Coulterism

By Patrick Appel
Samuel A. Chambers & Alan Finlayson have done a study on Ann Coulter:

…it is not only extremely easy but also terribly tempting to dismiss Coulter as a minor media-made irritant, a flaky extremist or just another pundit. And Coulter has, of course, been accused of deliberate distortion, selective misquoting and outright falsification (Franken 2003). But all five of her books, from her 1989 indictment of Bill Clinton through to Godless, have topped the New York Times’ best-seller list. Although other denizens of the right have questioned the soundness of her work (e.g. Horowitz, 2003) she continues to enjoy regular media appearances, persists in writing a nationally syndicated newspaper column, and remains very successful on the lecture circuit. It is a safe bet that Ann Coulter is much better known amongst Americans than John Rawls or Joshua Cohen will ever be. Furthermore, while Coulter may be on the edge of the American political spectrum this is simply indicative of how far the centre has been pulled to the right. And it has been pulled there by people such as Coulter, who herself must be understood as part of a much more general and highly successful political style that has achieved national prominence thanks to channels such as Fox News, talk radio and, latterly, internet conservative town-halls and blog fora.

I haven’t seen much of Coulter on television or in the news since before the California primary when she was threatening to campaign for Obama or Clinton instead of McCain. I wonder if she has changed her tune.

Sport Utility Bicycle

By Patrick Appel
Mark Benjamin, a father of two, beefs up his bike so that he can buy groceries, ride around his kids, move a grill, and even blend margaritas:

It just so happens that Xtracycle also manufactures the perfect mental liberation: the pedal blender ($300). You heard me: a blender to make smoothies. You attach the pedal blender to the bike in place of the SnapDeck. As the rear wheel spins, so does your smoothie. You can either pedal around town and be a Jamba Juice on wheels or attach two small medal stands that elevate the back wheel for blending in place. I called two friends with Xtracycles for a triple date with our wives. We got together in my friend Jeff’s backyard, pulled the SnapDeck off his bike, put it up on the stands and popped in the blender. In went the ice, tequila, triple sec and lime juice. I climbed aboard and pedaled our way to Margaritaville. 

Carter’s Shadow

By Patrick Appel
Amy Wilentz, a former mentor of mine, has a profile of Carter in the latest issue of New York:

What’s most interesting about [Jimmy] Carter at the age of 83 is not that he’s an eccentric, or that he’s outspoken, or that he continues to be a part of the debate, but that his mind-set and his policies seem to jibe so well with the attitudes of young people, students, and the blogosphere. In many ways, Carter seems more relevant than George W. Bush, his ideas more contemporary, his interests more outward-looking. He builds houses in New Orleans and elsewhere with his Habitat for Humanity project; he jets around the world, funding projects to deal with global health crises; he makes sure elections are free and fair. Carter is more like Bono than he is like Bush.

Hendrik Hertzberg praises the piece, while Marty Perez is critical.

PJ Blogging And Its Discontents

By Patrick Appel
Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses blogger-hate:

There are many things wrong with Alter’s analysis, but let’s begin with the fact that Alter is basically taking the top 5 percent of print journalism–a mature form that’s had a chance to iron out its wrinkles–and comparing it to the worst of a very new form. It’s true that "anyone can sit at home pontificating in their PJs," but not everyone does it well, which is why some bloggers attract an audience, and some don’t. Moreover, the idea that blogging consists of simply spouting off is moronic and reductionist. The first thing I discovered–and this has been repeatedly rammed home to me–is just how much reading I have to do in order to be credible. Frankly, I still don’t do enough. But the sheer amount of info you have to absorb, in order to be good, is pretty incredible. The best bloggers may not pick up the phone much–but they do research. It’s just not clear to me that talking to some bureacrat is anymore revelatory than reading a ton. It’s probably best to do both.

I read 8 to 12 hours a day and blog the best of what I find, less than 1% of the total. Google reader tracks how many blog posts I’ve read: as of this writing 21,779 posts in the last 30 days. And that doesn’t count the times I go directly to blogs or news websites, something I do frequently throughout the day. Reporting is important but I fully agree with Coates that reading is a key part of blogging. Blogging isn’t just writing; it’s editing.

Torture, In Good Faith

By Patrick Appel
Yesterday the ACLU released three new documents on the government’s torture program. Here are some key quotes:

…If a defendant acts with good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent. A defendant acts in good faith when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain or suffering…Although an honest belief need not be reasonable, such a belief is easier to establish where there is reasonable basis for it…Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of sustained duration, e.g. harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoner.

So torture doesn’t count if you think happy thoughts when you are doing it? TPM gets this quote in response:

"It read like an attorney preparing a mob client for a confrontation with the police," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "Why on earth would you instruct interrogators on the meaning of ‘specific intent’ unless you wanted to coach them as to what to say when confronted?"

The memo also reveals that there are records of the torture sessions referred to, meaning the next DOJ is going to have to decide whether to make those records public. It’s hard for me to understand how someone such as Stuart Taylor could argue that we should pardon those guilty of torture. Not only, as Andrew has written, are "war criminals, because of the very gravity of their crimes, unlikely to confess to anything, even granted immunity," but we have records of these crimes. Most of the files are still confidential, but the truth has been recorded: it simply has to be brought to light.

