Month: May 2006

Rebuffing free surveillance technology? Jon Rauch has uncovered an almost unbelievable story of government inertia and incompetence.

Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo was an expert in Isaiah Berlin and Mohandas Gandhi. No wonder Ahamedinejad has accused him of espionage.

It’s still the Easter season. Catholics have fifty days to ponder the great mystery at the heart of our faith – ten more than the more famous forty days of Lent. And the core of that mystery is how such great life can come out of such terrible death. This mystery is, indeed, as Jesuit priest Christopher Devron explains here, inexhaustible. And the life and work of Mychal Judge, brought before us primarily because of the sacrifice of his death, is a new chapter in the Easter miracle. The new documentary, "Saint of 9/11", is a revelation primarily because it fills in the rest of Judge’s astonishing life of service: to the poor and homeless, the victims of terrorism and of AIDS, the warring Irish and the courageous fire-fighters of New York City. His death, in retrospect, was the culmination of a life of sacrifice for others; of humility and abounding generosity. Jesus walked among us. And until he endured the final sacrifice, most of us didn’t even know.

That’s the effective choice for the theocons. The latest data on unintended pregnancies and abortions are not so great. Money quote:

Among sexually active women who were not trying to get pregnant, the percentage of those not using contraception increased to 11 percent from 7 percent from 1994 to 2001, the latest data available, according to numbers Guttmacher analyzed from the National Survey of Family Growth, a federal study.
The rise was more striking among women living below the poverty line: 14 percent were not using contraception in 2001, up from 8 percent in 1994. Better-off women ‚Äî those who earned more than twice the poverty rate ‚Äî were also less likely to use contraception: 10 percent did not use any in 2001, up from 7 percent in 1994… The rate of unintended pregnancies, which had declined 18 percent from the early 1980’s to the mid-1990’s, has leveled off since about 1994. That reflects a diverging trend: among poor women, the rate rose 29 percent, but among better-off women, it declined 20 percent.

So the Catholic church’s ban on all contraception (even if it would prevent AIDS) and the now-fashionable emphasis on abstinence in sex education may have contributed to more abortions in this country than would otherwise be the case. Once again, as in their opposition to an HPV vaccine, the pro-life movement turns out to risk being pro-death in practice. A comprehensive strategy to reduce abortions would not be obsessively focused on criminalizing it altogether, as the theocons want. It would center on a massive effort to get contraception out to sexually active women, especially the poor and black who may not be able to force their sexual partners to use condoms. It would provide Plan B over the counter, no questions asked. Then you need a much more ambitious adoption program, that includes all potential adopters, i.e. gay and lesbian parents as well. Many on the religious right would rather see abortion rates rise or stay stable than concede on these issues. Which reveals what really motivates them: a hostility to sexual freedom as much as a desire to protect life.

David Cameron’s new, more urban-friendly conservatism had its best showing last night in London. Elsewhere, fine but not spectacular. But the London vote matters. The Tories cannot regain national power or a majority without winning over the middle class professionals, especially in urban areas, who have supported them in the past. They’re beginning to do that. What they need now is a broad philosophical definition, gathered, in my view, around the theme of expanding individual freedom, to cement their gains. As for Blair, he saw his party reduced to third place, at 26 percent, far behind the Tories on 40 percent. These are local elections and may well not represent a solid national pattern for the next election. But if the anti-Tory parties split as evenly in the future as they did last night, then the uphill battle for Number 10 may be less onerous for Cameron than might be expected. Blair has just fired a bunch of cabinet members and reshuffled his team. Think of thm as deck-chairs. It would be better for him and his party if he didn’t drag his own scheduled resignation out for much longer.

(Photo of David Cameron by Andrew Parsons/AFP/Getty).

I’m not going to get into the spat between Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Greenwald, but I will say that it’s poor etiquette and unhelpful to readers to criticize an online piece or blog-post without linking to it. Probably just an oversight. Greenwald responds again here.

A great result in Britain for the newly rebranded Conservative party. As of this writing, they won 39 percent of the vote in the local elections to Labour’s and the Liberal Democrats’ 27 percent a piece. Good for Cameron, the new leader. All he needs now are some … policies. For Blair: a rubbishing, as the Brits might say. I give him twelve months at most.

A reader writes:

I think that members of the press, such as Cohen, have completely missed the point with respect to the Colbert performance. Among my friends and family, I am known as the one who follows current events and politics. Although I try to get them involved, I would describe most people I know as apolitical. They catch the really big stories and might have what I would consider to be fairly incoherent opinions, but for the most part if an issue doesn‚Äôt directly affect them, then they won‚Äôt know anything about it. Sadly, I think in this regard they are fairly typical Americans. But here is the thing: everyone I know has been talking about this Colbert performance. My parents; my in-laws; my disaffected and apolitical friends; my colleagues; simply everyone I know. And while I would describe many of these folks as committed liberals and Democrats, they certainly aren’t all like that. And I don’t even need to bring Colbert up; these generally apolitical people are spontaneously asking me for my take on it. The buzz on his speech is tremendous. I can’t remember anything quite like it.

I think Colbert really touched a nerve. I suppose it is no surprise that many people are excited about what Colbert did. After all, we know from polls that most Americans no longer trust or approve of Bush. But I think this whole episode illustrates just how dissatisfied people are with both the President and the press. I think people are tired of his talking points and bullshit non-answers and are delighted that someone had the courage to call him on it to his face. For Cohen and others to dismiss the event in the way that they have (‘he wasn‚Äôt funny!’)‚Ķ well ‚Äì based on the reaction that I‚Äôve seen from virtually everyone I know, who are by-and-large ordinary, middle-class Americans ‚Äì I think they just don’t get it, still.

Zarqawi can’t get his gun to work right. Heh.

Update: a reader comments:

Yes, it’s quite funny that Zarqawi can’t fire that weapon properly, but what’s not so funny is the fact that if this is the caliber (pardon the pun) of the enemy we’re fighting, what does it say about our ability to catch the guy? Do you think the Pentagon’s spinmeisters thought about that before releasing the video? As you’ve said before, Fire Rumsfeld Now.