'King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor: A Case Study in Psychohistory and Psychobiography' by Aryeh Kasher, in collaboration with Eliezer Witztum (translated from the Hebrew by Karen Gold), Walter de Gruyter, 514 pages, $193
Now that the world has heard about the discovery of Herod's tomb at Herodium, it also has an extraordinary book about him to read. Authors Prof. Aryeh Kasher, a historian from Tel Aviv University, and Prof. Eliezer Witztum, a psychiatrist from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, have produced a carefully researched and up-to-date historical and psychological analysis of Herod - a man of many exploits but also a raving lunatic. A meaningful analysis of the psyche of a historical character is not always possible, but thanks to the Roman Jewish historian Josephus (one of whose sources was Nicholas of Damascus, who tutored Herod's sons and served as his adviser), we have an abundance of details that seem to be reliable. ...
Herod was not only the greatest builder in the history of Eretz Israel, but one of the greatest builders in human history. He holds at least three architectural world records...Herod was shrewd and clever, but also a cruel tyrant with no moral compunctions to speak of. His success depended largely on the support of the emperor, Augustus, who valued Herod's unwavering loyalty with good reason (although he reportedly said it was "better to be Herod's pig than his son"). That peace reigned in his day was also a major factor. ...
That Herod was mentally ill has long been recognized by historians, but no one has ever made an exact diagnosis. A king who murders three of his sons, his beloved Hasmonean wife, Mariamne (whose death sent him into a deep depression), and countless other members of his close circle, is obviously not in his right mind. ...
From adolescence Herod showed signs of paranoia, exhibited in pathological suspiciousness. He trusted no one (apart from his quarrelsome sister) and had delusions that people were plotting against him. He suffered from extreme mood swings that became progressively worse over the years. His paranoia increased, too: Not only did he execute his bodyguards, servants and courtiers, but also his three sons (the last one five days before his own death), his brother-in-law, his mother-in-law and his adored wife. Some of his victims were cruelly tortured before their deaths, testifying to sadistic tendencies. No wonder the people, and presumably many of his close associates, feared and hated him. ...
Readers have the right to ask if there is any justification for a new book. The answer is a resounding yes: Kasher and Witztum break new ground with psychohistorical and psychobiographical analyses that explain many of Herod's actions. Moreover, over the past 50 years our knowledge has been enriched by close examination of the writings of Josephus and many archaeological findings. During this time, large-scale digs were carried out all over the country, from Masada and the Banias to Jericho and Caesarea, which have added greatly to our understanding.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Depth Psycho-Bio: King Herod on a shrink's couch
Haaretz : By Magen Broshi
Detrimental semantics
Haaretz :
One can assume that this is generally an insensitive habit of speech of a majority that regards itself as the general public, as a majority tends to do. There are surely those who are not prepared, in principle, to recognize that a non-Jew can be an Israeli. However, it seems that more often the problem exists in the opposite direction among those who prefer to call the national group that constitutes the state's majority 'Israelis' and not 'Jews.'
'Israeli' sounds to them like a civic and secular term, while 'Jew,' in their view, is an ethno-religious definition. ...There is no intention here of claiming that Arabs are not Israelis, but rather an intention, or habit, of refraining from defining the Jews as Jews. After all, as noted, an enlightened, liberal and secular person in our times has learned to recoil from the term "Jew," which emits an odor of extreme nationalism and religious coercion....
It would be best to leave the term "Israeli" as a civic label that applies, in principle, to all citizens of the state. Most people belonging to the majority do not care if they are called Jews, Israeli Jews, or "simply" Israelis: They regard these terms, in most contexts, as synonyms. From the perspective of relations with the Arab minority, it is actually better to call the members of the nation that comprises the majority "Jews" (or "Israeli Jews"), and to call all Israel's citizens, regardless of religion and nationality "Israelis."...
As noted, there are no semantic solutions for substantive problems. But it is always possible to make things worse.
Post-Zionism doesn't exist ?
Haaretz : By Shlomo Avineri
I have great respect for Shlomo Avineri, and his critique nails one piece of what goes by the "post-Zionist" label. But the term is used more widely, not least to challenge contemporary Israel to be a (democratic) State of and for all its citizens. Whether Israel can be simultaneously democratic and "Jewish" (in any of several senses) seems to me to be a worthy subject for honest and robust discussion and debate in today's Israel. I don't think this questioning equates to anti-Zionism in the sense that Avineri invokes, nor do I think it is a matter of intellectual dishonesty by its proponents--certainly not by all of them.
I say this as one who believes Israel should have a distinct "Jewish" identity culturally and historically, while adhering to the egalitarian principles of its Declaration of Independence.
The term "post-Zionism" is, perhaps inescapably, elusive and subject to misunderstanding. We need a better, post-"post-Zionism" terminology.
P.S.: I guess I will have to refer to this as my "post-"post-Zionism" post."
In recent years a phenomenon called 'post-Zionism' has developed in the political-intellectual discourse in Israel. Fundamentally, this is a radical criticism not just of Israel's policy; at its base is total denial of the Zionist project and of the very legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish nation-state.
The arguments called 'post-Zionist' have various aspects - not only political but also cultural. They view Zionism as a colonial phenomenon, not as a national movement that is contending with another, Palestinian, national movement over its claim to the same territory. Some of those who are called 'post-Zionists' go even further in their argument that the very existence of a Jewish people is a 'narrative' that was invented in the 19th century, and that the Jews are at base a religious community. The attitude of Zionism, which has most of its roots in Europe, toward Jews from the Muslim countries is also perceived in the context of colonial exploitation.
This approach also wants to de- legitimize Zionism's conceptual world...
But there is also another aspect to all this: Those who call themselves "post-Zionists" are simply anti-Zionists of the old sort. The term "post-Zionism" sounds as though it is something innovative, which came after Zionism. However, here lies a grave mistake: For the term "post-Zionism" to be meaningful, it is necessary to start out from the acceptance of Zionism as a fact and a reality and to try to go beyond it. Thus, for example, post-modern criticism starts out from the acceptance of modernity, grapples with its dialectical outcomes and its contradictions and tries to go beyond it. This is not the case for those who call themselves "post-Zionists": They do not see Zionism and the State of Israel as a reality that has come to pass, but rather as something that is not legitimate from the outset and that must be eliminated down to its very foundations. ...
There is no reason not to repeat these arguments today, if one considers them to be correct. The intellectual dishonesty is in the attempt to create a sense of something new, supposedly "post" and fashionable...
Some of those who call themselves "post-Zionists" also come from the former Communist camp. There is something pathetic in that 20 years ago they believed in a new, just world that was to emerge from Moscow or Cuba, and the only thing that is left to them of that lofty vision today is anti-Zionism. Not the brotherhood of nations, not the liberation of the proletariat, not universal social justice - all of this has collapsed in a tragic way; the only thing that remains is the hatred of Zionism.
I have great respect for Shlomo Avineri, and his critique nails one piece of what goes by the "post-Zionist" label. But the term is used more widely, not least to challenge contemporary Israel to be a (democratic) State of and for all its citizens. Whether Israel can be simultaneously democratic and "Jewish" (in any of several senses) seems to me to be a worthy subject for honest and robust discussion and debate in today's Israel. I don't think this questioning equates to anti-Zionism in the sense that Avineri invokes, nor do I think it is a matter of intellectual dishonesty by its proponents--certainly not by all of them.
I say this as one who believes Israel should have a distinct "Jewish" identity culturally and historically, while adhering to the egalitarian principles of its Declaration of Independence.
The term "post-Zionism" is, perhaps inescapably, elusive and subject to misunderstanding. We need a better, post-"post-Zionism" terminology.
P.S.: I guess I will have to refer to this as my "post-"post-Zionism" post."
Woman denies disconnecting comatose son, 7, from respirator
Haaretz : By Roni Singer-Heruti
So this happens in Israel too, even with universal health coverage. This account cries out for fuller factual development.
A mother was arrested yesterday on suspicion of attempting to disconnect a respirator from her comatose 7 -year-old son. She denied the accusation and was later released without being charged, but a judge ordered that she be accompanied by hospital security when she visits her son in the future.
'We have been going through agony for three and a half years, ever since our son was hospitalized at Sheba,' the mother told Haaretz, referring to Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer. 'The doctors have told us, 'let the boy die,' and since I don't do what the doctors tell me, they are fighting me.' ...
The mother, who is a doctor, told the police that she did not disconnect the respirator, and had merely been giving her son a massage. Police do not suspect her of trying to kill her son, but believe that she might have been attempting to treat him by methods different than those used by the hospital. ...
The mother's attorney, Amikam Hadar, who is representing her together with attorney Hedva Shapira, said that the boy's parents and the hospital staff have a very poor relationship.
He said that Sheba has asked the court to order the boy removed from the hospital, but the parents insist on first finding an alternative place that will treat him.
So this happens in Israel too, even with universal health coverage. This account cries out for fuller factual development.
Is terrorism on the way out?
Haaretz : By Bradley Burston
Part of the range of Israeli opinion. Burston is very idiosyncratic in his views; I'm not quite sure what to make of this posting.
Whistling past the graveyard?
As anti-Muslim intolerance mounted in much of the West, there was a tendency in the press, as in academia, to coddle Islamists, to sidestep thorny questions, to refrain from pursuing the kind of relentless probing that, locally for example, had for decades yielded reams of newsprint on 'How Israel Has Lost Its Soul,' or 'How Jews Suffered at the Hands of Nazis, and Now Palestinians are Suffering at the Hands of Israelis.'