If the Bush administration hasn’t broken the law, it is only because they have re-defined legality, perverting the intent of laws until torture is narrowly defined as a specific intent crime. Other acts of violence don’t fall under that category. Assault is usually a general intent crime. Why should torture be any different?

More On Myers

By Patrick Appel A reader writes:

The reader you quoted at 5:57 pm must not have great reading skills.  Myers claimed that he obtained a post-transubstantiation wafer.  The line "Myers might as well have snagged a bottle of red wine from a liquor store and "desecrated" the blood of God" completely misses the facts here.  PZ solicited post-transubstantiation crackers in his earlier posts, and confirms that this specific cracker was "post-t" at comment #200. Also, your blog’s first post on the actual desecration quoted the paragraph where PZ described what he did, but did not quote the final paragraph.  (Except for the title "Nothing is Sacred")  That’s too bad.  Why quote the throat-clearing and not the message?

Here’s the final paragraph the reader is talking about:

I didn’t want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur’an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity’s knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.

I don’t understand what Myers thinks he is accomplishing, besides pissing off a lot of Christians. Self-righteousness is disturbing in any form, fundamentalist and atheist alike. Daniel Davies strikes back.

Something Blue, Something New, Something Cosmetically Augmented

By Patrick Appel
Forcing bridesmaids to buy a dress they are never going to wear again isn’t so bad. At least, not when compared to what some brides ask of their attendants:

Becky Lee, 39, a Manhattan photographer, declined when a friend asked her — and five other attendants — to have their breasts enhanced. "We’re all Asian and didn’t have a whole lot of cleavage, and she found a doctor in L.A. who was willing to do four for the price of two," said Ms. Lee, who wore a push-up bra instead. Not for nothing are some maids known as slaves of honor, but this kind of cajoling is a recent development on the wedding front.

(Hat tip: Kottke)

Face Of The Day

Actresschinaphotosgetty2
An actress from Maoxian County puts on her make-up before a rehearsal of the Qiang ethnic traditional dancing ‘Qiangzu Tuigan’, literally Qiang ethnic’s pushing the poles, which is part of the performance of the Olympic Games opening ceremony on July 25, 2008 in Chengdu of Sichuan Province, China. The ‘Tuigan’ dancing are performed by 120 artists, most of whom are from the quake-struck Wenchuan and Maoxian Counties. Photo by China Photos/Getty.

End Of An Error

by Chris Bodenner
The inimitable Shelby Steele had a great op-ed in the WSJ this week.  In a sort of political eulogy for Jesse Jackson, Steele goes beyond the "Jesse is jealous" argument and delves into the profound generational gap between Jackson and Obama:

Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America’s racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King [and] argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead — and tragically — he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt. Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. … They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently — that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality — took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. … And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.

I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers [blacks] something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie.  Barack Obama in the Oval Office — a black man governing a largely white nation — would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage. But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma. … He promises to reconfigure our exhausted cultural arrangement.

As bold and brilliant as Steele can be on racial politics, however, I find him pretty tone deaf when it comes to campaign politics (not to mention foreign policy). For instance, his last book was called "Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama And Why He Can’t Win."  (He recently backpedaled on that shaky prediction.)  Despite that skepticism, he clearly admires Obama in the book.  But it’s equally clear that Steele lets his entrenched cynicism toward left-liberals get in the way of seeing the potential Obama has for moving liberalism forward (especially on issues such as affirmative action, school vouchers, and the rhetoric of personal responsibility).  And he has a pretty bleak take on Obama’s political posturing:

Already [Obama] has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama’s trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them.

Considerable character?  Before this election, I kinda thought so.  But from Obama is the candidate of Hamas to Obama would lose a war to win an election, those hopes have been dashed.  McCain hasn’t completely squandered his character, but he certainly hasn’t run the kind of elevated campaign he promised back in January (particularly compared to Obama, who maintained class and composure even in the face of Clinton’s onslaught.)  Utterly bereft of cultural cachet?  A quintessential war hero and legislative "maverick" has tons of cultural cachet.  Also, it’s pretty clear by now that McCain has "flip-flopped" just as much as Obama, from Bush’s tax cuts to evangelical endorsements to opposing his own immigration plan.

Anyway, Steele is always thought-provoking, for better and for worse.  I just wish his provocative views on race weren’t so immediately dismissed by many liberals.

“Nothing Must Be Held Sacred,” Ctd

A reader writes:

I think it should be pointed out that Myers is absolutely correct when he says that the eucharist he has is nothing but a "cracker" — and the pope himself would agree.  As a former altar boy and parochial school inmate, I can say with confidence that no one in the Catholic Church treats the wafers themselves reverently until AFTER the transubstantiation that takes place during the mass.  Before each round of 2nd-graders received their first communion, they would get a "practice run" with an un-sanctified wafer (presumably so no child would spit it out in disgust during the actual ceremony); occasionally one of the altar boys would goad another into snagging some of the eucharists as a pre-mass snack.  I mean, Myers might as well have snagged a bottle of red wine from a liquor store and "desecrated" the blood of God.