Month: May 2009

From The Department Of “Things We Already Knew”

British journalists are drunks even by their country's exacting standards:

England's scribes consume more wine than any other industry, more liquor and more shots — in all, enough alcohol to fill 19 pints in a week.

The tradition of Fairlie and Hitchens lives on. If you don't know the work of Henry Fairlie, by the way, a beloved colleague at TNR in the 1980s, you should check out a wonderful new collection of his writing, "Bite The Hand That Feeds You," edited by Jeremy McCarter. His introduction is really superb – told me much I did not know and more I'd forgotten about a great bohemian Tory – and the pieces crackle with life and humor and passion. Perhaps they weren't truly journalism – for they live on, alongside Henry's fearless, love-driven spirit.

The Cookie Option

It would not appeal to paranoid fantasists and incompetents like Cheney, but it did the trick in interrogating one key terrorist. From a forthcoming Time piece by Bobby Ghosh:

“The most successful interrogation of an al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or ‘walling’ and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.”

They're human, remember?

Congress To Cut Up Your Cards?

Manzi doesn't approve:

One practical effect of proposed credit card legislation would be to make it illegal for party A to voluntarily engage in a credit contract with party B that has some specific elements that might be abused by an irresponsible person. Why should this freedom of contract be restricted for responsible people? Because the guy who lives down the street might use the same contract to drive himself into personal bankruptcy with Cheetos, beer and big-screen TVs?

Why Marriage Equality Is Winning

Chait offers a tour de force of logic and comes to the following explanation:

Good ideas don't always defeat bad ideas, but they usually, over time, defeat non-ideas.

That just about sums it up. It's odd to me that the very first argument used against marriage equality in the courts was simply definitional (you can look it up in my anthology). And the very last argument is definitional as well: the lame, focus-group-tested "I believe marriage is for a man and a woman." It is a rational reflection of pure discomfort, an expression of gut-level conservatism, which one should respect for what it is. But as an argument, it isn't much. Which is why in a debate, they lost.

Debating A Bud, Ctd

A reader writes:

Here are some more facts:

In the first half of the twentieth century per capita alcohol consumption in the UK fell rapidly, from around 11 litres per year in 1900 to around 4 litres after the Second World War. From the late 1950s to the end of the century alcohol consumption increased steadily, more than doubling overall from around four to ten litres per person per year.

And all without the interference from Prohibition!!!

After Sotomayor, Diaz

Little noticed but interesting: Obama has selected a Hispanic theologian, Miguel Diaz, to be his ambassador to the Vatican. Dan Gilgoff notes:

Diaz is the first person in his family to go to college. His father, Felix, worked as a waiter and his mother, Silvia, as a data entry operator. He's married to a theologian and has four children. Diaz is a former president of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States.

He's also an intellectual as Thomas Reese notes:

Diaz, a respected scholar, recently taught courses in "Trinity, Faith and Revelation" and "Christian Anthropology." He is author of On Being Human: U.S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives and co-editor of From the Heart of Our People: Latino/a Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology.

He is obviously not your usual ambassadorial appointment. He is neither a big donor nor a politician although he did campaign for Obama. Jim Martin, S.J., associate editor of America, has already fantasized that "he and the Holy Father can have some lively Rahner-Balthasar discussions."

The Daily Wrap

Today on the Dish we tackled Sotomayor's controversial words while getting a glimpse of her casework and courtroom action. Hilzoy and Larison tackled Ricci, Sargent speculated liberals will press her on Roe,  Drum spelled out Obama's selection strategy, Republicans scrutinized her favorite foods, Quin Hillyer is up for a Hewitt, a reader defended Newt, and Geraldo beamed with ethnic pride and patriotism.

Obama appeared to mock the gays, but upon closer look probably not. Gay rights groups were not happy with the Olson suit, and I argued that, despite the California decision this week, the Prop 8 saga has been a net gain for marriage equality. Also, some adorable women sang a song mocking bigotry.

On foreign policy, Goldblog and I delved into the behind-the-scenes Biblical rhetoric of the Israeli standoff with Iran. The Telegraph claimed that the torture photos show rape. Totten took stock of the situation in Iraq and Massie nailed down the symbolic importance of closing Gitmo for good.

We also found a great blog for film buffs, a shirtless shot of Levi, and the perfect mental health break.

On Amalek

Jeffrey responds. He makes two important points: Netanyahu has not personally used the Amalek analogy in public; and Iran's regime is not comparable in terms of aggression and threat to Israel's. He's right about both. My concern is that this assumption about Israel's inherent decency can lead to rhetorical blunders. And that it can lead us to grant Israel lee-way we would not give others. I'm thinking, of course, of Gaza.