Month: October 2009

Quote For The Day

"I think Irving [Kristol] himself was a realist and cautious on these matters, in the style of Walter Lippmann, whom he admired. We did not often speak of foreign affairs, but I recall a discussion about Israel, in the days when I was active in a dovish group that argued in favor of giving up the territories for peace. Irving was skeptical about Arab hostility: It would never be reduced. But that means war forever, I said. And Irving responded, Yup, it’s war forever," – Nathan Glazer.

Letter From Guam

A reader writes:

I wanted to call your attention to a letter sent out this week by the office of the Archbishop here on Guam. Recently, the Guam legislature, led by an openly gay senator, B.J. Cruz (himself a self-admitted victim of Catholic clergy abuse), introduced proposed legislation, Bill 185, that would recognize same-sex domestic partnerships. In response, the Archdiocese put out this letter (pdf).

Though it leaves me speechless and mortified, it's fascinating to see the main lines of argument distilled down into their inglorious essence. It's all here: the denial of sex for pleasure, the "condemnation" of a child raised by same-sex parents, the "promiscuity" angle, and of course the "end of Western Civilization." But I found the penultimate paragraph truly arresting:

"Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death…It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers…is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice."

The mind reels. I can't help but recall that picture you've posted of those Iranian boys, twisting in the wind. Hanged for being gay.

Reading the words from the Guam Archdiocese, one sees the sick confluence of it all. Two very different faiths, but a common desire to claw their way back–no matter what it takes or who it destroys–into the Dark Ages.

Between Rory And Steve

Andrew Sprung tries to make sense of the Afghan debate by analyzing the arguments of Stewart and Coll as thoroughly as he can. Advantage Coll:

Coll defends assumptions and ultimately (if equivocally) embraces goals that Stewart sees as delusive:

The fundamental assumptions remain that an ungoverned or hostile Afghanistan is a threat to global security; that the West has the ability to address the threat and bring prosperity and security; that this is justified and a moral obligation; that economic development and order in Afghanistan will contribute to global stability; that these different objectives reinforce each other; and that there is no real alternative.

But why delusive?

In the end, Stewart’s critique devolves into literary criticism – an analysis of the syntax of two 19th century British statesmen with different world views. His preference for the language and world view of the skeptic is not an argument. He highlights many perhaps insurmountable difficulties of attaining the vision outlined above, but he stops short of really indicating how to attain a messy but viable alternative. Coll, in the end, engages facts on the ground more relentlessly.

Whoever engages the facts on the ground more relentlessly is the most authentic conservative. And yet I retain more of Stewart’s sense of foreboding than Coll’s sense of realism.

The Assault On Human Rights Watch, Ctd

David Bernstein:

I suggest that if Yglesias and similarly-situated bloggers want to address the root causes of R. Bernstein’s obviously painful decision to denounce the organization he founded and nurtured, they read this comprehensive report by NGO Monitor.  If Yglesias and other HRW defenders haven’t read it, they are in no position to claim that criticism of HRW as anti-Israel is “nonsense.”  But I won’t hold my breath because Yglesias, at least, still seems to have no interest in seriously examining why HRW has been on the receiving end of so  much obloquy.

And who exactly is NGO Monitor, said authority on such matters? Here's Wikipedia.  You guessed it. Do they really think we can't see past vague acronyms or market-tested names? And here's Kevin Jon Heller from a few months ago:

Bernstein bases his recent posts on “reports” issued by NGO Monitor, an organization that — unlike HRW — makes absolutely no effort to be critical of both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict:

NGO Monitor’s objective is to end the practice used by certain self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.

NGO Monitor at least gets credit for truth in advertising: every single report it has issued in 2009 has attacked an NGO or state or other organization that criticized Israel.

Heller's more recent response to the Robert Bernstein editorial is here.

Two To The Hat

The Tax Policy center bashes the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit:

Take a commission-starved real estate agent, add a buyer looking for a deal, and throw in a huge cash payment from the government. Is it any surprise that 10 percent of those claiming the credit either bungled the transaction or were engaged in a flat-out scam. Add to all of this the estimate by Ted Gayer at Brookings that more than 85 percent of the projected 2 million people expected to claim the credit would have bought a house anyway.

Like the late, unlamented cash for clunkers program, the homebuyer subsidy is very likely doing little more than further running up the national debt to accelerate some home purchases. Congress is now debating whether to either continue the credit into next year or even expand it to include all home purchases. This program, as they used to say up in the North End of Boston, needs to take two in the hat.

Bruce Bartlett sighs:

 [If] it comes up for renewal, I bet every Republican in Congress will vote for it because it's a "tax cut."

Whose Country? Ctd

A reader writes:

One cultural aspect that shows how just how deep that multi-racial mixture goes is too often forgotten, and that is: The banjo is an African instrument. Yep, the signature hillbilly instrument, the key to bluegrass (and by extension, white country), the sound that conjures up "Deliverance," corn liquor, and high-speed backroad getaways, was brought over here on slave ships.

Take a look at one sometime — it's damn near a percussion instrument. It's essentially a snare drum with strings. There's a reason why the first marching jazz bands in New Orleans used banjos — one, they can be loud, and two, you can get a nice percussive snap when you play one right. And since you can't easily carry a drum kit as you march, the banjo filled in nicely, and remained a jazz rhythm instrument until guitars — especially amplified electric guitars — came around in the late '30s.

Sure, everybody knows how white people co-opted blues to create rock and roll (and black musicians like Jimi Hendrix and George Clinton swiped it right back to make psychedelia and funk). But not many people realize that when they see "Deliverance's" Banjo Boy tear up Dueling Banjos (or heck, when Earl Scruggs and Steve Martin — one of the whitest guys alive — do Foggy Mountain Breakdown), they're seeing an art form that has its roots in Africa. Even the (supposedly) whitest of white music is inextricably linked to black culture and our history of slavery, and we're richer for it.