Month: December 2008

Greenwald skewers DC’s cozy nepotism:

Virtually the entire neoconservative "intelligentsia" (using that term as loosely as it can possibly be used) is one big paean to nepotistic succession — the Kristols, the Kagans, the Podhoretzes, Lucinanne Goldberg and her boy.  Upon Tim Russert’s death, NBC News excitedly hired his son, Luke.  Mike Wallace’s son hosts Fox’s Sunday show.  The most influential political opinion space in the country, The New York Times Op-Ed page, is, like the Times itself, teeming with family successions and connections.  Inter-marriages between and among media stars and political figures — and lobbyists, operatives and powerful political officials — are now more common than arranged royal marriages were among 16th Century European monarchs.

From a distance, it’s more obviously corrupt than up close. I mean: what are the odds that of all the people who could edit Commentary, the son of the former editor ends up in charge? It’s not entirely a function of the right, of course. The Kennedys were as bad. Biden’s son toyed with succeeding him. And I see that Bill Clinton wants a role in the new administration. If it weren’t for Obama, we’d be the Philippines.

A policeman speaks into his phone as Indians gather for a peace rally in order to pay homage to those slain by the militants during the recent terror attacks in the city at the Gateway of India in Mumbai on December 3, 2008. People from all walks of life took part in the rally to condemn the recent terrorist attacks and urged the government to take strong measures to curb such attacks in future. By Indranil Mukherjee/AFP/Getty.

A reader writes:

I’m a fourth-generation Mumbaikar who loves reading your blog, but your post about the name Mumbai (linked to Hitchens) left me seething.

Hitchens is completely wrong. As someone whose roots go back many generations in Mumbai, let me assure you that we’ve always called the city Mumbai in our local language Marathi. The name Bombay was given to the city by the British. What do you think the city was called before the Europeans arrived? It was called Mumbai.

Here’s a paragraph from Wikipedia:

The name "Mumbai" is an eponym, etymologically derived from Mumba or Maha-Amba – the name of the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi – and Aai, "mother" in Marathi.[6] The former name Bombay had its origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names, which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use. After the British gained possession in the 17th century, it was anglicised to Bombay, although it was known as Mumbai or Mambai to Marathi and Gujarati-speakers, and as Bambai in Hindi and Urdu.[7][8] The name was officially changed to its Marathi pronunciation of Mumbai in 1996.[9]

Seriously, if the Shiv Sena had wanted to impose Hindu chauvinism on the city, they would have called the city GaneshTown. Ganesh is a major Hindu god and very popular in Mumbai. On the other hand, the goddess Mumba is so obscure that the only reason I have heard of her is because she bequeathed her name to my beloved city. The name change was a nod to the locals of the land: their pronunciation would be the official one.

And Bombay isn’t the only Indian city to have changed its name to its pre-colonial version. Madras reverted back to Chennai, and Calcutta changed to Kolkata; None of these moves were to impose any religion on people. They were simply a rejection of colonial legacy. I don’t like the Shiv Sena and hate the fact that I’m defending them, but changing the name of the city is one of the least religious things they have done to it.

For Hitchens, and now you, to state that the Bombay-Mumbai name change is akin to the Burma-Myanmar change is very insulting to this Mumbaikar proud of her Marathi roots. I sincerely hope that you will stop relying on Hitchens for information on Mumbai.

One wonders how out of it NRO can get, and then one reads this from Victor Davis Hanson:

FISA and wire-intercepts of terrorist communications in the pre-Obama president months were once derided as more of Ashcroft-Bush stomping on the Constitution — except that now ABC News reports that, in fact, US intelligence agencies supplied India with general knowledge of the rough time period, place, and perhaps even method of terrorist attack. Are we to believe that such newfound capability to warn a country 7000 miles away about terrorist infiltration on its borders would be of no utility here at home?

Does Hanson actually believe that opponents of the Bush warrantless wiretapping were actually against all wire intercepts of terrorist communications? Does he really believe we wanted no intelligence procured through spying or wiretapping? Or is he actually aware that we were concerned about checks and balances so that these powers could not be abused or adopted in secret or given to the president alone? And just lying about it?

A reader writes:

You wrote today regarding torture, "I should confess that behind my passion on this subject is a core religious conviction – that all human beings have dignity in the eyes of God and that treating any human being in this way is an absolute moral evil."

What about the abortionist? 

How do you envision the ‘plan of salvation’ to unfold for an abortionist, who has performed hundreds, or thousands, of terminations, possible late term?

If all are called to be saved, and the moral damage done to the torturer, is as great as that to the tortured, how does the abortionist respond to his calling and remain in business? 

You wrote today that you found Darren Vandeveld refusal to participate in torture as an act of heroism, and "inspiring to see him throw away his career for it." 

Do you not have the same hopes and dreams for the abortionist?

Yes, I do. I could never be an abortionist and admire those in the medical profession who refuse to become one. The difference of course, is that the government is actually torturing; it is not merely permitting torture. And so all of us are far more directly implicated in the government’s torture than we are in a constitutional regime in which other private citizens are permitted to abort the unborn children of consenting women. The Dish aired a related debate during the election.

Ajijic, Mexico, 11.15 am.

Armchair Generalist’s preliminary thoughts on the new WMD report:

I need to read this more in depth before commenting more, but I can’t get over the deliberate lack of mention of chemical terrorism. It may not be a capability to take out a city, but certainly chemicals are more available and easier to use than either biological or radiological hazards. For biological terrorism being such the threat that they insinuate, they do not assess the government’s current biodefense efforts (which are collectively getting $5-6 billion a year).

Goldberg sets up more straw-men in an additional post on Mormons and prop 8:

If opposition to gay marriage is morally indistinguishable from Jim Crow racism, anti-Semitism and the like (as so many of you say), why on earth aren’t you screaming bloody murder at Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and the other Democratic politicians who run the US governmemt? [sic] Surely, they matter more than a few Mormon donors. Why aren’t they bigots even though they hold the same fundamental position as Mormons?

Er: all those people opposed Prop 8. The Mormons maxed out on contributing money for it. And some of us have held Democrats, including Obama, to account. But at least they support civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage. The LDS church doesn’t, and neither does Jonah, so far as I know. Here’s a practical question for those seeking civil unions that are not the equal of civil marriage: what marital rights should be withheld from gay couples – and why?

Artist Daito Manabe uses electric stimulus to move his face to the beat of a song:

(hat tip: Hecht)

Hewitt likes the suggestion. Of course, this means Jeb is probably doomed.