Naomi and Jonah

She hyperbolizes; he gets all defensive. But on closer inspection, her basic point is not that inflammatory. Money quote:

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini’s march on Rome or Hitler’s roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that. Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

Warning about the erosion of liberty and democracy in a state geared for permanent war against an inchoate enemy is not exactly radical. But the f-word is regrettable. Both Wolf and Goldberg are using it for effect. But the threat of left-wing fascism in America today does not seem to me as pressing as the more traditional version.

Taxi To The Dark Side

Abugrahib4_gallery__470x3750

Alex Gibney’s new documentary on the legalization and authorization of torture by the Bush administration debuts this weekend at the Tribeca Film Festival. See the trailer here. It’s a well-crafted piece of work and a devastating exposure of the denial that still runs rampant in some quarters about what has actually been done in the name of the American people these past few years. Longtime readers of this blog know all too well many of the details – but this film does what a parasitic blog cannot, and what even all the innovative reporting on the subject has not yet been able to do. It puts it all together. It represents a moment in this war when we can actually stop and look back from rising ground, and see how far we have come from the civilized norms of warfare that the United States represented in the last century. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld tore off that civilized veneer and repudiated that long and honorable history. From the details of approved interrogation techniques replicated by scapegoats at Abu Ghraib to the self-conscious attempts to dissemble and deceive about the Rubicon we’ve crossed to the simple facts of the percentage of captives at Gitmo who were actually seized by U.S. forces – a small fraction of the total – you see conscious, orchestrated sadism at work. It’s a film that enrages and shocks. But it has all been in front of our noses.

I watched the whole thing intently and quietly to the end. But its final coda contains a small clip of Gibney’s late father, a longtime military interrogator, and his views on what has been done to his honorable profession by the Bush White House. Alone, it made me weep. It struck a chord that still resonates: of one thing mainly, and one thing still unavoidably. Shame. Almost unspeakable shame.

(Full disclosure: Alex Gibney’s brother, James, is my colleague at the Atlantic and was once a colleague at The New Republic. Photo: a detainee cell at Abu Ghraib under president George W. Bush, commander-in-chief.)

The Core Libertarian Principle

In a fascinating story by Brian Doherty about one Leonard Read:

His inspirational summation of what libertarianism was all about was "anything that’s peaceful."

No wonder the alliance is over. (By the way, Brian includes a word in the article I have never come across before: "foofewaw". It seems as if it’s a synonym for kerfuffle. But I guess he could have just made it up. He’s a libertarian, after all.)

(Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds.)

Carbon Off-Sets and Hollywood

Professor Bainbridge takes a look, and sees offsets as a legitimate tool. His conclusion:

Maybe the answer is not to demand that Hollywood elites cut their consumption, but simply to insist that they document their purchase of carbon off-sets before hectoring the rest of us?

Should we all pay some? Having never driven a car in my life, I may not need one. But I’m an air-conditioning freak and could be persuaded to pay for an offset. How do we democratize this?

Bloch vs Rove?

This Los Angeles Times story strikes me as interesting. Money quote:

[Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee] said the new investigation grew from two narrower inquiries his staff had begun in recent weeks. One involved the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico, David C. Iglesias. The other centered on a PowerPoint presentation that a Rove aide, J. Scott Jennings, made at the General Services Administration this year.

That presentation listed recent polls and the outlook for battleground House and Senate races in 2008. After the presentation, GSA Administrator Lorita Doan encouraged agency managers to "support our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses. Doan said she could not recall making such comments.

The Los Angeles Times has learned that similar presentations were made by other White House staff members, including Rove, to other Cabinet agencies. During such presentations, employees said they got a not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans.

If the name Scott Bloch doesn’t ring any bells for you, I cannot say the same for me. This is the same Scott Bloch who refused to enforce Clinton administration protections for gay and lesbian federal employees. Whatever else he is, Bloch is no liberal. If he is taking on the Rove machine, then the internecine Republican war is deepening. David Corn has more on Bloch here. And here’s a YouTube of the congressional questioning that helped kick-start the investigation. I posted it once before. It clearly has legs:

Quote for the Day III

"Let me disclose my own bias in this matter. I like Karl Rove. In the days when he was operating from Austin, we had many long and rewarding conversations. I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of the historic cabin Karl and his wife Darby found miles away and had carted to its present site on their land," – David Broder, clearing things up, May 18, 2003.

Pulling Myself Down By My Bootstraps

Lilies2

Here’s Sam Harris’s final contribution to our blog-dialogue on faith and reason. Apologies for the delay in posting because of my vacation. I’ll finish up shortly. Here’s his tough opener:

Well, we have reached the end of our debate, and still we do not agree. We’ll have to leave it there for the time being. I think, however, that our stalemate conceals some important asymmetries. For instance, I feel that you should have been convinced by my side of the argument. Can you say the same? You seem, rather, to have argued in a different mode. In your last essay you admit that your notion of God is "preposterous" and then say that you never suggested I should find it otherwise. You acknowledge the absurdity of faith, only to treat this acknowledgement as a demonstration of faith’s underlying credibility. While I have yet to see you successfully pull yourself up by your bootstraps in this way, I have watched you repeatedly pull yourself down by them.

You want to have things both ways: your faith is reasonable but not in the least bound by reason; it is a matter of utter certainty, yet leavened by humility and doubt; you are still searching for the truth, but your belief in God is immune to any conceivable challenge from the world of evidence. I trust you will ascribe these antinomies to the paradox of faith; but, to my eye, they remain mere contradictions, dressed up in velvet.

The rest can be read here.