Month: November 2007

Why It Matters – One Last Point on Reagan and Race

by

by publius In all the recent back and forth on Reagan and race, the million dollar question seems to be “so what?” Assuming Reagan skeptics like Krugman are correct, what are the implications? Indeed, I suspect many Reagan defenders (including Brooks and the always-thoughtful Douthat) are less receptive to these arguments in part because they … Read more

We’re All Tancretins Now

by

by publius Tancredo (at tonight’s debate): Well, I tell you, this has been wonderful. Senator McCain may not be happy with the spirit of this debate. For a guy who usually stands on the bookend here, aside, and just listens all the time, that’s kind of frustrating, you know, in other debates. I have to … Read more

No More Clintons

by

by publius I’ve been settled on Obama for some time now. But in case I had any lingering doubt, Clinton the Bill pretty much sealed the deal for me by claiming (outrageously) that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (via HuffPost). It’s not so much his Iraq position itself that bothers me. It’s … Read more

Arabic 101

by

by G’Kar With Obama highlighting his living overseas as a child, NRO’s Mark Steyn has once again taken the opportunity to tar the Senator with the ‘madrassah’ smear. I’d like to kill this once and for all, but that is probably too much to ask. Every kid in the Arabic-speaking goes to a madrassah. Madrassah … Read more

Even More Friedman Bashing

by

by publius

One concept that first-year law students learn is the so-called “reasonable man” standard. The point is that negligence depends on objective — not subjective — criteria. For instance, if Eagles songs cause you to have painful seizures, you can’t — sadly — sue someone for singing Desperado. Singing that song is not — sadly — an unreasonable thing to do. Juggling chainsaws in crowded areas — well, that’s a different story. The reasonable man doesn’t do that sort of thing, so you could be sued for it.

The reasonable man standard gets tricky though when you start trying to define baselines. For example, medical malpractice depends not on a what reasonable person would do, but on what a reasonable doctor would do. The implication is that doctors — being medically trained — should be held to a higher objective standard than, say, a random waiter who performs CPR at a restaurant. Same deal with lawyers. A state-certified “Esquire” (i.e., someone who passed the bar) is held to a higher standard than someone representing themselves. (Though I’m not sure if it’s metaphysically possible to sue yourself for malpractice).

The point of all this is to illustrate just how atrocious — how wretchedly horrible — Tom Friedman’s latest op-ed is. Yes, it’s already been sharply criticized (see also Hilzoy). But even Greenwald — not one to pull punches — fails to recognize the sheer level of wretchedness here. That’s because you can’t hold Friedman to a “reasonable man” standard. He must be held to a much higher standard. He’s a Middle East expert. Unlike the various people you see on Fox News, he’s actually lived there for many years. He even wrote a fantastic book once.

VADER

So, you have accepted the truth.

LUKE

I’ve accepted the truth that you were once
Anakin Friedman, author of From Beirut to Jerusalem.

VADER (turning to face him)

That name no longer has any meaning for me.

We must expect more from Friedman. Krauthammer — well, he’s like Grandpa Simpson. Even assuming you understand what he says, who cares? But Friedman, well, there was good in him once.

Snark aside, there are two aspects of Friedman’s op-ed that are simply baffling given his experience and expertise. The first is the casual lumping together of diverse Muslim groups as “Iran’s chess pieces”:

There is a cold war in the Middle East today between America and Iran, and until and unless it gets resolved, I see Iran using its proxies, its chess pieces — Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the Shiite militias in Iraq — to stymie America and its allies across the region.

Using the term “Shiite militias” in this context is idiotic in and of itself. Maybe Friedman can explain why the pawns are killing each other and don’t seem to realize they’re all on Team Iran. For what it’s worth, this is exactly the type of error that Anakin Friedman rightly criticized Israel for making circa 1982 in a really great book:

Not only did the Israelis enter Lebanon with a myth about their allies . . . but also with one about their enemies, the Palestinians. . . . They saw the Palestinians as part of an undifferentiated Arab mass stretching from Morocco to Iraq. . . . Myths are precisely what give people the faith to undertake projects which rational calculation or common sense would reject.

