Month: September 2009

David Grann responds to an op-ed by John Jackson, the prosecutor in the Willingham case:

Jackson…claims in his article that Willingham was offered a polygraph and refused. I do not know if this is true, though it may be. After Willingham was charged with murder, he stopped coöperating with authorities. (On death row, Willingham wrote to several legal organizations asking them if they could give him a polygraph so that he could prove his innocence.) But even if he refused to take a polygraph after he was arrested, polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, and are not admissible in a court of law. (I highly recommend Margaret Talbot’s piece on this subject, “Duped,” which appeared in The New Yorker, in 2007.) As a result, defense attorneys routinely do not let their clients take polygraphs. Ernest Willis, who I discuss in my piece, was also convicted of committing arson, in a case that was eerily similar to Willingham’s. He had taken a polygraph, and the results were interpreted by police and the prosecutor as a sign that he was guilty. Evidence later emerged, however, that he had not set the fire, and he was exonerated and released, after seventeen years on death row. The idea that a lie-detector test (or the refusal to take one) could be considered evidence cuts to the core of the problems in the Willingham case: a reliance on unreliable and unsound scientific techniques.

Jonah Lehrer discussed Grann's article and just world hypothesis last week.

I am now informed that Typepad did not go "belly-up," as I intemperately spluttered this morning. But there's a glitch in it that I stumbled onto that Patrick (peace be upon him) had to call customer service a while back to fix. I needed a hard refresh it turned out. Don't we all every now and again?

Austin Bramwell reviews Sam Tanenhaus' new book, The Death of Conservatism:

The conservative movement isn't dangerous or "revanchist;" it's just boring. Right-wing intellectuals should eschew the movement and reintegrate into the mainstream, not because the movement threatens the Republic, but because freedom of thought can only be found outside of it.

I hope the Dish can play a part in trying to add ideas and debates to the mix. The only movement I believe in is in the morning after my coffee.

E.D. Kain asks:

If Andrew believes that “no parent has a right” to circumcise their infant, why does he allow for the religious exception for Muslims and Jews?  Would the same be true for female circumcision?  Should we allow the religious African immigrants whose customs include female genital mutilation to continue with that practice – but not everybody else?  Where is the boundary to be drawn between the right of the infant and the religious freedoms of the parents?

That’s a good question. I tend to defer to religious freedom whenever possible, as I believe it is an inalienable freedom that the public sphere should do as little as possible to coopt or control. And circumcision – for all sorts of silly, archaic reasons – is nonetheless a deeply held religious ritual for many Jews and Muslims. I just don’t like interfering with those core convictions, even as I find it barbaric. Let’s just ban it in public hospitals as a routine procedure.

This sums a lot of it up:

Johnny Piper, the mayor of Clarksville, TN, recently forwarded an anti-Muslim email urging all “patriotic Americans” to protest a U.S. Postal Service stamp that commemorates an Islamic holiday. Piper’s email falsely claims that the creation of the Eid stamp was ordered by President Obama. In fact, the stamp was first issued in 2001, during the Bush administration. It was reissued in 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Khartoum, Sudan, 10.15 am

A good resource for those still struggling with the details.

"Our camera takes 1 exposure every 10 seconds, as we drive from San Francisco to Washington D.C." Rather hypnotic:

Jean Geran wants more pressure on the junta:

As the United States assumes the presidency of the UN Security Council this month, it should renew a diplomatic effort at the council, coordinated with the United Kingdom and other allies, to pass a long-overdue arms embargo of Burma. This at least would deny the ruling junta its primary tools of oppression and help stop the atrocities it commits against its own people. It will not be easy. But such a push would be an effective, multilateral, and noble centerpiece for the Obama administration’s policy toward Burma because both the justification for Security Council action and its chances for success have significantly increased.

A reader writes:

Just so you know, in my post Labor-day haze, I read the headline as Cheney's Lingerie Legacy, which was both terrifying and terribly intriguing.