Many journalists, steering clear of value judgments or words like terrorism, saw themselves as implementing a kind of affirmative action of the mind, telling the untold story of disadvantaged and despairing Muslims, the subtext being: this is the root problem, the World Trade Center and the 18 Jerusalem City Bus were but the symptoms.
Nonetheless, revolutions, like viral epidemics, tend to run their course in time."...
There is little question that as terror hit enlightened nation after enlightened nation, the journalists and editors of each country immediately adopted the idea that there is such a thing as terrorism after all. Victim-blaming gave way overnight to sympathy for the victim.
In the Palestinian context, the irony of the resort to terrorism, is that acts designed to catapult the Palestinian issue to the top of the world's agenda, have over time had the opposite effect. Suicide bombings and post-withdrawal Qassam rockets have soured the world to the plight of the Palestinians, while chaos and brutal fighting between rival parties has drained sympathy for the idea of Palestinian statehood.
The world has tired of its Palestinians, and, at this point, even the Palestinians know why. ...
f we have learned anything in this decade of invasion, occupation and dismay, it is that Muslim terrorism will only end when Muslims decide that it should. Perhaps the obscenities of Muslims fighting Muslims in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Pakistan are beginning to cause the fire of Islamist terror to consume itself.
Part of the range of Israeli opinion. Burston is very idiosyncratic in his views; I'm not quite sure what to make of this posting.
Whistling past the graveyard?
Jewish people? What Jewish people?
Haaretz :
The headline of the Commentary magazine article is indeed provocative: Whatever Happened to the Jewish People. It was written by Steven Cohen, research professor of Jewish social policy at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, and Jack Wertheimer, provost and professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary." ...
The basic argument is straight forward and quite simple: "It is almost inconceivable that the American Jewish community could muster the will to mount [a] massive a show of unity," the authors write. Based on data they suggest that "something vital has changed a weakened identification among American Jews with their fellow Jews abroad, as well as a waning sense of communal responsibility at home."
They remind us, toward the end of the article, that the "once upon a time" slogans of the United Jewish Appeal were "we are one" or "keep the promise" - making the case for Jewish unity and peoplehood. But today, this message was abandoned for the likes of "live generously: it does a world of good," proving that "the once-forceful claims of Jewish 'peoplehood' have lost their power to compel." ...
Why does this matter? In what sense is it "bad"? Cohen and Werheimer have an interesting answer - which they describe as "unabashedly essentialist" that is also simple. Caring for the Jewish people is, in fact, being Jewish. "Jews are not solely the agglomeration of adherents of a particular faith, each seeking personal meaning; they are a people whose primary mark has been the conviction of a uniquely corporate role in history. ...
Israeli Arab attorney appointed to Hague international court
Haaretz:
By Yoav Stern
Not clear from this story whether Israel endorsed Mr. Dalal for the job.
I endorse the development of human rights advocacy within Israel, both in Jewish and Arab sectors. New Israel Fund has been a big factor in that arena, although I'm not sure whether it supports this particular organization.
By Yoav Stern
An Israeli Arab attorney was appointed as a prosecutor to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which is based in The Hague.
Marwan Dalal, an attorney with Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, will begin his work at the international court later this month.
Dalal will be the first Arab Israeli to serve in such an important international legal forum, in which only a few Israelis have ever served. ...
Dalal has been a senior attorney at Adalah and worked in the organization since its inception close to a decade ago. He has represented Adalah in trials against the IDF and the State.
Among the cases Dalal was involved in were those involving the destruction of Palestinian homes, the killing of civilians by the IDF and the "neighbor policy," a tactic in which a neighbor was used as a shield to force barricaded Palestinian militants to surrender. He was also involved in the investigation against those suspected in the killing of 13 Arab citizens during the riots of October 2000.
Not clear from this story whether Israel endorsed Mr. Dalal for the job.
I endorse the development of human rights advocacy within Israel, both in Jewish and Arab sectors. New Israel Fund has been a big factor in that arena, although I'm not sure whether it supports this particular organization.
Up close and personal: Personalized Medicine
Haaretz :
This is clipped from a long story. Not much original to those familiar with the topic, but a convenient summary with a bit of an Israeli perspective.
The medical world has known for a long time that one size does not fit all. Two people who take the same anti-cancer drug, for example, may react differently to it. One might develop dangerous, even life-threatening side effects, whereas the other will benefit and experience almost no side effects. The same drug can bring about the disappearance of the malignancy in one patient and have no effect on another. These extreme differences derive from the genetic differences between people. In the same way that a single gene is responsible for different eye colors, a particular gene in different people can lead them to metabolize the same drug either quickly or slowly. People are differentiated from one another in terms of how well a drug is absorbed by the intestines, how well it metabolizes in the liver, how much it secretes in the kidneys - and all these elements determine how much of the drug the individual takes remains in the body and how it will affect him. If the drug metabolizes quickly, its effect will be limited and the dosage will have to be increased. By contrast, if it metabolizes slowly, or is eliminated slowly from the body, it is liable to generate serious side effects to the point of threatening a patient's life.
One of the cardinal contributions of the Genome Project is the knowledge it provides about the scale of genetic diversity. The tremendous technological leap that occurred in the wake of the project now makes it possible to identify the diversity in certain genes. This, in turn, will make it possible to adapt the treatment to accommodate the patient's personal genetic makeup, to accord him the best and safest treatment, to reduce the side effects, to predict the prospects of survival, and more. This is not science fiction. It has already begun to happen. "Personal medicine" signifies not only a trend, but a new sphere in medicine, which is rapidly gaining momentum. In fact, it is one of the hottest subjects in the medical world today, on the agenda of almost every medical conference and described as the medicine of the next generation.
This is clipped from a long story. Not much original to those familiar with the topic, but a convenient summary with a bit of an Israeli perspective.
Arab League to make first official visit to Israel
Haaretz :
The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan are expected to lead an Arab League mission to Israel this week for talks on a pan-Arab peace initiative, the first visit to Israel by an official delegation from the 22-member organization, Israeli officials said.
The visit would mark an important diplomatic accomplishment for Israel, since the Arab League historically has been hostile toward it. But the league has grown increasingly conciliatory amid the rise of Islamic extremism throughout the region - a concern underscored by Hamas' recent takeover of the Gaza Strip.
An Israeli official said Sunday that Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit were expected in Jerusalem within a few days for talks on the Arab peace proposal and how to support Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in his power struggle with Hamas.
7 New Wonders of the World Chosen
washingtonpost.com: By BARRY HATTON (AP)
LISBON, Portugal -- The Great Wall of China, Rome's Colosseum, India's Taj Mahal and three architectural marvels from Latin America were among the new seven wonders of the world chosen in a global poll released on Saturday.
Jordan's Petra was the seventh winner. Peru's Machu Picchu, Brazil's Statue of Christ Redeemer and Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid also made the cut. ...
The seven beat out 14 other nominated landmarks, including the Eiffel Tower, Easter Island in the Pacific, the Statue of Liberty, the Acropolis, Russia's Kremlin and Australia's Sydney Opera House.
The pyramids of Giza, the only surviving structures from the original seven wonders of the ancient world, were assured of retaining their status in addition to the new seven after indignant Egyptian officials said it was a disgrace they had to compete. ...
The Statue of Liberty and Australia's Sydney Opera House were near the bottom of the list from the start.
Also among the losing candidates were Cambodia's Angkor, Spain's Alhambra, Turkey's Hagia Sophia, Japan's Kiyomizu Temple, Russia's Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, Germany's Neuschwanstein Castle, Britain's Stonehenge and Mali's Timbuktu. ...
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Colossus of Rhodes and the Pharos lighthouse off Alexandria have all vanished.
Celebrating Petra
Haaretz :
By The Associated Press
Petra is truly terrific. I got to visit several years back, and enjoyed the spot immensely. Before things calmed down between Israel and Jordan, Israelis would make secret nighttime excursions, creating a considerable folklore.
By The Associated Press
Jordanians rejoiced Sunday over the inclusion of the ancient city Petra in the new seven wonders of the world, celebrating their victory with a fireworks display in the capital and dancing in the early morning hours.
Petra came in second behind the Great Wall of China in a massive global online poll. ...Petra - most recently popularized by the movie "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - is known for its dramatic tombs and temple facades, including one that served as a church during Byzantine times. The city's inhabitants, Nabataean Arab nomads, carved the structures into the soft sandstone some 2,000 years ago.
The rose-red rock city was hidden behind an almost impenetrable barrier of rugged mountains for centuries until it was rediscovered by Swiss explorer Johann Ludwig Burchhardt in 1812.
Petra is truly terrific. I got to visit several years back, and enjoyed the spot immensely. Before things calmed down between Israel and Jordan, Israelis would make secret nighttime excursions, creating a considerable folklore.
White House Will Deny New Request In Attorneys Probe
washingtonpost.com: By Peter Baker
The White House has decided to defy Congress's latest demand for information regarding the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys, sources familiar with the decision said yesterday. Such an action would escalate the constitutional struggle and propel it closer to a court showdown.
Senate and House committees have directed President Bush to provide by tomorrow a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding. But White House counsel Fred F. Fielding plans to tell lawmakers that he has already provided the legal basis for the claims and will not provide a log of the documents, the sources said. ...