Read more

Tom Friedman Has Gone Insane

by

by hilzoy Every so often, I wonder whether Tom Friedman isn’t some sort of peculiar performance artist, trying to show up the utter vacuity of the pundit class by demonstrating that someone can be respected as a Very Serious Person whose views on foreign policy are Very Much Worth Listening To, while nonetheless being completely … Read more

Noted Without Further Comment

by

by publius Centrist libertarian Glenn Reynolds: If, as seems likely, Iraq succeeds, Republicans will be able to say it was in spite of the Democrats’ efforts. If, as remains possible, it fails, Republicans will be able to say it was because of the Democrats’ efforts.

The Gods Must Be Petty

by

by publius I’d like to say that I find Governor Perdue’s emphasis on prayer to address droughts baffling. But I don’t. I understand it completely. Growing up Southern Baptist, I regularly prayed until about midway through college when I turned into a freedom-hating Bolshevik surrender monkey. But even if I understand where he’s coming from, … Read more

Telecom Immunity: Update

by

by hilzoy From the NYT: “Reflecting the deep divisions within Congress over granting legal immunity to telephone companies for cooperating with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a new domestic surveillance law on Thursday that sidestepped the issue. By a 10 to 9 vote, the committee approved an … Read more

In A World Beyond Parody…

by

by hilzoy From AFP (h/t Bilerico): “Santas in Australia’s largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas’s traditional “ho ho ho” greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday. Sydney’s Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say “ha ha ha” instead, the Daily Telegraph reported. One disgruntled Santa … Read more

Choose Your Own Adventure

by

by Katherine

(Note: In response to commenters’ requests (thanks, guys) I’m promoting this response to Patterico’s hypothetical about torture, which I posted last night.  I’ve edited for grammar, & in one case–the bit about Abu Ghraib & its relationship to the CIA torture program–for factual precision.)

No, the waterboarding session was not worth it.

The CIA officers charged with waterboarding KSM, lacking the knowledge that everything would turn out so swimmingly, would demand assurances from their boss that they could not go to jail for this. Their boss, & his boss, would ask the Justice Department to assure them that they would not go to jail. In order to tell them that they wouldn’t go to jail, the Justice Department would have to write a memo falsely concluding that: (1) terrorism suspects were not protected by any portion of the Geneva Conventions, & the war crimes act did not apply; (2) waterboarding (& such other "enhanced interrogation technqiues" as the CIA would deem necessary) was not torture.

As a result of those memos, CIA agents would torture many other prisoners, and kill several of them, including some who were not high level members of Al Qaeda & whose torture & death did not save a single life. In order to justify what they had done & avoid liability, they would cover up the evidence of this. They would also make false and exaggerated claims about how the program was necessary, how many lives had been saved by torture.

The techniques–not waterboarding, so much, but many of the others–would spread to the military. In some cases, it would be because the Secretary of Defense thought it would be convenient not to have the Geneva Conventions apply to terror suspects in military custody, & to have authorization to use "enhanced interrogation technqiues" to abuse prisoners. After all, were America’s brave soldiers lives less valuable than civilians? In other cases it would be because members of the military stationed with the CIA saw what CIA agents could do to prisoners: a guard at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, say, might come into work one night & notice that a CIA agent had tortured a prisoner to death & left his body paced in ice in the shower while higher ups fought about what to do with the evidence. The guard might unzip the body bag, take some pictures with corpse. It might not be the first time the guard had seen a CIA interrogator torture a prisoner. It might assure him that if the CIA could get away with killing a guy, surely he & his friends on the night shift could continue to have some fun with the prisoners, & continue to take some pictures.

Soldiers would torture many, many, many prisoners–in Afghanistan, in Guantananmo, in Iraq. Some of them would be tortured to death. Some of those tortured would be innocent.

The people tortured would make false confessions, which whether they were guilty or not would lead to them being detained for years without charge or trial. Their false confessions would lead to other arrests, and more torture, and more false confessions. Intelligence would be led down God knows how many blind alleys, resulting in the torture of God knows how many, the imprisonment of God knows how many more.

The results would be downright bizarre sometimes. We’d not only imprison & torture innocents–we’d imprison & torture guys we captured in a Taliban prison bearing scars from torture by high level al Qaeda members; one of whom Osama Bin Laden had personally accused of trying to assassinate him in 1998. We’d keep one of them in prison in Guantanamo for the better part of 5 years; another for 6 and counting despite the fact that he kept trying to kill himself.

