Month: December 2006

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, 9.48 am.

[Clive]

More depressing news, this time about how insurgents are cutting power supplies to the capital. Oh, and the violence has been getting worse (but you knew that already.)

Is it too early to ask the question: who lost Iraq? Stanley Kurtz thinks Charles Krauthammer is wrong to pin so much blame on the Iraqis themselves:

I‚Äôm the first to agree that underlying cultural barriers account for the failure of democratization in Iraq.  Still, I think Krauthammer‚Äôs formulations are too exculpatory.  Yes, Iraq‚Äôs political culture isn‚Äôt yet up to democracy.  The point is, we didn‚Äôt understand that.  All of America‚Äôs limited and particular errors (which collectively add up to a big mistake) are explained by our assumption that democracy would evolve relatively easily, even in the absence of strong cultural underpinnings… 

We thought mere calculations of self-interest would drive sectarian foes to act like democratic citizens.  We were wrong… We could have either scaled down our democratizing goals, or put in troops and other resources commensurate with an ambitious program of cultural transformation.  Instead we believed we could get quick, fundamental cultural change on the cheap.

As I’ve mentioned before, I supported the invasion, and I thought democratization would work. Unless I’ve got him wrong, the estimable Christopher Hitchens seems to be arguing that civil war, or whatever you want to call it, would have happened sooner or later in any case:

Many people write as if the sectarian warfare in Iraq was caused by coalition intervention. But it is surely obvious that the struggle for mastery has been going on for some time and was only masked by the apparently iron unity imposed under Baathist rule… The Kurds had already withdrawn themselves from this divide-and-rule system by the time the coalition forces arrived, while Shiite grievances against the state were decades old and had been hugely intensified by Saddam’s cruelty. Nothing was going to stop their explosion, and if Saddam Hussein’s regime had been permitted to run its course and to devolve (if one can use such a mild expression) into the successorship of Udai and Qusai, the resulting detonation would have been even more vicious.

He may well be right, but it’s still not a terribly reassuring thought, is it? I hate to pile on the gloom so early, but this Marine Corps officer’s view about what happens on the ground when US troops withdraw from insurgent areas doesn’t make cheerful reading, either.

[Daniel]

[Clive]

"Even better, all that sitting around not doing much is helping your body." Why you shouldn’t feel bad about indulging in a little idleness over the holidays.

[Alex]

Jon Chait, TNR’s curmudgeon-in-chief, returns with a golden oldie: his broadside against gift-giving captures the spirit of the season rather well, I think.

Like Chait, I too made the mistake of attempting to persuade a girfriend that gift-giving was really an unacceptable form of emotional extortion. Much to my surprise, this argument proved controversial.

I think this was what is called a "life lesson".

Better than a soap opera: if you want to know who’s feuding with whom in the blogosphere, Jeff Jarvis has a few pointers.

[Clive]

Whether or not Fidel Castro is really on his way to meet his Maker, let’s hope that the island’s musical tradition survives whatever turbulence lies ahead.  Here’s a neat clip of one of the country’s great dynastic groups, Familia Valera Miranda, masters of rootsy "son". It’s a typically soulful, intimate performance. Enjoy the audience reaction. Buena Vista Social Club luminaries Compay Segundo and Eliades Ochoa are listening in, too.

Compay’s old friend, Ruben Gonzalez turns up on this TV recording, shot during his first trip to the UK. I interviewed him at his home in Havana around the same time. It was a small, extremely modest house with no luxuries except his new baby-grand, tucked away under the stairs. Before the success of the first Buena Vista album, he han’t been able to afford an instrument of his own (his old one had succumbed to age and the climate) so he got into the habit of sneaking onto the piano in one of Havana’s main hotels. Naturally, the staff didn’t mind.

[Alex]

Matt Stoller at MyDD.com argues that "In a bar fight Obama and Hillary are not on our side" Tough stuff, no?