A White House spokesman declined to comment yesterday. But the White House in recent days has said that it has cooperated extensively with congressional investigators and is now standing on principle. It has also accused Congress of being more interested in investigating than legislating, noting that Democrats have held 600 oversight hearings since taking control of Capitol Hill in January.
A White House spokesman declined to comment yesterday. But the White House in recent days has said that it has cooperated extensively with congressional investigators and is now standing on principle. It has also accused Congress of being more interested in investigating than legislating, noting that Democrats have held 600 oversight hearings since taking control of Capitol Hill in January....
"This latest stonewalling attempt raises troubling questions about what the White House is trying to hide by refusing to turn over evidence it was willing to provide months ago, as long as the information was shared in secret with no opportunity for Congress to pursue the matter further," [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)] said through a spokeswoman.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
The ground is shifting--at long last
Speedily, in our days...and before too many more lives are wasted or ruined.
NYT: Leave Iraq Now
New York Times (Editorial): The Road Home
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit. ...
It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.
Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles. ...
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.
This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.
Sensing a Shift, Reid Will Press for an Iraq Exit
New York Times:
“Some folks may have anticipated that the war would be stopped the Wednesday after the Tuesday election,” said Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana. “But this is a complex situation that we’ve got in Iraq right now, and I think most of the people understand that we’re going to do the best we can do with what we have to work with.” ...
“Senator Reid was not able to get it done, but ultimately it is the Republicans who are obstructing passage,” said Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.
Democrats hoped to drive home that point in the renewed fight, with the annual Pentagon policy measure as the battleground. The leadership has put much of its muscle behind a plan by Mr. Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, that would require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days of becoming law and require most combat troops out by next spring.
Mr. Reid has also joined Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, in pushing a more confrontational approach that would end spending on most of the combat and significantly limit the role of American forces by early next year. ...
Rich Pickings: A Profile in Cowardice
New York Times: By FRANK RICH
One keeps thinking the Administration will simply collapse on its own internal rot, which is increasingly evident to even those who prefer not to look.
Except David Brooks, who is quickly walking over the cliff...
THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby’s silence. Now we have the answers, and they’re at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice." ...
The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby’s freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.
What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush’s highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney’s use of prewar intelligence. ...
Asked last week to explain the president’s poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that “when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind” to describe Mr. Bush, it’s “incompetence.” But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bush’s cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris....
In the end, it was also this president’s profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.
But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libby’s obstructions of justice. Mr. Bush’s cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.
One keeps thinking the Administration will simply collapse on its own internal rot, which is increasingly evident to even those who prefer not to look.
Except David Brooks, who is quickly walking over the cliff...
U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05
New York Times: By MARK MAZZETTI
A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.
But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled...
Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.
The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network. ...
In early 2005, after learning about the Qaeda meeting, the military developed a plan for a small Navy Seals unit to parachute into Pakistan to carry out a quick operation, former officials said.
But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force’s size to provide security for the Special Operations forces.
“The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning. Still, he said he thought the mission was worth the risk. “We were frustrated because we wanted to take a shot,” he said.
For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy
New York Times:
“As governor, Bush essentially viewed the clemency power as limited to cases of demonstrable actual innocence,” said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas who has represented death-row inmates.
“The exercise of the commutation power in Libby,” Professor Steiker continued, “represents a dramatic shift from his attitude toward clemency in Texas, and it is entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach.”...
As president, Mr. Bush has commuted three sentences in addition to Mr. Libby’s and denied more than 4,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the pardon lawyer at the Justice Department for most of the 1990s. He has also issued 113 pardons and denied more than 1,000 requests. “His grant rate is very low compared to other presidents’,” she said. ...
Even in cases involving juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people, Mr. Bush allowed executions to proceed, saying that he was satisfied of the inmates’ guilt and that they had received a fair hearing.
The United States Supreme Court has since barred the execution of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Court sabotages independent review of Bush wiretap program
Los Angeles Times:
While specialists can argue the merits of individual cases and fine points of standing doctrine, the emerging theme of the Roberts Court is that of closing the courtroom door to all plausible comers, rendering Executive decisions all but invulnerable to independent judicial review. That this judicial abdication of its independent responsibilities comes at a moment of unprecedented Executive (or in Cheney's case, fourth branch) arrogance and self-aggrandizement makes for potential tragedy for our democracy.
Some weeks back, I read a review doubting the significance of Joseph Heller's Catch-22. It's a long time since I read it--I do recall thinking it was one of the funniest novels I had ever read, and captured, in more accessible form than Kafka's work, the essence of modern bureaucratic life (not limited to the military, or to government). The references to Catch-22 herein reinforce my sense that this is an essential analytic, as well as satiric, category--and one increasingly applicable to the subversive formalisms of our judiciary.
The only way the plaintiffs could find out whether they had been the targets of wiretapping, he said, was if they obtained information about the surveillance program — in violation of the "state secrets" privilege. (Established in 1953, the privilege bars the disclosure of information in court proceedings when "there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.")
Batchelder wrote: "The plaintiffs do not — and because of the state secrets doctrine cannot — produce any evidence that any of their communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA, under the TSP, without warrants." Rather, she said, the plaintiffs had asserted "a mere belief" that their overseas contacts were the types of people being targeted by the NSA.
The ruling presents "a Catch-22," said Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and one of the plaintiffs.
"If the court insists that a plaintiff must have certain knowledge that some of their messages were intercepted in order to have legal standing … then no one can ever have standing because we can never know, since the program is secret," Diamond said....
Constitutional scholars were, like the court, split over Friday's ruling, with conservative law professors praising the opinion and liberals decrying it. ...
Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky countered that under the ruling 'it is inconceivable that anyone will ever have standing to challenge' the surveillance program.
'It is deeply troubling that the government can engage in unconstitutional and illegal secret eavesdropping and that very secrecy then prevents a legal challenge,' Chemerinsky said.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said he was troubled by the ruling because it 'closed the courthouse doors' without getting to the merits of the case.
'I hope the Bush administration will finally provide the information requested by Congress regarding the constitutional and legal questions about this program so that those of us who represent the American people can get to the bottom of what happened and why,' Leahy said.
While specialists can argue the merits of individual cases and fine points of standing doctrine, the emerging theme of the Roberts Court is that of closing the courtroom door to all plausible comers, rendering Executive decisions all but invulnerable to independent judicial review. That this judicial abdication of its independent responsibilities comes at a moment of unprecedented Executive (or in Cheney's case, fourth branch) arrogance and self-aggrandizement makes for potential tragedy for our democracy.
Some weeks back, I read a review doubting the significance of Joseph Heller's Catch-22. It's a long time since I read it--I do recall thinking it was one of the funniest novels I had ever read, and captured, in more accessible form than Kafka's work, the essence of modern bureaucratic life (not limited to the military, or to government). The references to Catch-22 herein reinforce my sense that this is an essential analytic, as well as satiric, category--and one increasingly applicable to the subversive formalisms of our judiciary.
Thompson lobbied for abortion-rights group...
Los Angeles Times: By Michael Finnegan
Washington lawyers and lobbyists in private practice are generally more attentive to whether their outsize bills are being paid than to the purity, ideological or otherwise, of their representations.
The moralization of politics by right wing religious groups will pose some interesting challenges to candidates, actual and potential, who have played the Washington game for very long.
They probably deserve one another.
Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.
A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.
His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.
The abortion 'gag rule' was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid....
But Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association in 1991, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months. ...
Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said that DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work and that he had suggested Thompson. He said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.
"I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization," said Barnes. "I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact."
Washington lawyers and lobbyists in private practice are generally more attentive to whether their outsize bills are being paid than to the purity, ideological or otherwise, of their representations.
The moralization of politics by right wing religious groups will pose some interesting challenges to candidates, actual and potential, who have played the Washington game for very long.
They probably deserve one another.
My sister, my daughter...
Salon.com: By Carol Lloyd
Here's something our grandmothers didn't have to worry about -- or our mothers. Actually, we don't need to worry about this, either, but in the funhouse of new family planning, what's possible now seems probable, so even the weirdest mirrors are worth looking into, and wondering about the world we're creating. As reported by the BBC, a woman has frozen her embryos for her 7-year-old daughter, who has a chromosomal condition that will prevent her from bearing children of her own. Some experts say it is the first case of mother-to-daughter egg donation. The child could then reenact the famous scene from 'Chinatown' ('My sister! My daugher!') without so much as a whiff of scandal.
It's hard to see donating one's egg to one's daughter as anything but an act of maternal love, but some critics suggest it sets a dangerous precedent. 'In psychiatry we are hearing more and more of children suffering from identity problems, and specifically a condition called 'genealogical bewilderment,'' Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, told the BBC. 'Could it possibly get more bewildering than this?'...
"We have to stop thinking of women only in terms of their reproductive potential. The daughter could live a full and happy life without having children of her own." While reproductive technology seems to offer women a miraculous range of options, I wonder if we are not also imbibing a subtler, far less liberating message. That anything less than motherhood is tragedy.
Don't play with Islamic law, Iranian women told
Reuters:
The last sentence above, and how it fits with the rest of the message, opens a fascinating inquiry, which has its parallels in Judaism. The Conservative Movement within Judaism, and movements further to the left, have wrought significant changes in their understanding of Jewish law over the past generation. Movement has also taken place, although perhaps more quietly, within some segments of Orthodoxy. It remains to be seen whether the Iranian religious leadership is open to such new understandings.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Activists should not try to change Islamic laws relating to women's rights, Iran's supreme leader said on Wednesday, two days after one campaigner was reportedly sentenced to 34 months in jail and ten lashes.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei... was addressing a group of women, most dressed conservatively in head-to-toe black chadors, in Tehran ahead of Thursday's anniversary of the birth of Prophet Mohammad's daughter, Fatima, when Iran honors mothers and women.
