whole list is a staggering contrast with the US. At the top:
1. Spencer Livermore, 32, Director of Political Strategy, 10 Downing Street
2. Nick Brown, 57, Deputy Chief Whip, MP for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend
3. Peter Mandelson, 54, EU Trade Commissioner. He's back in the cabinet as Business secretary and Brown's main spin doctor.
4. Angela Eagle, 46, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, MP for Wallasey
5. Ben Bradshaw, 47, Minister of State for Health Services, MP for Exeter
6. Andrew Pierce, 46, Assistant Editor, Daily Telegraph. Julian Glover, Matthew Parris partner, is opinion editor al The Guardian.
The bigotry that infects the Republican party and the cynicism and cowardice that dominates the Democrats on this issue prevent such success and integration in America. And yet many of the causes that have prevailed in Britain - marriage equality and military service, for example - were pioneered on this side of the Atlantic.
Jacob Grier looks at Arlington, Virginia and sees the benefits of a light touch in anti-smoking regimes:
Arlington makes an interesting test case. It’s one of the wealthiest, most liberal cities in the country, and residents would surely approve a smoking ban if they were allowed to. Fortunately they’re restrained by Virginia law that forbids local anti-smoking ordinances to exceed the state’s own rules. Every year a statewide ban is introduced in the senate and immediately shot down by the tobacco-friendly house.
The fact that popular bars and established restaurants are voluntarily choosing to restrict smoking shows that ban opponents have been right all along: given demand for smokefree environments, profit-seeking business owners will eventually provide them, if not as immediately as a legislative ban would. And as someone who generally prefers bars with clean air, I think that’s fantastic — as long as dive bars like Jay’s or the backroom cigar lounge at EatBar remain free to set their own policies too.
On a related note, Steve Verdon doesn't take kindly to the idea of "third hand smoke."
It depends who you ask. Financial journalists in aggregate:
It should be noted that the journalists are now very bearish. Asked when the recession would end, 31% said early 2010, 26% said mid-2010, 22% said January 2011, and 21% said even later. The survey also asked where the DJIA would close on June 30, 2009. The average of the responses was 8639.12, or about 100 points lower than today. Since journalists screwed up so badly last time and are reliably contrary indicators, this might be a signal that we’re in for a quick recovery.
The U.S. recession will last two full years, with gross domestic product falling a cumulative 5%, said Nouriel Roubini, ... For 2009, Roubini predicts GDP will fall 3.4%, with declines in every quarter of the year. The unemployment rate should peak at about 9% in early 2010.
The "shrinking map of Palestine" to which you link is incomplete and inaccurate. I offer only three examples.
First, its initial map of Palestine ignores at least two relevant points. (A) Under the Ottoman Empire,
"Palestine" did not exist as a political entity. (B) In 1917, the
British conquered the land on both sides of the Jordan River.
Initially, the Palestine Mandate included both territories. This is
why, before its annexation of the West Bank, the country now known as
Jordan was called "Transjordan." Please see this Wikipedia map. In 1922 (others say 1923),
Britain unilaterally partitioned the land into "Palestine," comprising
what today are Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and
"Transjordan." Some extreme Jewish nationalists and messianists claim
that that partition either provided the Arabs of Palestine with a
homeland ("Jordan is Palestine")
or wrongfully deprived Jews of a part of our rightful patrimony -- "the Jordan has two banks, and both are ours."
Second, the author omits a map of the partition proposed by the Peel Commission in
1937, which the Jewish Agency for Palestine, under David Ben Gurion,
accepted, but the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee (under the Mufti of
Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini) rejected. You can see how much land
that rejection cost them.
This failure to recognize PTSD has real consequences. Not only will those who are suffering not receive the added -- and much-needed -- medical benefits that come to Purple Heart recipients, but the stigma around mental illness in the military is only perpetuated by this action. One can only imagine the chilling effect that this decision will have on soldiers already uncomfortable about facing mental illness.