The administration wouldn’t be able to admit that this happened; it would have to classify as much as the evidence as it could, for as long as it could. It would have to keep the courts from examining the legality of these techniques, & push laws through Congress immunizing itself from prosecution, & ensure that the Justice Department remained in the hands of lawyers who would continue to falsely claim that everything had been legal; who would never investigate; who would never prosecute. Members of the President’s party would have to support "enhanced interrogation" & pretend it wasn’t torture; otherwise they would be admitting that a President in their party had participated in a conspiracy to commit war crimes.

But they wouldn’t be able to keep it all secret; the world would find out. It would destroy our reputation, & make it impossible for us to credibly pressure other countries not to torture people or detain them indefinitely based on a bare allegation that they were terrorists or national security threats. It would help drive recruiting for Al Qaeda. It would help seal the failure of our invasion of Iraq.

I suppose you could add a bunch of other stipulations to your hypothetical to prevent these things from happening: these techniques would be practiced only against the highest level suspects, in a few prisons. They would be restricted to trained, professional, carefully selected CIA agents. It would only be used to prevent attacks when there was no other possible way to stop them. We would never torture innocents. We would never torture anyone to death. You could stipulate that, but it just makes the hypothetical even more of an irrelevant fantasy. In real life, this happened. In real life, it always happens when a country experiments with torture: it always spreads, it always leads to innocents being tortured, it never saves more lives than it destroys. In real life, a government who promises that this time it will be different is either lying, or kidding itself.

You should trust a government claiming it needs to torture exactly as much as you should trust a terrorist leader explaining why it needs kill just a few civilians (or a few dozen, or a few hundred), in order to save hundreds of thousands of Muslim children from death and slavery. I could make up a hypothetical where a suicide bombing prevented more evil than it inflicted & saved more people than it killed; would that show that opponents of terrorism just don’t understand the moral complexity of it all?

Read more

More on Torture Hypotheticals Part I

by

This is NOT my substantive response to Patterico’s continued discussion on the torture issue.  This is my response only to some theoretical matters.  I hope to have a more substantive response with concrete examples late in the day Friday.  I need to consult with our resident expert so I don’t get my facts wrong.  But … Read more

Demand-Side Torture Support

by

by publius It’s hard not to be repulsed by Deroy Murdock’s celebration of waterboarding. But what I’m interested in is how Murdock (and those like him) justify this position in their own minds. I doubt Murdock thinks of himself as an immoral, sadistic person. After all, no one likes to think of themselves as a … Read more

On Torture Hypotheticals–Conservative Perspective

by

–Sebastian I’ve written on the topic before, but a recent post by Patterico convinced me to revisit it.  He hasn’t finished all his thoughts on the issue, but I’ll jump ahead anyway.  I find him reasonable on most topics, so I thought I would throw in my thoughts.  The presentation of his hypothetical is as … Read more

Why Defend Reagan on Race?

by

by publius

Let me heartily endorse Krugman and Herbert’s respective takedowns of David Brooks on St. Reagan and race. Even excluding Philadelphia (which shouldn’t be excluded), Reagan’s race-baiting is beyond dispute. It happened too often, for too long, and too systematically. The more interesting question is why modern-day defenders of the Order of St. Reagan (like David Brooks) continue to whitewash it. Why not just say, “Yes, that part was shameful, but that’s not the complete picture.” Let’s just be honest about it.

The answer, I think, hits upon a much larger and more interesting theme. Modern conservatives – the majority of which are certainly not racist – have successfully ignored the racist foundations of much of modern conservative political power and even thought. It’s not so much that the doctrines remain racist today – or that they lack non-racist interpretations. It’s that they are historically rooted in racist backlash. In this respect, Reagan’s dark side is simply one part of a much larger pattern.

The more conventional argument about ignoring race relates to the idea of race as “The Great Contradiction.” Quite literally, since the founding of this country, race has “contradicted” the American ideal. In 1776, we were the slave-holding nation that fought a war for liberty. In 1789, we created the most modern, rationalist, democratic government in history, but one that reduced black people to 3/5 of a person. We erect statues and monuments to great men, who happened to own slaves. In World War II, we rightly fought a war against hideous doctrines, while we tolerated Jim Crow. During the Cold War, we wrapped ourselves in rhetorical cloaks of freedom, while churches burned in Birmingham. Even today, we praise American markets and prosperity, while hurricanes (ever so briefly) force our eyes upon urban black poverty.