Campaigners say Iranian women face difficulties in getting a divorce and criticize inheritance laws they say are unjust and the fact their court testimony is worth half that of a man's.
The Islamic Republic rejects allegations it is discriminating against women, saying it follows sharia law.
"We are witnessing in our country that some women activists and some men are trying to play with Islamic laws ... in order to harmonize them with international conventions related to women," Khamenei said. "This is wrong."
"They shouldn't see the solution in changing Islamic jurisprudence laws," Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, was quoted as saying.
But he indicated some Islamic rules regarding women could change if jurisprudence research led to a new understanding, state television said.
The last sentence above, and how it fits with the rest of the message, opens a fascinating inquiry, which has its parallels in Judaism. The Conservative Movement within Judaism, and movements further to the left, have wrought significant changes in their understanding of Jewish law over the past generation. Movement has also taken place, although perhaps more quietly, within some segments of Orthodoxy. It remains to be seen whether the Iranian religious leadership is open to such new understandings.
What women talk about
BBC NEWS:
Researchers in the US have laid waste to the long-held belief that women talk more than men.
But the survey did find that female subjects get through an average of 16,215 words a day, compared with their male counterparts' 15,669, a difference of 546. [Note: this assumes that the college student subjects are representative of men and women more generally.]
So what might those words be? The Magazine has consulted a handful of females, and come up with a few suggestions of words - 46 to be precise (listed below):
Forty-six words women might say, men probably wouldn't:
* Book club: A female dominated affair, perhaps because women read more fiction, or perhaps because men aren't very good at talking about it
* Accessorize: If men were ever to use this word it would only be in the context of cars
* Body image
* Empowering: Men never use this word, perhaps because for the 200,000 years humans have been on the planet, men have had all the power...
Friday, July 6, 2007
Episcopal priest suspended for also being a Muslim
Jerusalem Post:
Picky, picky.
An Episcopal priest who announced last month that she is also a practicing Muslim has been suspended from the priesthood for a year, according to a media report.
The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding must take a year from her position at Seattle's St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral and should 'reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam..."
"Since entering Islam," she told the newspaper, "I have been, by my own estimation, a better teacher, a better preacher and a better Christian."
Picky, picky.
The Names We Choose or Ignore
New York Times:
Hard to imagine tis book review might have any local relevance to Madison, WI.
“We have to decide what our civic values are,” Professor Greene said by phone from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, where he is chairman of the Department of Education Reform. “To decide what they are, we have to talk about them, and it’s inevitable that people will disagree about what those values are or should be.”
“If we try to avoid that conflict, we are avoiding deliberating about what values we wish to convey,” he said. As a result, “we may fail to teach any desirable values at all.”...
After examining records in seven states — New Jersey being the closest to New York — the professor found that schools are increasingly being named not for people but rather for animals, lakes, hills and other features of nature. The trend in those states is so pronounced that Professor Greene is confident it is a nationwide phenomenon.
Historical figures have taken it on the chin, especially American presidents. ...Of course, one could say that some presidents richly earn the low regard in which they are held. But Professor Greene’s larger point is that cities express communal values by naming schools, bridges or roads after people. When they settle on a name like Owl Creek, which was what Jefferson Elementary School in Fayetteville morphed into last year, they are essentially saying nothing.
Local officials often find it safer to stick with mesas and cactuses. That way, they avert potentially messy conflicts...But it is a cop-out, he suggests.
“Even naming schools after seriously flawed people can be instructional because we at least learn about those failings,” ...“In general, we prefer to honor people who are worthy of emulation,” he said. “But even if we learn of unsavory aspects of people’s lives, we can also learn from their mistakes.” ...
Fair enough. Still, one can understand why some cities find comfort in a natural object like a mesa. Unlike many politicians and other public figures, mesas are mostly on the level.
Hard to imagine tis book review might have any local relevance to Madison, WI.
Sacrifice Is for Suckers
New York Times: By Paul Krugman
A suitable response by Paul Krugman to David Brooks' insufferable column earlier this week.
Back when the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity began, Mr. Bush insisted that if anyone in his administration had violated the law, “that person will be taken care of.” Now we know what he meant. ...
Mr. Bush says that Mr. Libby’s punishment remains “harsh” because his reputation is “forever damaged.” Meanwhile, Mr. Bush employs, as a deputy national security adviser, none other than Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Abrams was one of six Iran-contra defendants pardoned by Mr. Bush’s father, who was himself a subject of the special prosecutor’s investigation of the scandal.
In other words, obstruction of justice when it gets too close to home is a family tradition. And being a loyal Bushie means never having to say you’re sorry.
A suitable response by Paul Krugman to David Brooks' insufferable column earlier this week.
Flower Children
New York Times: By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Coming-of-age literature is filled with characters who experience themselves as outsiders — as loners, nerds, misunderstood artists or uncool, uptight geeks. In her keenly observed novel “Flower Children,” Maxine Swann depicts four children who worry that their hippie parents’ unconventional lifestyle has put them outside the mainstream of ordinary life.
Their parents’ laissez-faire approach to raising children... all make Lu, Maeve, Tuck and Clyde yearn to fit in. At school, they’re surprised at first by all the rules but quickly embrace them:
“They learn not to swear. They get prizes for obedience, for following the rules down to the last detail. They’re delighted by these rules, these arbitrary lines that regulate behavior and mark off forbidden things.”...
[Author Maxine Swann] captures the incongruities of the 1970s counterculture as seen from the point of view of a young child, the shifting attitudes the narrator and her three siblings take toward the adult world as they slip-slide from childhood into adolescence, and the incalculable ways in which the passage of time colorizes the past....
Michael Sandel's "The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering "
New York Times Book Review: By William Saletan
Sandel is a very bright guy, and I am sympathetic to his project to bring "left communitarian" norms into bioethics. My guess is that most professional bioethicists, of more liberal/libertarian and/or utilitarian stripes and primary commitments to the value of individual autonomy, will be impatient with and unpersuaded by an effort of this type. I look forward to the book.
...That’s the way ethicists talk: things are good or bad, human or inhuman. The book’s subtitle encapsulates this project: “Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.” But genetic engineering is too big for ethics. It changes human nature, and with it, our notions of good and bad. It even changes our notions of perfection. The problem with perfection in the age of self-transformation isn’t that it’s bad. The problem is that it’s incoherent. ...
Opponents of eugenic technologies usually complain that they’re unsafe, coercive, exploitative, nontherapeutic or unavailable to the poor. Sandel rebuts these objections, pointing out that they’re selectively applied and can be technically resolved. His deeper worry is that some kinds of enhancement violate the norms embedded in human practices. ...
To defend the old ways against the new, Sandel needs something deeper: a common foundation for the various norms in sports, arts and parenting. He thinks he has found it in the idea of giftedness. ...
Why should we accept our lot as a gift? Because the loss of such reverence would change our moral landscape. “If genetic engineering enabled us to override the results of the genetic lottery,” Sandel worries, we might lose “our capacity to see ourselves as sharing a common fate.” Moreover, “if bioengineering made the myth of the ‘self-made man’ come true, it would be difficult to view our talents as gifts for which we are indebted rather than achievements for which we are responsible.”...
But Sandel’s egalitarian fatalism already feels a bit 20th-century. The older half of me shares his dismay that some parents feel blamed for carrying babies with Down syndrome to term. But my younger half cringes at his flight from the “burden of decision” and “explosion of responsibility” that come with our expanding genetic power. Given a choice between a world of fate and blamelessness and a world of freedom and responsibility, I’ll take the latter. Such a world may be, as Sandel says, too daunting for the humans of today. But not for the humans of tomorrow.
Sandel is a very bright guy, and I am sympathetic to his project to bring "left communitarian" norms into bioethics. My guess is that most professional bioethicists, of more liberal/libertarian and/or utilitarian stripes and primary commitments to the value of individual autonomy, will be impatient with and unpersuaded by an effort of this type. I look forward to the book.
A glimmer of hope in Gaza?
Slate Magazine: By Mitchell Prothero
But besides proving that they could be firm and nuanced at the same time, Hamas did something else that was widely overlooked in the understandably joyful coverage of [British journalist Alan] Johnston's release: They failed to disarm Jaysh al-Islam, and they even released all the prisoners that had been taken in the campaign to pressure the family.
Why? Ask Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured just over a year ago in a joint operation between Hamas and, you guessed it, Jaysh al-Islam. Hamas might need to prove it can control Gaza, but it also has to maintain its street credibility among militants, at least for now. They are torn between guns and butter.
This tension between armed militancy and good governance is hard to reconcile....
What is often overlooked about Hamas is that although destroying Israel is certainly high on its to-do list, the group represents the much broader agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, or "Ikwhan," is a Pan-Arab movement out to prove that most Arab regimes are corrupt, brutal, and ineffectual—a point that's hard to dispute when you've visited a few of them. The Brotherhood solution is to combine religious discipline with technocratic know-how to build a better society for the Arab world. Some consider them a moderating influence on the al-Qaida types, others point out that both groups share the same sources of intellectual inspiration...