An injured policemen walks away during clashes with demonstrators from reaching the Egyptian embassy in Algiers on January 09, 2009. Several thousand protestors rallied in Algiers after Friday prayers, burning Israeli flags and denouncing Tel Aviv and its key ally Washington. 'The army and the people are with you Gaza,' they shouted, adding: 'Take us to Gaza.' By Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty.
Most Americans with strong feelings about Israel don't actually have strong feelings about the details of Israeli policy. Had the Israeli government chosen to talk rather than start bombing back in December, Americans would have supported them. Had the Israeli government bombed for a few days and then agreed to a cease-fire, Americans would have supported that. But instead the bombing was followed up by a land invasion, so they supported that instead. And politicians follow a similar lead. As France and Egypt were working on a cease-fire proposal Wednesday, Rep. Steny Hoyer was "scrambling to push out" a nonbinding resolution in support of Israeli policy, hoping to avoid being "out hawked" by House Republicans.
While this sort of politically motivated deference is understandable, it's also incredibly counterproductive.
Alex Knapp questions the assumption that Hamas is an Iranian proxy:
...as far as I can determine from researching online, no such collaboration appears to exist. The best I could come up with is that Iran does provide some funding for Hamas, but that funding level is at a paltry $3 million per year. Saudi Arabia and Syria are much bigger funders of Hamas, and some Hamas leaders operate out of Syria. Even at that, though, it’s pretty clear that Hamas is pretty much a home-grown Palestinian organization. They may accept funding and support from other countries, but there’s not much evidence that they act as a “proxy” for any of them.
Alex dukes it out in the comments with readers who aren't buying it.
The tale of Joseph Palmer, from Fashions in Hair by Richard Corson (1965). More vital beard coverage here. Meanwhile, a step back in bear-parent relations:
"This end of History would be most exhilarating but for the fact, that according to Kojeve, it is the participation in bloody political struggles as well as in real work or generally expressed, the negating action, which raises man above the brutes. The state through which man is said to become reasonably satisfied is, then, the state in which the basis of man’s humanity withers away or in which man loses his humanity. It is the state of Nietzsche’s ‘last man,’" – Leo Strauss, On Tyranny.
The Environmental Working Group has just issued a report that finds that 75 percent of all renewable fuels tax subsidies in 2007 went to environmentally damaging corn-ethanol production. In addition, the corn ethanol industry, teetering on the edge of collapse despite billions already wasted in subsidies on it, now wants additional billions for a bailout.
James Joyner agrees with the Pentagon that the Purple Heart should not be awarded for PTSD:
While I take PTSD more seriously than Stacy McCain, who asks “What next? Medals for dysentery?” I share his credulity that this was even under serious consideration. To award the Purple Heart for psychological scars would be a slap in the face to the long line of combat wounded who have earned the medal the hard way, instantly cheapening it.
I find both judgments devoid of a real understanding of trauma and its profound mental effects. The mind can be wounded too in the line of duty. In the twenty-first century we should have some way of acknowledging that, even if the Purple Heart may not be the right way to go.
The idea that Mitch McConnell is protecting us from the Democrats is bullcrap. We should collectively rip off his jaw and shovel the crap back down his throat that he’s been serving us.
For those who don't know the area, looking at a map of Palestine's shifting borders helps explain the conflict in Gaza. So does the Economist's latest:
...a conflict that has lasted 100 years is not susceptible to easy solutions or glib judgments. Those who choose to reduce it to the “terrorism” of one side or the “colonialism” of the other are just stroking their own prejudices. At heart, this is a struggle of two peoples for the same patch of land. It is not the sort of dispute in which enemies push back and forth over a line until they grow tired. It is much less tractable than that, because it is also about the periodic claim of each side that the other is not a people at all—at least not a people deserving sovereign statehood in the Middle East.
Cass Sunstein, co-author of Nudge, is going to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Ezra Klein explains why that's significant:
OIRA is quiet, but important. It's the chokepoint of the entire federal regulatory apparatus. If used wisely, it facilitates the flow, provides welcome analysis and judgment, and aids in implementation. If used as an anti-government weapon, it can do a lot of damage. Sunstein can do real good there. But why would he want it? He's shown a taste for celebrity, and OIRA very much does not provide that.