This is important stuff, but it’s not really what makes Brooks’ op-ed so significant. What’s significant is that Brooks – like so many before him – is trying to ignore the debt of modern conservatism to race. To be 100% clear on this, I am not accusing Brooks – or conservatives more generally – of being racist. I don’t think they are. The problem today is less racism, than an unwillingness to deal honestly with the consequences of prior racism (check out this old Legal Fiction piece on post-racism for more). Rather than coming to terms with this reality and moving on (like Mehlman did, to his credit), Brooks is pretending it didn’t happen.

Most obviously, Republican political power today rests on the race-based realignment that George Wallace first exploited. That’s why the term “Reagan Democrats” should actually be “Wallace Democrats.” Nixon and then Reagan both ruthlessly exploited white resentment to reshift the map. If you think these efforts don’t matter, check out how the bloc of Southern states voted in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

But more abstractly, much of modern conservative doctrine has foundations in racial issues. The clearest example is state rights and federalism. It’s true that progressives used states rights at times (e.g., to attack anti-labor federal judges in the early 20th century). But for pretty much all of American history (and certainly from 1948-88), it was code for race issues. Today, one can be a good federalist without thinking of race at all. But that doesn’t change the history of the ideology.

Read more

I Blame The Patriarchy

by

by hilzoy

Melissa McEwan has a post up that has to be seen to be believed. It includes images of sixty five disembodied breast novelty items, many of them very odd (I mean, who, exactly, is the target market for the Boobie Pacifier?), and some, especially the very realistic breasts meant to be sucked or squeezed in some way, flat-out revolting.
[Picture of revolting shower dispenser is now below the fold, with the other pictures.]

I don’t know about you, but I think that anyone who uses this might as well put up a large sign saying: I don’t expect to have women over to my house, ever, for the rest of my natural life.

As Melissa says:

“I can, quite genuinely, understand why people look at one—or maybe even two, or three—of these items and dismiss them as “just a joke.” If I wrote a post about just a frying pan that turns eggs into boobs, I’m certain even some truly feminist women and men would defend it as just a bit of harmless kitsch. It’s just a joke; what’s the big deal? I get that; I really do.

Which is why I went for critical mass.

It isn’t just one “boob novelty” (or, as they tend to be called, “boobie novelty”). It’s sixty-five. If I hadn’t totally run out of steam, I probably could have included sixty-five more. And these things aren’t relegated to adult stores and websites—ads for the Jingle Jugs are being run on radio and TV during ballgames, and many of these items can be found in regular old party stores and gag shops like Spencer’s Gifts, which has franchises in every bloody mall in America. The “Stress Chest,” “Beer Boob,” and “Boobie Fuzzy Dice” are all sold at Spencer’s, right alongside Harry Potter action figures.

The ether is permeated with boob novelties (which is to say nothing of vagina novelties, women’s ass novelties, the women-as-toilets products, etc.), and while each on its own may not be such a terrible thing, the combined effect is having turned disembodied women’s body parts into just so much cultural detritus to be consumed or ignored. No rational person can argue that makes no difference to how women are viewed, as a group and as individuals, by men and by themselves. And that isn’t a laughing matter.”

Well, that’s just Melissa being a humorless feminist again. Because, honestly, what red-blooded American girl could fail to see the fun of, say, her body parts mounted as trophies?

[Picture of boob trophy racks]

And if Melissa doesn’t think the toilets she posted here and here are funny — well, I guess some people just can’t take a joke, is all.

Read more

Happy Veterans’ Day

by

by hilzoy Rachel Nardin in the Boston Globe (h/t Christy at fdl): “According to a study by some of my colleagues at Harvard Medical School, to be published in next month’s American Journal of Public Health, nearly 1.8 million veterans had no health insurance in 2004, up 290,000 since 2000. An additional 3.8 million members … Read more

Oh, And One More Thing…

by

by hilzoy A friend of mine asked me to post the following: “I guess Andrew Sullivan is just on a roll this week. After essentially erasing transgendered persons from existence by saying that all minorities are now protected against employment discrimination, Sullivan now has taken it upon himself to explain why it is that we … Read more