...[I]t's also clear that Hamas isn't sure how this whole thing will play out. They cannot, or will not, openly come to peace talks with Israel. But both sides would benefit from an end to the nonstop, bloody drama in and around Gaza. And for once, Israel and America have someone to talk to that could actually deliver a version of peace. We're a long way from Hamas removing the stuff about destroying Israel from its charter, and we may never reach that point. But in the ministries and police stations of Gaza, there's a near pathological desire by Hamas officials to prove they can govern, and this could be turned into a long-term cease-fire, which Hamas admits they're willing to discuss.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
A National Gut-Check: Who Lives Better?
New York Times (Editorial):
Let’s stipulate that Moore is a one-sided pamphleteer, with a bit of Mark Twain and Pat Robertson in his schtick. But like all propagandists, his job is not to find some objective truth, but to anger, challenge, ask hard questions. ...
With health care, the anecdotal often carried the argument. One day, a tenant farmer named Sergio, our neighbor, woke with a terrible eye infection. He was full of pain, unable to see. Sergio got world-class care in Florence. After three days of attentive fussing in the hospital, he came home entirely well and without a bill.
Had he showed up at any American hospital — poor, no insurance — well, good luck. Especially in a place like Texas, where 30 percent of adults lack health insurance and what can pass for medical care is a get-in-line form of triage.
But even with insurance, Americans are stuck with what may be the worst of all systems: one that lets a handful of corporations make life-and-death decisions, with incentive to dump and deny.
Little wonder that the United States ranks 37th in effectiveness of health care. Italy ranks 2nd. This is a country that can’t form a government to last longer than the soccer season, and yet, they make our medical system look barbaric.
If our system doesn’t kill you — see the infant mortality and life expectancy rates, bringing up the rear — it can put you in the poorhouse. Medical catastrophes are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and most of those are people who have some insurance, clinging to the frayed edge of the middle class.
A Sour Chaser to my Nathan's coverage
The Great Lower East Side Pickle War - New York Times Blog: By Sewell Chan
Follow the links for all the juicy details. Guss' was featured in the nostalgic "Crossing Delancy" film of some years back. There is a lively (and punny) commentary on the NYT blog site; so far, sentiment is running in favor of the Pickle Guys for taste, if not legal hegemony.
This will require a field trip for further "law in action" research.
Even as the beloved, traditional Jewish food establishments of the Lower East Side seem to be locked into an irrecoverable downward spiral — the death of Gertel’s bakery being the most recent example — a war has been raging over who is the legitimate heir to the Guss’s pickle empire that once ruled over Essex Street. ...
Ms. Fairhurst and the Leibowitz family got along at first; she used the Guss name and bought the family’s pickles. That suddenly changed, according to the Leibowitzes, in 2006, when Ms. Fairhurst decided to buy her pickles from another supplier. The Leibowitzes asserted that she would have to stop using the Guss name. They set up a Guss’s Pickles Web site that asserts that theirs are the only true Guss’s Pickles.
Ms. Fairhurst retaliated by filing a federal lawsuit [pdf] in which she denied she was infringing on any trademark. She accused the Leibowitzes of unfair competition and “tortious interference.” The Leibowitz family, in answering the lawsuit [pdf], denied the accusations. The Leibowitzes also filed a counterclaim [pdf] asserting that they have the exclusive right to the Guss’s Pickles trademark....
Meanwhile — as if this could possibly get more complicated — a third pickle business, The Pickle Guys, was started in 2003 by Alan Kaufman and other former employees of Guss’s Pickles. They were dismayed that the original business had left Essex Street, its home for so many years. Mr. Kaufman’s Web site boasts, “Today we are the only pickle store that exists on Essex Street.”
Follow the links for all the juicy details. Guss' was featured in the nostalgic "Crossing Delancy" film of some years back. There is a lively (and punny) commentary on the NYT blog site; so far, sentiment is running in favor of the Pickle Guys for taste, if not legal hegemony.
This will require a field trip for further "law in action" research.
Can I win a matzo-ball-eating contest?
Slate Magazine: By Emily Yoffe
I think this will probably complete The Wise Bard's intensive coverage of the competitive eating circuit for this season.
Thanks to Louise and Bruce for a wonderful, if non-competitive, July 4 BBQ.
I picked up the first matzo ball. A thin, moist crust quickly gave way to a pastelike mantle, followed by a sawdust core. I got the whole thing stuffed in my cheeks, where it defied my attempts to swallow. I finally choked it down and reached for the next one. The centers were killing me: No grandmother of mine would ever have served such dusty balls....
As the last minute was announced I started shoving... In the end I ate six. I felt both surprisingly good and proud of myself, until I discovered Badlands Booker had set a new world record with 30. Though I came in last, Crazy Legs told me I tied the previous female matzo-ball record. IFOCE official George Shea confirmed this but pointed out that this was a pathetic attempt on my part to set an affirmative-action standard for eating. In competitive eating, he said cruelly, "there is no Title IX."...
I talked to the third-place finisher (24 balls), Tim "Eater X" Janus, whose sole experience with matzo balls is in competition. "I still don't understand why they continue to exist," he said. But I do. After I returned home I attended two consecutive Seders. At each I was given my usual single-ball serving. The balls were fluffy and moist. Both nights I went back for seconds.
I think this will probably complete The Wise Bard's intensive coverage of the competitive eating circuit for this season.
Thanks to Louise and Bruce for a wonderful, if non-competitive, July 4 BBQ.
Oh, no! I'm the first patient these 23 med students have ever examined
Slate Magazine: By Emily Yoffe
Sometimes it was hard for me not to laugh. Dr. A was so sweetly flustered that in a perfect Chaplinesque slapstick, he would drop his reflex hammer on the floor, bend to pick it up, and then discover that his pen had fallen out of his white coat. Dr. N wasted the first eight minutes of the exam trying repeatedly to get a blood pressure reading. The panic in his eyes seemed to say, 'She appears to be alive, yet she has no vital signs.' He finally solved the dilemma when he realized he was listening to my arm with the wrong side of the stethoscope. (My blood pressure readings, which require technical skills on the part of the doctor, varied from 87/60 to 125/90.)...
After every three exams, standardized patients take a break in a private lounge. There were about 20 of us divided into two groups. My group was undergoing the physicals, while a group of older SPs were pretending to have hurt themselves in a fall. Almost all my fellow patients were professional actors who supplement their income by appearing in a repertory circuit at the medical schools of Georgetown, George Washington, and the military's Uniformed Services University. I envied that some really got to exercise their acting chops. One told me she recently portrayed a depressed alcoholic with irritable bowel syndrome who wasn't even supposed to know she was depressed and alcoholic—the medical student was supposed to figure that out. ...
Some tried making doctorly conversation. "Have you ever had a physical before?" one asked. I nodded yes, but wanted to add, "Lately, I get one about every half hour."
Letters: Does self-help breed helplessness?
Letters: Salon:
An addictive substance
I'm a ghostwriter. I write self-help books, including some for some of the bigger names in the niche. I do it because it's interesting, pays well and gives me a chance to write, which is what I love. But the industry is still largely selling a legal version of crack cocaine to a largely impressionable, naive and self-deluding audience.
I've had this discussion with some top self-help gurus and they cynically laugh about the 'addiction' aspect of the self-help process. They know it's true and they profit hugely off it. It goes something like this:
1. Person reads self-help book.
2. Reader attends seminar, where she (there are more women than men) is sold thousands of dollars worth of tapes, CD sets, boot camps, etc. and pumped full of positive, can-do messages.
3. Person gets a huge buzz and feels like she is actually making substantial changes in her life simply by ATTENDING the event and BUYING stuff.
4. Person goes home. The buzz fades. The books and CDs collect dust on a shelf. Because most self-help programs are filled with glib, shallow advice and programs and little encouragement to become self-aware and face the fact that change is HARD, few consumers of this stuff make substantive changes in their lives.
5. Person wants to get that purposeful buzz back, so she buys the author's next book, goes to another seminar, attends a boot camp, pays $5,000 for coaching or a teleseminar, and so on. Buzz returns. She feels great for a few weeks more.
6. Repeat.
7. Self-help guru laughs all the way to the bank and never has to prove the effectiveness of his or her ideas because maybe 10% of the people who buy into them ever take any action at all.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but not by much. As Niesslein found out, so much of the ideas in this subculture are facile, shallow and pretty lame. There are some good self-help figures out there, but I'd say they're maybe a 20% minority. The rest are all about getting 'em hooked and getting the check.
-- pacificwhim
Well done!
Both the idea of the book and the interviewer. All the questions I wanted to ask were here, and I thought Ms. Niesslein sounded funny and sensible. I'm a motivational psychologist, research-trained, who constantly rages at the "motivational speakers" and "motivational experts" whose main expertise is getting people fired up to buy their books, rather than in the actual field of motivational research. Indeed, David McClelland, the deceased leading light in this field, rejected approaches by any number of these people over the years wanting his name on their books and tapes.
But one person McClelland did respect, and I do too, is the only name mentioned positively twice in this interview: Martin Seligman. Unlike the Dr. Phils and Dr. Lauras, Dr. Seligman is a renowned research psychologist, like myself specializing in personality. I am not surprised that Ms. Niesslein liked him; he knows what can work and what is unlikely to work. Indeed, one of his books is called, simply enough, What You Can Change, What You Can't -- which sums up the reality of managing yourself nicely! As a psychologist, a consultant, and a sort of self-help author myself (on tapping motivational research to motivate writing -- see link), I recommend him highly. And I think I'll be buying Ms. Niesslein's book soon, as I want to support someone who can help people understand the smoke and mirrors surrounding most of these shills.