It's worth remembering that Sunstein has recently achieved great fame for Nudge, a book which basically argues that we need to apply the insights of behavioral economics to the construction of regulation. And Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the ultimate staging ground for those ideas. Reagan understood that OIRA was the central clearinghouse where you could affect the whole of the regulatory state all at once. He wanted to virtually shut it down. Sunstein wants to "nudge" it.
The Daily Dish, after a large number of votes, is now neck and neck for lead in the Best Blog category. Thanks so much for the support. As I've said, none of this means very much in the grand scheme of things - and the main benefit of the awards is to surf around and find new blogs worth reading. All the finalists are well worth reading and that includes our chief competitor, Hot Air. But this is your blog as much as ours, and this is one way of helping us (and our ad department) keep the whole show on the road. You can vote for any number of blogs here, and the Dish here. If you already voted more than 24 hours ago, you can vote again. Please do. Yes we can!
My National Journal colleague argues that one source in the Senate Armed Services report on the Bush-Cheney torture program was misquoted. Since he's referring to classified portions of the report that I have no access to, I can't say whether the alleged quip from CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman - "if the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong" - was said exactly as phrased or not. But the defense Stu offers is telling enough:
This is not to suggest that Fredman denies making all of the
controversial statements attributed to him in the committee's report.
The report (and the "minutes") may well be accurate in stating that he
had described the vaguely written criminal law against torture as
banning only physical pain so severe as to cause permanent damage to
major organs or body parts and mental pain so severe as to lead to
permanent, profound damage to the senses or personality.
So the substance of the claim remains undisputed. And this is what it is: Fredman absurdly narrowed the description of torture to the loss or permanent damage to major body organs (a Gestapo standard the US nonetheless failed to reach), and anything less than this as "enhanced interrogation". Since many prisoners did actually die at American interrogators' hands, and many more were brutalized into insanity, Fredman was accurately describing the line that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld had ordered the CIA and military to dance on. His alleged quip suggests to me that he understood the intent of John Yoo all too well. Is Levin's report discredited because a quip might - and I emphasize might - have been slightly garbled? Please. As Taykor concedes, the substance of the charges is in no doubt.
The lameness of this defense is replicated in Taylor's attempt to defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other war criminals on the Potomac. Consider this paragraph:
The report dismisses with scorn the Bush team's view that terrorists
were unprotected by the Geneva Conventions, while ignoring the fact
that this view had deep historical roots and was defended by highly
respected scholars.(The Supreme Court rejected this position in 2006.)
There may be arguments as to what level of Geneva protection prisoners had and have (I don't favor full POW protections, for example, and never have), but there really is no serious debate about the baseline standards of Article 3 for all prisoners of any kind, standards the Bush administration knowingly violated. Then this argument:
Take the report's conclusion that Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002, authorization of aggressive interrogation
techniques for use at Guantanamo, on the recommendation of
then-Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes II, "influenced and
contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military
working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and
Iraq."
This is true to a point. And some criticism of Rumsfeld and Haynes
is warranted. But the report's language might also foster an
impression, unsupported by the evidence, that Rumsfeld, Haynes, and
other top officials intended to encourage the widespread, wanton abuse of prisoners that Abu Ghraib came to symbolize.
I can appreciate Stu's attempt to be fair-minded here. Seeing people one knows and likes and has covered as war criminals is wrenching.
If the Israeli pols are doing this to win an election, or to demonstrate a "don't fuck with the Jews" bravado, it's clearly unjust. If they're doing it because they honestly think it is the best way to advance peace, their consciences, while troubled, may be clear.
Could the emergence of dramatically equal forms of marriage strengthen the model of male-female equality within straight marriage and undermine slightly the fundamentalist insistence on the subordination of wives? Yes. But only in so far as 1 percent of marriages change the 99 percent. The Christianist right always under-estimate the cultural power of the 99 percent with respect to the 1.
The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back