Month: November 2009

Steve Coll's read on the situation in Afghanistan:

[Abdullah] has long sought constitutional reforms to strengthen parliament over the presidency. He is almost certainly interested in rejoining the government, with some of his allies, if the deal is attractive enough. He retains ambitions and wishes to remain a viable national figure in a post-Karzai Afghanistan. He will be in a stronger position to negotiate toward all of these goals by adopting the posture he announced yesterday than he would have been if he had participated in the runoff and been defeated. Rather than a confirmed election loser, Abdullah now presents himself to the international community and the Karzai government as a problem to be solved—a responsible, reasonable problem, open to constructive negotiations that will address his interests and concerns.

The same slog in the state Senate remains:

Privately, Sampson has told Republicans he has 25 or 26 votes (out of 32 Democrats), leaving him six or seven GOP votes short of passage. Sources say Republicans could deliver perhaps three or four, but only if Sampson guarantees at least 29 or 30 on his end. "If vulnerable Democrats are allowed off this vote, it's likely that Republicans will consider this a political issue rather than a vote of conscience. And then all bets are off," says a Republican source.

Daphne Eviatar sets the scene:

The American Civil Liberties Union has just released a video of interviews with five former Guantanamo detainees, talking about their experiences of abuse in U.S. custody. It’s not easy to watch, but it’s certainly worthwhile. […T]he fact that all the men were eventually released without charge suggests, at least, that the Bush administration’s claim that they were among “the worst of the worst” didn’t turn out to be true. The video also gives a strong sense of how and why the Guantanamo detention center, and the treatment of the men imprisoned there, ended up being a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

Matt Steinglass says goyim or non-Israeli Jews can't discuss Israel with real honesty:

If we’re talking about American Jewish debates here, then the reason Gideon Levy and other Israelis can go farther in their critiques is the same reason why African-Americans can have a much more full-throated and vicious debate within the community about various kinds of problems than white commentators can have about those problems. Basically, you do your army service and serve your miluim, and it entitles you to say a whole lot of stuff that people sitting in nice coffee bars in Manhattan can’t say.

Screw that. This is the blogosphere. The point is not who says what, but what they're saying. Does it make sense or not? Does it add up or not? Can it survive scrutiny?

Against most expectations, turnout is around 50 percent so far, especially in some urban areas, like Bangor. A working assumption is that the higher the turnout the better the prospects for civil rights. I don't know if that's true or not. But if you haven't voted yet in Maine, please help protect the civil equality that gay couples have won from the legislature.

Tunis, Tunisia, 8 am

Josh Green isn't expecting many revelations tonight. His general feelings about the state of the parties:

The lesson of NY-23, if one is to be drawn (and regardless of whether Doug Hoffman wins or loses), is that the Republican right wing is now the dominant wing of the party. If, when GOP presidential aspirants position themselves in earnest for the party primary in 2011, the tenor of the candidates resembles that of Hoffman and his major supporters, I'd bet on Obama to win in a rout.

Nate Silver says the races in VA and NJ are not going to tell us much about 2010:

[T]he fact that gubernatorial races are not a reliable benchmark does not mean the Democrats are not in trouble in 2010 — whoa, too many double negatives there — nor that Democrats might not have done better if Obama's approval rating was 62 percent instead of 52 percent. It just means that New Jersey and Virginia don't have particularly much informational value — we won't become very much smarter about the future based on what happens there. To the extent that we do learn something, it will probably be hints about turnout, motivation and enthusiasm, rather than something about the electorate's policy preferences.

Here's a beautiful reflection on faith and life through tragedy by Robbins Milbank. It speaks to me and to many, and is worth taking a moment in the middle of a crazy day to remember:

I believe it is very easy to build God in your own image and very hard to rebuild Him when you crumble. I was born to see and experience the love of God. I saw Him in my father, whose kindness and wisdom led me through a thousand anguishes of youth. I saw Him in my wife–especially in her. I told my father about her when I was nine years old. “We’re going to marry,” I said.

He smiled. “I’m glad you feel like telling me. I hope you’ll always want to tell me things like this.”

For many years I was rich, seeing and loving and touching these children of God. I knew what I believed, because I believed in them and they in me.

They died. First my father. Then my wife.

Why do I still arrange my desk-work in neat piles? Why do I straighten a piece of furniture? Why do I try to arrive at appointments a minute early? Why do I lie down to sleep or get up in the morning? Have you ever wandered through an empty house looking for a purpose? You do a lot of little things automatically.

I’d like to talk about my house. It talks to me quietly in the night of the love it still shares, of the garden that still surrounds it, of the laughter of our children and grandchildren and our pride in them. I lie on my bed pulling words around, trying to understand their meaning. Words like “I believe.”

This is know: I believe in the Lord’s Prayer, all of it, but particularly where it says, “Thy will be done.” For me, that’s one clear channel to God. That one belief, “Thy will be done,” carries me through each act of each day.