-- Steve Kelner (Ph.D)
We are meant to be here
Salon Books:
Forget science fiction. If you want to hear some really crazy ideas about the universe, just listen to our leading theoretical physicists. Wish you could travel back in time? You can, according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Could there be an infinite number of parallel worlds? Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg considers this a real possibility. Even the big bang, which for decades has been the standard explanation for how the universe started, is getting a second look. Now, many cosmologists speculate that we live in a 'multiverse,' with big bangs exploding all over the cosmos, each creating its own bubble universe with its own laws of physics. And lucky for us, our bubble turned out to be life-friendly...
But if you really want to start an argument, ask a room full of physicists this question: Are the laws of physics fine-tuned to support life? Many scientists hate this idea -- what's often called 'the anthropic principle.' They suspect it's a trick to argue for a designer God. But more and more physicists point to various laws of nature that have to be calibrated just right for stars and planets to form and for life to appear. For instance, if gravity were just slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed long before life evolved. But if gravity were a tiny bit weaker, no galaxies or stars could have formed. If the strong nuclear force had been slightly different, red giant stars would never produce the fusion needed to form heavier atoms like carbon, and the universe would be a vast, lifeless desert. Are these just happy coincidences? The late cosmologist Fred Hoyle called the universe "a put-up job." Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has suggested that the universe, in some sense, "knew we were coming."
British-born cosmologist Paul Davies calls this cosmic fine-tuning the "Goldilocks Enigma." Like the porridge for the three bears, he says the universe is "just right" for life. .
Mind boggling "spooky action at a distance"
We are meant to be here | Salon Books: Interview with Paul Davies
This sounds like it's coming right out of science fiction. Somehow, future people can go back in time and have some role in creating the universe. It's pretty far-fetched.
It is pretty far-fetched until you stop to think that there is nothing in the laws of physics that singles out one direction of time over another. The laws of physics work forward in time and backward in time equally well. Wheeler was one of the pioneers of this underlying time symmetry in the laws of physics. So he was steeped in the fact that we shouldn't be prejudiced between past and future when it comes to causation. The particular mechanism that Wheeler had in mind has to do with quantum physics. Now, quantum physics is based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In its usual formulation, it means that there's some uncertainty at a later time how an atom is going to behave. You might be able to predict the betting odds that the atom will do this or that, but you can't know for certain in advance what's going to happen. Now, this uncertainty principle works both ways in time. There's no doubt about this. If we make an observation of an atom in a certain state now, then its past is uncertain just as its future is uncertain.
So one way to think about this is that there will be many past histories that will lead up to the present state of the universe. In the remote past, its state was fuzzy. Now in the lab, it's all very well to put an atom in a certain state and experiment on it at a later time. But when we're applying quantum physics to the whole universe, we simply can't establish the universe in a well-defined quantum state at the beginning and make observations later. We're here and now. So we can only infer backward in time. It's part of conventional quantum mechanics that you can make observations now that will affect the nature of reality as it was in the past. You can't use it to send signals back into the past. You can't send information back into the past. But the nature of the quantum state in the past can't be separated from the nature of the quantum state in the present.
So you're not talking about super-smart beings in the far future who go back in time and somehow fiddle with the laws of physics to create the big bang. You're saying this happens just through the act of observation itself, through the fact that human beings or other intelligent beings are aware of the universe.
Right. I'm not talking about time travel. This is just standard quantum physics. Standard quantum physics says that if you make an observation of something today -- it might just be the position of an atom -- then there's an uncertainty about what that atom is going to do in the future. And there's an uncertainty about what it's going to do in the past. That uncertainty means there's a type of linkage. Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance."
But what's so hard to fathom is that this act of observation, which has been observed at the subatomic level, would affect the way matter spread right after the big bang. That sounds awfully far-fetched.
Well, it's only far-fetched if you want to think that every little observation that we perform today is somehow micromanaging the universe in the far past. What we're saying is that as we go back into the past, there are many, many quantum histories that could have led up to this point. And the existence of observers today will select a subset of those histories which will inevitably, by definition, lead to the existence of life. Now, I don't think anybody would really dispute that fact.
What I'm suggesting -- this is where things depart from the conventional view -- is that the laws of physics themselves are subject to the same quantum uncertainty. So that an observation performed today will select not only a number of histories from an infinite number of possible past histories, but will also select a subset of the laws of physics which are consistent with the emergence of life. That's the radical departure. It's not the backward-in-time aspect, which has been established by experiment. There's really no doubt that quantum mechanics opens the way to linking future with past. I'm suggesting that we extend those notions from the state of the universe to the underlying laws of physics themselves. That's the radical step, because most physicists regard the laws as God-given, imprinted on the universe, fixed and immutable. But Wheeler -- and I follow him on this -- suggested that the laws of physics are not immutable.
Old Boss. New Boss.
Tom Paine.com (Campaign for America's Future): By Rick Perlstein
'A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease,' Washington Post, July 2, 2007
Bush can seem disengaged. When he flew to New York to visit a Harlem school and promote his education program, he brought along New York congressmen on Air Force One, including Democrat Charles B. Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The White House was in the midst of tough negotiations with Rangel over trade pacts. But Bush did not try to cut a deal with Rangel, chatting instead about baseball. 'He talked a lot about the Rangers,' Rangel said. 'I didn't know what the hell he was talking about.'
'Dawn at Memorial: Nixon, Youths Talk,' Washington Post, May 10, 1970:
'I hope it was because he was tired, but most of what he was saying was absurd,' said Joan Pelletier, also of Syracuse University. 'Here we had come from a university's that's completely uptight, on strike, and when we told him where we were from, he talked about the football team. And when someone said he was from California, he talked about surfing.'
Obama Says He Is Emissary for Change (of Slogans?)
New York Times:
I support the guy. I guess it goes with the territory.
OSKALOOSA, Iowa (AP) -- Democrat Barack Obama declared that ''change can't just be a slogan'' as he voiced admiration for former President Clinton, while arguing that voters are looking for a newface that moves past the bitter wrangling of past campaigns.
''I think I'm in a position to bring about the changes that people want,'' Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Obama said the dominant theme he is hearing from voters is weariness with Washington-style wrangling. ...
As Obama was speaking,... the Clintons were campaigning with a slogan arguing they were best prepared to bring change to the country....
Obama said he thinks voters are looking to turn the page and not return to an earlier era.
''I admire Bill Clinton, I think he did a lot of fine things as president and he's a terrific political strategist,'' the Illinois senator said. ''What we're more interested in is in looking forward, not looking backward. I think the American people feel the same way. They are looking for a way to break out of the harsh partisanship and the old arguments and solve problems.''
In the interview, Obama said his campaign is based on change and his history shows he can be an agent of change.
''Change can't just be a slogan,'' Obama said. ''Change has to mean that we're not doing the same old thing that we've been doing.''...
''What I know is the kind of experience I have outside of Washington as a community organizer working with families that are struggling, as a constitutional law professor, as a state legislator dealing with the very issues that affect people, people find that experience at least as relevant, maybe more relevant, than experience in Washington.''...
''Hillary Clinton is a capable person and an experienced person and she's got a good track record as a senator from New York,'' said Obama, who said his history is one of pushing for change, not building a resume.
''I would not be in this race if I didn't think I had the capacity to bridge divisions along partisan lines, racial lines, religious lines, that was unequaled in the field,'' he said....
''What I'm confident about is, we're going to be able to run a very competitive campaign, we've got the resources to do it, we've got the volunteer base to do it, and we've got the right message,'' he said. ...
''Obviously it's going to be hard-fought race,'' said Obama. ''It's not going to be just one or two candidates who are competitive. I think you still have a very strong field and it's still very early.''...
''We've got the kind of support that can be sustained over a long period of time,'' said Obama. ''We are a change-based campaign, we are a grassroots based campaign. That kind of energy and excitement on the ground, I think that translates into votes in what I think could be a close race.''
''This is the family weekend for us,'' Mrs. Obama said, as the family loaded up into a recreational vehicle heading for another campaign stop. ''Family is first.''
''The president has stubbornly denied the facts on the ground there for a long time,'' said Obama. ''That's not what that the American people are looking for.''
I support the guy. I guess it goes with the territory.
The Problem With Murdoch
TomPaine.com: By Bill Moyers
Of course he wasn’t the only media mogul to clamor for war. And he’s not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with FOX News is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he’s made of its journalism. FOX News huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he’s about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.
But the problem isn’t just Rupert Murdoch. His pursuit of The Wall Street Journal is the latest in a cascading series of mergers, buy-outs and other financial legerdemain that are making a shipwreck of journalism. Public-minded newspapers are being dumped by their owners for wads of cash or crippled by cost-cutting while their broadcasting cousins race to the bottom. Murdoch is just the predator of the hour, the modern maestro of a financial marketplace ruled by money and moguls. Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power, these 21st-century barons of the First Amendment revel in them; the public be damned.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
"Sicko" Vs. A Sick Show
TomPaine.com:By Isaiah J. Poole
...The real choice, as 'Sicko' makes clear, is between a radical rethinking about how the nation views health care—as a right of every individual rather than a commodity to be bought and sold—and the perpetuation of a system that impoverishes the many for the profit of the few. There is an army, led by Bush, that wants to put window dressing on a fundamentally dysfunctional system, one that measure after measure shows is leaving Americans with a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality—but higher costs—than many other developed countries that, yes, 'put more power in the hands of government.'...
