Month: January 2009

An Iraqi Army soldier gestures from the top of a Humvee parked outside a polling station which will be used in tomorrow’s election on January 30, 2009 in Basra, Iraq. Security in Iraq’s second city is being increased with a curfew and total vehicle movement ban imposed from this evening in an attempt to ensure the elections run as smoothly as possible. Many areas in Iraq are preparing for provincial elections which are being closely watched as a way of evaluating how peaceful and stable the country now is. By Matt Cardy/Getty Images.

Mohammed Hussein reports on Iraqi politicking before the big vote this weekend:

Stories about corruption and dreams of making billions boost many people who have not any idea about local government to nominate themselves to run elections for provincial councils, hoping that if they can reach posts in provincial councils maybe their dreams of power and wealth will come true. I do not want to be skeptical but I think that was behind the unexpected increase in numbers of candidates.

Dan Savage reacts to this video:

I don’t remember ever hearing a straight guy introduce his fiance on a game show without the audience responding with an "awww" and an ain’t-love-grand round of applause. Don’t get me wrong: this was an exceedingly sweet moment, props to these guys for being out and engaged, and the kind of people who watch game shows—middle Americans, older Americans—are exactly the kind of people who need to be exposed to non-threatening gay couples in ugly sweaters. But the audience’s silence is just as revealing, I think, as this Wheel of Fortune contestant’s casual introduction of his fiance. We are outer than ever, more open than ever, and more integrated into the mainstream of American life than ever. But the mainstream—that studio audience—doesn’t quite know how to respond to us yet.

James Carroll’s 1999 article on the Holocaust and The Catholic church is worth a read in the context of the latest Benedict fooferaw. He explains what the campaign to elevate Pope Pius XII to sainthood means:

Instead of a portrait of a man worthy of sainthood, [Pius XII biographer John] Cornwell lays out the story of a narcissistic, power-hungry manipulator who was prepared to lie, to appease, and to collaborate in order to accomplish his ecclesiastical purpose—which was not to save lives or even to protect the Catholic Church but, more narrowly, to protect and advance the power of the papacy. Pacelli’s personal history, his character, and his obsession with Vatican prerogatives combined at the crucial hour to make him "the ideal Pope for Hitler’s unspeakable plan," Cornwell writes. "He was Hitler’s pawn. He was Hitler’s Pope."

I’m not a big fan of Carroll’s columns, but his Constantine’s Sword is a bracing read (my 2001 NYT review of it is here; a less enthusiastic review is here). He also has a new book coming out called Practicing Catholic. I got an advance copy and haven’t been able to tear myself away. The man can write; and his evolution as a Catholic from devout youth to radical adulthood through the prism of the 1960s helps me better understand a generation (and America). Of course, I’m a sucker for anyone who loves Merton as much as Carroll does.

Baby needs room:

Scott Horton takes another look at the bizarre op-ed the war criminal just penned for the WSJ:

I’ve followed John Yoo and his writings with some care for a while now, and I think I finally understand what this is about. Namely, a pending probe by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is looking at serious ethical issues surrounding the issuance of Yoo’s legal opinions. But the OPR probe is far from Yoo’s only or even most pressing worry. The likelihood that he will face a criminal probe and then possibly prosecution is growing.

The key issue is whether the cockamamie legal opinions Yoo delivered to his superiors were a sincere and genuine attempt to say what the law was – or obvious attempts to provide pseudo-legal cover for the war crimes the president and vice-president believed were necessary to save America. Horton again:

[L]ook closely at the latest Yoo column.

We see that he tenaciously defends and repeats arguments presented in his memo that even the Bush Justice Department agreed were ludicrous. He alludes to techniques used by our allies the United Kingdom and Israel which he claims now Obama rejects. What on earth is this about? If we recall his memo, one of its more bizarre passages involves a European human rights court decision in which five specific techniques used by the U.K. on suspected Irish terrorists during the “troubles” are classified as “cruel, inhuman and degrading” rather than torture. Thus, Yoo argues, these techniques have passed international muster and are fine. That’s the sort of answer which would get a law student a failing grade.

Ryan Avent is irritated:

…it’s remarkable that in all this ado over our new commitment to ending oil dependence and addressing climate change there is no mention of land use patterns or the transportation choices that shape them. Why no mention of reduced transit funds in the stimulus bill, or the fact that the House is planning to give highways $30 billion to transit’s $10 billion? Why no pressure placed on Senate Democrats, who are busy revising transit’s share down even more, in their version of the stimulus bill? The bottom line is that if you increase efficiency and increase vehicle miles traveled, well, you’ve just spun your wheels. If the administration is going to get serious about these issues, it needs to take seriously the option of helping Americans to drive less.

Don George wants to work towards civil unions laws and marriage equality:

If we pursue marriage as the sole vehicle to achieve the 1100+ federal rights and benefits for our relationships (the ones that come with opposite sex marriage), we will effectively be throwing gay couples who live in the 30 states with constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage overboard. When everyone else gets marriage benefits, gay people who live in these 30 states will be left behind and get absolutely nothing. They will also have no hope of getting these benefits or protections for their relationships for a very, very long time.

I was unaware this was an either-or situation. And, in fact, the fight for marriage rights has made civil unions the moderate fall-back position. They have far more standing because of the fight for marriage equality than they had before. But a word of warning on those states that have jumped onto the ban marriage equality bandwagon. The forces against marriage equality are also adamantly against civil unions for gay people. And they have no intention of allowing gay couples any civil recognition, because we are an emblem of sin to them.

RedState goes there.