The FCC Won’t Let Cable Be

by

by publius As the NYT reports, big things afoot at the FCC. In particular, Chairman Martin seems poised to pass a number of regulations aimed at cable companies to increase video competition. The new regulations would, among other things, cap the size of cable companies, increase competitors’ access to programming, and require providers to offer … Read more

The Difference Between The Two Parties In A Nutshell

by

by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “The House today narrowly approved a $73.8 billion measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax and offer new tax breaks for middle-income homeowners and poor parents, financed by tax increases that would land primarily on Wall Street titans. The 216 to 193 vote came after … Read more

Faking It At FEMA

by

by hilzoy A couple of weeks ago, in one of the many stories I didn’t blog about at the time, FEMA held a fake press conference in which all the questions were asked not by actual reporters, but by FEMA staff pretending to be reporters. In the aftermath, FEMA”s director for external affairs resigned, and … Read more

Paging LGM

by

by publius Stay classy, Ann Althouse. (I seem to remember that her line of argument worked well in third grade. Althouse, however, is foolishly ignoring other piercing weapons in the third-grade insult arsenal. For instance, never underestimate the power of a good “oh yeah, well you have cooties,” or “oh yeah, well your mama [insert … Read more

Surprise! Vagina Dentata!

by

by hilzoy Somehow, I missed this gem when it first came out at Foreign Policy Passport: “Later this month, South African women will be able to purchase the Rapex device, marketed as the “anti-rape condom.” The rapex, shaped like a female condom, is worn internally and equipped with 25 teeth in its lining. The razor-sharp … Read more

ENDA Redux (With Free Gift!)

by

by hilzoy According to the Advocate, ENDA (pdf) — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — is scheduled to come up for a vote in the House today. Rep. Tammy Baldwin will offer an amendment banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The amendment is likely … Read more

Don’t Be A Playa Liberal Hatuh

by

by publius

Like Yglesias and Atrios, I find the press’s “Everything That Happens Is Bad for Democrats” narrative extremely annoying. (See yesterday’s Post for the most recent example). The more interesting question though is why it keeps happening. Why do ostensibly liberal reporters keep returning to this narrative frame?

Although unintentionally, I think Andrew Sullivan’s interesting article on Obama provides a possible answer: liberal guilt. Examining how the generation-gap affects Clinton and Obama’s respective liberalism, he writes:

A generational divide also separates Clinton and Obama with respect to domestic politics. Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. . . . She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives.

Frankly, I disagree that Obama is free from these demons. But still, Sullivan is on to something larger here. And that larger point is that liberals over the past two generations have been afraid to express their real views.

I’m not sure where it comes from. Maybe Nixon’s victories. Maybe Reagan’s. Maybe Bush’s. Maybe from 1994. Maybe from the Latina union-supporting, ERA activist who dumped Mickey Kaus in college. I’m not sure. But somewhere along the way, liberals got it in their heads (not always wrongly) that showing their true colors risked professional and political harm.

Read more

Islamic Extremism In Pakistan

by

by hilzoy

In reading various bloggers’ reactions to events in Pakistan, I have noticed that a number of them seem to think that Musharraf is all that stands between us and a nuclear-armed Islamist state. Thus, Don Surber:

“Musharraf is a pro-Western man in the second-largest Muslim country on the planet, after Indonesia. That does not make him too popular. But allowing Pakistan to fall into the hands of a Taliban-like government is far worse.”

Jihad Watch:

“One hardly has to regard General Musharraf a saint in order to appreciate that his removal would more likely usher in an era of Sharia and jihad than New-England-town-meeting-style democracy.”

And, of course, the inimitable Victor Davis Hanson:

“It would be hard to think of a bigger mess than Pakistan: nuclear; half the population radically Islamic; vast sanctuaries for the architects of 9/11; a virulent anti-Americanism in which aid and military credits are demanded but never appreciated; dictatorship at odds with America’s professed support for Middle-East constitutional government-all the while doing little to hunt down al Qaeda while assuring us that the possible radical alternative, with some reason, is far worse.” (Emphasis added.)

For this reason, I thought it might be worth providing some actual facts about support for Islamism in Pakistan. You’ll find them below the fold.