Some critics are blasting Moore for painting an overly utopian picture of health care in Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba. But the critics dodge the fundamental difference between health care in those countries and health care in America: the difference in values. In America, while charity is good, the bottom line is each person's health care is their responsibility. You're on your own. In the countries that Moore examines with universal care, health care is a shared responsibility, and the notion that everyone pays into a system that provides for the needs of everyone is not any more questioned than is the concept in America that we all pay for the military and police services that protect us all.
That is the broader discussion that "Sicko" promotes, not just what should we do about the 49 million uninsured in America but what do we do about the overwhelming majority of Americans who have health insurance but do not have health assurance—who could find, as I did recently, that a doctor can prescribe a medical procedure to protect your health, but, to borrow Bush's words, "an insurance bureaucrat can make medical decisions."
TWB on The problem with Michael Moore's policy ideas
Slate Magazine: (Response to article by Austan Goolsbee --click link for original)
I don't know much about Austan Goolsbee. He describes himself as a "free market type" and as an economic advisor to Barach Obama. He largely agrees with the initial "critique" half of Michael Moore's Sicko, but then savages Moore's policy prescriptions. Some of his points are legitimate, and important: every health care system has to make some decisions about what care to provide, and moving from an existing system to a new one will involve significant transitional complexities that need to be taken into account. Fine. But Goolsbee's use of these fundamentally correct (if hardly novel) insights runs aground on a litter of straw men and Republican-style talking points.
I don't have time or energy to essay a point by point rebuttal of Goolsbee's particulars, but let me try a couple of key issues.
The US spends a far higher percent of GDP on health care than anyone else. The only country that comes close is Canada, and that is far behind. No one contends that the US population would be happy with a health care system funded at the level of Britain's NHS. That argument is a straw man. But if we were able to reduce our expenditures to a percent of GDP akin to Canada's, we could devote hundreds of billions of dollars to making access to reasonable care universal.
Would doctors earn less money under a single payer, universal system? Probably, although the effects would vary by specialty and plan design. Many experts argue that a more salary-based system would (and should) favor primary care providers relative to subspecialists currently highly compensated for performing large numbers of expensive procedures. It is not clear that this should be counted against a universal system. Many think it would improve the mix of physicians and the quality of most patient-physician encounters.
Would drug companies make less money in a universal payer system? Yes, as they do with the VA system, and in most deals they make with large buyers. A moment of silence, please. Would this affect innovation? Perhaps so. It might also affect (downward) marketing expenses for direct to consumer advertising and the variety of thinly veiled bribes to some physicians. Again, should this be counted as a negative? Why?
Malpractice issues? Puh-leez. This is pure talking point drivel. The statistics make clear that in terms of overall health care costs, this is "rounding error" level. In fact, a system in which patients (and jurors) are better treated, less angry with the system, and feel in greater solidarity with fellow patients may well reduce the incidence and the costs of malpractice claims.
Denial of service? Every health care system, absent an infinite budget, will need to "ration" some care in one form or another, whether directly and explicitly, or in a less direct and visible form. The method of rationing may be more or less rational (in something like cost-benefit terms) and more or less fair (allocated by medical need, or by ability to pay). A key truth is that the existing American "non-system" does both these jobs exceptionally poorly, and that tinkering around the edges is unlikely to make a great difference. One responsibility of a system of universal access/coverage will be to make these decisions in a more transparent, fair and accountable fashion. It is not that the current system is not already making these decisions; rather, insurance companies and HMOs are doing so behind closed doors, with little public accountability or sense of fairness. Michael Moore does an especially powerful job of revealing that reality.
A system of universal access to care will not magically do away with all hard choices and difficulties in the health care system. (Britain, France, Canada, Cuba, all counties continue to cope with the challenges of providing and paying for quality health care for their populations, and so will we.) It will provide a new, firmer foundation for a more just and efficient system, in place of the rotting timbers of what we now have. To return to Goolsbee's choice of metaphor, this junker is ready for the trash heap. I hope Barack Obama is not relying too heavily on his counsel.
I don't know much about Austan Goolsbee. He describes himself as a "free market type" and as an economic advisor to Barach Obama. He largely agrees with the initial "critique" half of Michael Moore's Sicko, but then savages Moore's policy prescriptions. Some of his points are legitimate, and important: every health care system has to make some decisions about what care to provide, and moving from an existing system to a new one will involve significant transitional complexities that need to be taken into account. Fine. But Goolsbee's use of these fundamentally correct (if hardly novel) insights runs aground on a litter of straw men and Republican-style talking points.
I don't have time or energy to essay a point by point rebuttal of Goolsbee's particulars, but let me try a couple of key issues.
The US spends a far higher percent of GDP on health care than anyone else. The only country that comes close is Canada, and that is far behind. No one contends that the US population would be happy with a health care system funded at the level of Britain's NHS. That argument is a straw man. But if we were able to reduce our expenditures to a percent of GDP akin to Canada's, we could devote hundreds of billions of dollars to making access to reasonable care universal.
Would doctors earn less money under a single payer, universal system? Probably, although the effects would vary by specialty and plan design. Many experts argue that a more salary-based system would (and should) favor primary care providers relative to subspecialists currently highly compensated for performing large numbers of expensive procedures. It is not clear that this should be counted against a universal system. Many think it would improve the mix of physicians and the quality of most patient-physician encounters.
Would drug companies make less money in a universal payer system? Yes, as they do with the VA system, and in most deals they make with large buyers. A moment of silence, please. Would this affect innovation? Perhaps so. It might also affect (downward) marketing expenses for direct to consumer advertising and the variety of thinly veiled bribes to some physicians. Again, should this be counted as a negative? Why?
Malpractice issues? Puh-leez. This is pure talking point drivel. The statistics make clear that in terms of overall health care costs, this is "rounding error" level. In fact, a system in which patients (and jurors) are better treated, less angry with the system, and feel in greater solidarity with fellow patients may well reduce the incidence and the costs of malpractice claims.
Denial of service? Every health care system, absent an infinite budget, will need to "ration" some care in one form or another, whether directly and explicitly, or in a less direct and visible form. The method of rationing may be more or less rational (in something like cost-benefit terms) and more or less fair (allocated by medical need, or by ability to pay). A key truth is that the existing American "non-system" does both these jobs exceptionally poorly, and that tinkering around the edges is unlikely to make a great difference. One responsibility of a system of universal access/coverage will be to make these decisions in a more transparent, fair and accountable fashion. It is not that the current system is not already making these decisions; rather, insurance companies and HMOs are doing so behind closed doors, with little public accountability or sense of fairness. Michael Moore does an especially powerful job of revealing that reality.
A system of universal access to care will not magically do away with all hard choices and difficulties in the health care system. (Britain, France, Canada, Cuba, all counties continue to cope with the challenges of providing and paying for quality health care for their populations, and so will we.) It will provide a new, firmer foundation for a more just and efficient system, in place of the rotting timbers of what we now have. To return to Goolsbee's choice of metaphor, this junker is ready for the trash heap. I hope Barack Obama is not relying too heavily on his counsel.
Leader in Mosque Siege is Captured
New York Times:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 4 — The hard-line cleric who was leading Islamic militants in their standoff with government forces at a besieged mosque in the heart of the capital was captured late today when he tried to escape from the mosque disguised in a burqa, the concealing head-to-toe gown that many Muslim women wear, according to government officials and local media reports. ...
The arrested cleric is Maulana Mohammad Abdul Aziz, chief cleric of the Lal Mosque, who is known for his extremist and anti-American views and in the past has threatened suicide attacks if the Pakistani government did not enact Islamic law. ...
Security officials became suspicious of a group of female students leaving the mosque when they resisted a body search and scuffled with police, according to news reports here, and Mr. Aziz’s disguise — including gloves to conceal his hands — was soon discovered. Private television news channels showed video images of the arrest. He was seen being escorted by security officials and then bundled into a black Toyota Corolla car. ...
BBC Journalist Freed in Gaza
New York Times:
I suspect that last statement will bear some interpretation.
At the news conference, Mr. Johnston thanked all those who had worked for his release, including Mr. Haniya and Hamas. He said he was only beaten in the last half-hour before his release, and said that once Hamas took over Gaza, his kidnappers, whom he described as “comfortable,” began to get very nervous.
“It was really grim,” Mr. Johnston said. “It was like being buried alive, really, removed from the world.” His kidnappers were indifferent and he became very ill twice, he said, “and I had the feeling that they would watch television while the British guy died in the other room.”
Mr. Haniya said the release was a moment of pride for all Palestinians, and another senior Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, said Hamas would enforce the rule of law in Gaza and protect foreigners. “It’s a new era,” Mr. Zahar said. “We will not allow illegal activities against anyone.”"
I suspect that last statement will bear some interpretation.
In Coney Island, a New Hot-Dog Champion Is Crowned
New York Times Blog:
UPDATED, Wednesday, 1 p.m. The Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot-Dog Eating Contest was won by Joey Chestnut, who dethroned Takeru Kobayashi, the six-time defending champion of the event, in a competitive chow-down spectacle that was not decided until the final seconds in Coney Island, Brooklyn.