"What I see in the Hillary crowd is an acceptance of the status quo, a belief that you can ‘take Iraq off the table’, and a willingness to accept a Democratic party dominated by relatively awful elite interests.  Their assumptions are that Bush is a bad President, but that our basic public discourse is fine, that America needs to scrape the barnacles off the hull.  Iraq was not executed properly you see, but let’s not be too indelicate about it.  I see this too with Obama’s people, who are by and large the Daschle crew.  If you liked Tom Daschle as Senate leader, you’ll love Obama as President.  He basically accepts the dominance of immoral elites as necessary and good, and as far as I can tell wants to futz around the margins with well-crafted but small scale legislative efforts.  It’s impossible to know whether his stroke of bravery – being against the war in Iraq – was principle or a savvy attempt to win in a crowded Democratic primary in 2003 where the target was liberal voters.  All of this is fine for a mediocre and moderate Senator from Illinois, which is what he’s been.  But until he proves otherwise, he just is not with us.  He doesn’t believe that bullies in power are the problem, he thinks that mean words are the problem.  Ok, fine, but don’t expect me to buy that unifying nonsense as anything more than cult of personality mass media power."

This is good fun, isn’t it? Then Stoller really goes off the deep end:

"There are two candidates who can pass the bar fight primary.  One of them, Wes Clark, passes the test clearly.  He is a genuine liberal, and has fought the right clearly and consistently for the last four years, most recently in Connecticut when he was the only real surrogate against Lieberman.  I don’t see how Clark can seriously compete, but this willingness to be on our side in a bar fight, recognizing the institutional challenges posed by the right, explains his continuing netroots support.  And then there’s John Edwards.  I think Edwards is split.  He’s spent much of his time working with unions, on the road, in low-key meetings.  Elizabeth Edwards has done outreach to bloggers, so there’s at least acknowledgment of the dirty hippy crew.  He’s announcing in New Orleans, which is dog whistle politics on our issues. He knows he was wrong on the war, and feels our betrayal.  Unlike Clark, though, I still haven’t seen him stand up for us in a real way. I haven’t seen him attack McCain, for instance, or go after the politicians who supported the Bankruptcy Bill.  I haven’t seen him challenge any right-wing interests in a serious way, and so while I acknowledge he’s in the ball park, he’s not there yet."

The Stoller primary, then, remains to be won. Why, though, do I have the feeling that whoever wins it will end up disappointing – even betraying – the redoubtable Mr Stoller?

[Also: how priceless – I wouldnt want to say egotistical – is it that Elizabeth Edwards’ "outreach to bloggers" should be such a compelling argument for supporting him? Nor, naturally, is there anything solipsistic about all this "our betrayal" stuff on the war…]

[Alex]

Podcast fans might care to know that Andrew is featured on this month’s Amazon.com podcast  talking about "The Conservative Soul". Kiefer Sutherland and Anne-Sophie Mutter are also featured.

[Alex]

Earlier today I posted about the 17 year old Georgia boy imprisoned for ten years for permitting a 15 year old girl to perform what I believe the newspapers coyly call "a sex act".

Several readers email to say that the case is a little more sordid than the bare facts suggest. The girl  performed oral sex on as many as six teenage boys. Furthermore the evening’s entertainment was videotaped. So far so unseemly.

But, nonetheless, there’s little suggestion that the girl did not consent. On the contrary she was a willing participant and testified to that effect – no matter how ashamed or hurt she may have felt afterwards.

Eugene Volokh also emails to correct me: the presiding judge in the appeal case is a "she" not a "he" and "her argument isn’t quite that ‘[s]he had to lock the boy up,’ but rather that there was no basis for reversing the trial court’s decision – itself commanded by the legislature –  to lock the boy up."

This Atlanta Magazine article has more details on the case.

Money, ahem, quote:

"…in Georgia, sex, including oral sex, with anyone under the age of 16 can be classified as aggravated child molestation‚Äîeven if it occurs between two teens less than three years apart in age, as in the instance of 17-year-old Genarlow and 15-year-old Tracy.

In fact, under Georgia law, the penalty is actually more severe for a person found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a minor than for having intercourse (which is classified as misdemeanor statutory rape), even if the perpetrator is just a few years older than the minor."

To repeat: it’s entirely possible to disapprove of this boy’s actions. Indeed, one might find them reprehensible. But does this warrant ten years in prison and a lifetime on a sex offenders’ register?

UPDATE: Yes, as several readers ask me to make clear, this story is indeed from the state of Georgia, not the former Soviet Republic.