Read more

Keep On The Sunny Side Of Life!

by

by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. “Thank heavens for small favors,” the official said. Compared to Pakistan, “Iraq looks pretty good.”” A country that shelters the al Qaeda leadership and has nuclear weapons undergoes a coup. The Constitution is suspended, … Read more

Shameless Begging And Pleading

by

by hilzoy Via Slacktivist, I note that we have been nominated for “Best of the Top 1,000-1,750 Blogs” in the 007 Weblog Awards. The trouble is, Slacktivist has been nominated too, and deserves your vote as well. (Think of the wondrous Left Behind series.) Fortunately, you can vote every day, so if you feel torn, … Read more

Pakistan

by

by hilzoy

As Publius noted, the news out of Pakistan is not good at all:

“The Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, declared a state of emergency on Saturday night, suspending the country’s Constitution, firing the chief justice of the Supreme Court and filling the streets of this capital city with police officers.

The move appeared to be an effort by General Musharraf to reassert his fading power in the face of growing opposition from the country’s Supreme Court, political parties and hard-line Islamists. Pakistan’s Supreme Court had been expected to rule within days on the legality of General Musharraf’s re-election last month as the country’s president. (…)

After a day of rumors in the Pakistani news media than an emergency declaration would come, the first proof came just after 5 p.m., when independent and international television news stations abruptly went blank in Islamabad and other major cities. Soon after, dozens of police officers surrounded the Supreme Court building, with some justices still inside.

Under the emergency declaration, the justices were ordered to take an oath to abide by a “provisional constitutional order” that replaces the country’s existing Constitution. Those who failed to do so would be dismissed.

Seven of the court’s 11 justices gathered inside the court rejected the order, according to an aide to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Issuing their own legal order, the justices called General Musharraf’s declaration unlawful and urged military officials to not abide by it.

By 9 p.m., Chief Justice Chaudhry and the other justices had gone to their homes, which were surrounded by police officers. The police blocked journalists from entering the area, disconnected telephone lines and jammed cellphones in the area.”

Also:

“”There have been 400 to 500 preventative arrests in the country,” Aziz told a news conference in Islamabad.

Media and police sources say 1,500 opposition figures from Pakistan’s military, judiciary and political sectors have been detained.

In the wake of Saturday’s declaration, the government also issued new rules forbidding newspapers and broadcasters from expressing opinions prejudicial to “the ideology of Pakistan or integrity of Pakistan”.”

In addition, “all non-state TV stations and some radio channels, including international services such as BBC World TV, have been taken off air”; and elections scheduled for January have been postponed indefinitely.

Along with a lot of other people, I think one of the best pieces of background is Joshua Hammer’s After Musharraf. Barnett Rubin is covering the situation at Informed Comment: Global Affairs, and here are links to bloggers from Karachi and Lahore. (Their blogrolls have links to other Pakistani bloggers.) The text of Musharraf’s emergency declaration is here.

My take below the fold.

Read more

I’m off the fence and for McCain

by

by Charles

This is my only front-page post at Redstate in support of a Republican candidate for the nomination. John McCain has little to no chance of getting nominated, but I’m supporting him anyway. My reasons are backing him are a combination of things, having to do with my agreement with him on key issues and for what I see as shortcomings in the other candidates. The slate of candidates is imperfect, so my rationale was to go with the least imperfect one. My three main criteria for picking a president in this election cycle are national security, the economy, and integrity. As I see it, McCain is the most solid of the candidates in those categories, so let me go through them.

More below the fold…

Read more

Courts and Coups

by

by publius The latest news from Pakistan is, of course, a very big deal. There are some great posts from real experts that are far beyond my feeble powers — see, e.g., Informed Comment: Global Affairs. But in reading them, I did notice an interesting parallel between (1) Musharraf and the Supreme Court he just … Read more

Mukasey – A Baseline Problem

by

by publius Lordy, what to say about Schumer and Feinstein. It’s all pretty depressing, but there’s a larger point here. Specifically, the whole sorry affair provides a textbook example of how adopting extreme political positions can successfully shift a debate’s center of gravity. As annoyed as I am, I actually feel for Schumer — but … Read more

Indie Rock Friday Open Thread

by

by publius So I saw Spoon and the New Pornographers last night in Houston. Because you’re all dying to know, and we’re all too busy for substantive posts this morning, consider this a music open thread. Comment on this, or any other album/band you’d recommend. I like Spoon ok (not as much as everyone else … Read more