Mr. Chestnut ate 66 hot dogs in the 12-minute contest, establishing a world record. For the first time, he defeated his top rival, Mr. Kobayashi, who showed no apparent strains from his well-documented recent dental troubles. Mr. Kobayashi finished second by downing 63 hot dogs, though there was some debate at the end whether the frankfurters that were partly in and partly out of his mouth would count or not." ...
“I think it represents actually, well, America — what New York is. It’s something you expect from a city like this...arguably the apotheosis of Americana. ...
The event — it started in 1916, according to legend — brings 30,000 fans to Coney Island in Brooklyn every Independence Day ... The contest combines tradition, competition, showmanship and excess; in essence, so much of what makes this city great. ...
[Mayor Michael] Bloomberg, who spoke at the weigh-in, appeared to be enjoying himself, taking a big chomp out of a Nathan’s frankfurter before addressing the crowd.
“Independence Day is a wonderful time to celebrate our freedoms,” the mayor said, looking rather summery in boat shoes and lightweight slacks. “Now I don’t know what the founding fathers ever thought about this, but the right to eat as many hot dogs as possible — although not expressly named in the Bill of Rights — was no doubt on the minds of the framers.”
The fine art of lying
Salon.com:By Garrison Keillor
Reflections on listening to the Bushies....
I could've said, 'It is a sin to believe evil of others but it is seldom a mistake.' It might've gotten into her story, and then other Australian papers pick it up, and pretty soon the line appears in Bartlett's under my name. And also Mencken's line about conscience being the suspicion that somebody may be looking.
"Why do you tell these terrible lies?" ask the good readers. "To keep in practice...
Reflections on listening to the Bushies....
Bush and Cheney walk, too
Salon.com: By Sidney Blumenthal
Not my favorite source, or my candidate for the most reliable one. But on the subjects of perjury and White House conniving, he presumably knows whereof he speaks.
Now I have to listen to Bill's discourse on Bush's abuses of the pardon power.
I'm tired of these ruling families. Let's try someone else.
A thought for July 4: Prince Charles might be less monarchical.
By confessing that Libby was engaged in a cover-up -- after all, that was the verdict -- Bush establishes his own motive. In brief, Bush's act ratifies Libby's cover-up. The 'cloud over the vice president' that the prosecutor decried will never be dispelled. Cheney -- and Bush -- walk, too.
Libby had to have understood, without a word ever being passed, that leniency of some sort would be granted. His steadfast cover-up was encouraged by his intimate knowledge of the methods of Cheney and Bush. The fine he must pay -- $250,000 -- is meaningless because he will certainly not be paying it himself. His legal defense fund, supported by the friends of the president and vice president, boasts a treasury of $5 million. He has been well taken care of.
The pardon is the one monarchical power that the framers of the Constitution assigned the presidency. But they placed one restriction, that it could not be exercised for impeachment. In other words, the president could not use his power to pardon himself. Bush is entirely within his narrow right to use the pardon power in the Libby case. But it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law governing that power because it is a consummate gesture of self-exoneration, at least if the vice president is an 'entity within the executive branch.' Bush rewards Libby's cover-up, thwarting the investigation into Cheney's and perhaps his culpability. Bush's commutation is the successful culmination of the obstruction of justice.
Not my favorite source, or my candidate for the most reliable one. But on the subjects of perjury and White House conniving, he presumably knows whereof he speaks.
Now I have to listen to Bill's discourse on Bush's abuses of the pardon power.
I'm tired of these ruling families. Let's try someone else.
A thought for July 4: Prince Charles might be less monarchical.
Soft on Crime
New York Times (Editorials):
When he was running for president, George W. Bush loved to contrast his law-abiding morality with that of President Clinton, who was charged with perjury and acquitted. For Mr. Bush, the candidate, “politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better.”
Not so for Mr. Bush, the president [for whom...] untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the tiny slice of right-wing Americans left in his political base. ...
[I]n this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.
"Superman Scooter"
Harper's Magazine: By Scott Horton
...Moreover, this episode tells us one of the most deeply guarded truths of the Inner Party of the Neocon movement, namely: the ends justify the means. That is, to accomplish a goal accepted by the Inner Party, you are entitled to do anything—break the law, by all means, and indeed set the law into oblivion if you can. That explains the fate of the Geneva Conventions, which were, alas, simply inconvenient—they got in the way of the notion that no rules can stand between us and the accomplishment of our objectives. For the Nietzschean Neocon man (let’s call him Übermensch or perhaps even better, Scooter Libby), there are no rules; they exist for the people of the herd. And that explains the indignation when the rules for the herd are applied against Scooter. ...
I remember one afternoon sitting with Elena Bonner, the doyenne of the movement, in her apartment on Moscow’s Chkalova Street, turning over the case of a poor refusenik who was being persecuted by the KGB. And Bonner lectured me: “You need to remember one tactic of the totalitarian mindset, a tactic that belongs to the basic training of KGB cadres. They frequently accuse their victim of doing exactly what they, in fact, are doing. Why? It has a double utility. It forces the victim to use his meager resources defending himself from false challenges. But more importantly, it deflects attention from their own scheming and plotting.” Well, that turned out to be exactly the case in the matter we were discussing.
And the more I think of the charge of “politics” and the case of Scooter Libby, the more it strikes me that the charge is absolutely true. There is no question whatsoever that the prosecutorial function in the United States has been radically politicized. The Neocons have provided the ideological rationalization for it, and the White House has overseen the process from the beginning. Now Bush’s deus ex machina intervention to save Libby from time in prison should be taken as the ultimate proof of exactly that politicization.
Backers split on impact of L.A. mayor's divorce
Los Angeles Times:
I'm sure former President Hart will find this news reassuring.
Political analysts agree, to a point. Few see any signs of lasting damage to Villaraigosa just yet.
Other political leaders whose personal failings have made front-page news have emerged with their careers largely intact, or enhanced, even if their behavior cost them political points in the short run.
The list of such cases reads like a Who's Who of modern American politics: — former President Clinton, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart.
I'm sure former President Hart will find this news reassuring.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
I guess I can't resist observing...
...that Scooter Libby will spend less time in jail than Paris Hilton.
Then again, Paris is apparently less entitled (although she has, cultural pollution aside, caused less serious harm in the world).
Then again, Paris is apparently less entitled (although she has, cultural pollution aside, caused less serious harm in the world).
Was Commuting Libby an Impeachable Offense?
Truthout: By William Rivers Pitt
It would appear that I am not the only crackpot thinking in these terms.
Hovering above all this is one all-encompassing question: did George W. Bush commit a dead-bang impeachable offense by commuting Libby's sentence?
A wise man once said that the life of the law is procedure. There are processes to be undertaken, papers to be filed and forms to be obeyed. In this commutation, no procedures whatsoever appear to have been followed. The haste in which this action was undertaken smacks of fear, desperation, and of a cover-up in process.
Consider the factors.
Libby's legal defense from the first day of his trial was that he was a fall guy taking the rap for others.
Fitzgerald pointedly stated that the details surrounding Libby's actions put a cloud of suspicion over Vice President Dick Cheney.
Combine these two details and you wind up with Libby standing as a patsy taking the rap for Cheney.
Bush has the constitutional power to offer commutations, of course. But if this commutation was granted to Libby in order to derail a criminal investigation, if it was granted to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, that is itself a crime meriting the impeachment of George W. Bush.
This, more than anything else, must be investigated.
Senator Leahy, Representative Waxman, Representative Conyers and any other Congressional chairmen must absolutely and actively work to get to the bottom of this. If doing so requires immunizing Libby to secure his testimony, so be it. Calling Patrick Fitzgerald to testify on these matters is likewise required; the idea that he can safely continue to refuse comment must be dismissed. Fitzgerald cannot make statements about clouds over Cheney, in light of this new situation, and still be allowed to stand in silence. The lawyers assembling Joe Wilson's civil suit should subpoena Libby into a deposition room and grill him, whether or not he stands on his 5th Amendment rights.
It would appear that I am not the only crackpot thinking in these terms.
Why can't you buy a kidney to save your life?
The Boston Globe: "By Christopher Shea
Actually, marijuana aside, I can imagine this argument appealing to members of the current Court majority. Rich and poor alike have the right to purchase (or sell) organs, just as they do to sleep under bridges.
I have my reservations, which increasingly feels like a kiss of death.
GIVEN THE MAKEUP of the Supreme Court, this is supposed to be a time when conservative judges are reining in some of the 'rights' established by liberals over the past four decades.
Yet there is a growing push in medical, legislative, and legal circles -- both liberal and conservative -- to recognize an expansive new right that some are describing as 'medical self-defense.' The movement is rooted in a desire to help patients who have run out of options. Some medical experts, including Dr. Emil Freireich, director of a leukemia research program at the University of Texas, have called on the Food and Drug Administration to let terminally ill patients try unapproved drugs that might offer their last chance at survival. ...
The decision could have sweeping implications. A right to medical self-defense, some legal scholars argue, implies that there is a right to offer cash for human organs, if one is dying or suffering -- a practice currently banned. Such a right could even force the courts to overturn any federal ban on stem-cell research because, these scholars argue, the government's interest in protecting a 10-cell embryo could not trump the right of a Parkinson's patient to save himself. If you can shoot a man who breaks into your house at 1 a.m., they ask, why can't you try an unproven drug or purchase an organ
Actually, marijuana aside, I can imagine this argument appealing to members of the current Court majority. Rich and poor alike have the right to purchase (or sell) organs, just as they do to sleep under bridges.
I have my reservations, which increasingly feels like a kiss of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
