Cars Or Terrorists?

A reader writes:

I think Maher's point about how we aren't declaring war on cars in order to stop automobile deaths is an excellent one (and one I've been making for years now).

In 2008 there were 34,017 deaths (and nearly 100,000 major injuries) related to automobile accidents in the United States.  Terrorists would have to blow up 113 Boeing 777-200s each year in order to kill that many people!  That is, they'd have to blow up all but six of the 777-200's (which hold 301 people in a 3-tier international setup) currently owned by American Airlines, United Airlines and Continental Airlines (together they own 119 777-200s) and would have to do so every single year, which is probably faster than they can be built.

And yet there is hardly any talk of defending the American people from their Buick!

Shelby Steele’s Economic Arguments

Here they come:

Hundreds of billions moving into trillions. Dramatic, history-making numbers. But where is the economic logic behind a stimulus package that doesn't fully click in for a number of years? How is every stimulus dollar spent actually going to stimulate? Why bailouts to institutions that only hoard the money? How is vast government spending simultaneously a kind of prudence that will not "add to the deficit?" How can such spending not trigger smothering levels of taxation?

This by way of saying that Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Ben Bernanke know nothing about economics.

Posts Of The Year: It’s So Personal: A Round-Up, June 5, 2009

(Perhaps the best posts this year were penned by readers, and the most illuminating, gripping and emotional posts were related to late-term abortion, in the wake of the assassination of the abortion doctor George Tiller. I've never seen the power of this medium so clearly and up-close: one personal account caused a stream of others. How could old-school reporting have found all these women? How could any third-person account compete with the rawness and honesty and pain of these testimonials?

It was a revelation to me about what this medium could do. Like the Iranian revolution that followed this post, it made 2009 a very special year for this blog. – Andrew)

Many readers have asked us to compile the various late term abortion testimonials we published this week (which are only a fraction of the ones we've received). Here they are, in chronological order:

Fetus It's So Personal
It's So Personal, Ctd
The Catholic Mother
The Trauma
A Doctor's View (reader reaction)
A Target Of Terror
The Regret
Not Knowing For Sure
When Principle Meets Reality
Serial Abortions (reader reaction)
Preparing For The Worst
An Unforgiving Family (reader reaction)
The Guilt
Holding On
The Gay Fathers
What Guilt?
Ectopic "Miscarriage"

Still more to come. (And maybe a bound collection? We're actively thinking of it, prompted by many reader requests. But this should be a useful link for now.)

A War Crime In Afghanistan?

KUNARSgahMarai:AFP:Getty

That's what Karzai is claiming:

“The delegation concluded that a unit of international forces descended from a plane Sunday night into Ghazi Khan Village in Narang district of the eastern province of Kunar and took 10 people from three homes, eight of them school students in grades six, nine and 10, one of them a guest, the rest from the same family, and shot them dead,” said a statement from the president’s office.

Mr. Karzai, the statement added, “was deeply grieved at the loss of civilians and assured the mourning families of his every effort for a serious and thorough investigation and said perpetrators would be legally dealt with.”

(Photo: Afghan demonstrators hold banners and placards while shouting anti US slogans during a protest rally in Kabul on December 30, 2009, against the alleged killing of 10 people including eight children in the easten province of Kunar. Afghan government investigators on December 30, have accused foreign troops of dragging 10 people, including eight children, from their homes and shooting them dead. Anti-US protests erupted in at least two cities over the alleged killings as President Hamid Karzai's office published its report, likely to inflame tensions between the Afghan government and its Western military backers. By Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images).

Ah, Conservatism

Just when you think it cannot get battier, National Review chooses this moment in time to defend the Crusades. Of course, murdering Muslims is fine and dandy, but, er …:

Of course there were attacks on several Jewish communities along the Rhine associated with the First Crusade. However, these were not committed by one of the main groups, but by several bands of German stragglers. It is significant that local bishops risked their lives to defend the Jews. These incidents are covered fully in God’s Battalions.

No, you cannot make this up. Then we get this classic archived gem from Derb:

If we are to have the Crusades thrown at us by the likes of Osama bin Laden, let us at least not abjure them.

It is true that we can barely recognize anything of ourselves in the Crusaders. They were coarse and unwashed. Most of them were illiterate. Of the physical world, they were ignorant beyond our imagining, believing the earth to be flat and the sky a crystal dome. Such medicine as they had was far more likely to kill than to heal — Richard Lionheart and Amalric, sixth king of Jerusalem, were both killed by the ministrations of their surgeons. Their honor was often truculent, their loyalty sometimes fickle, their piety was barnacled with the grossest kinds of superstition.

We turn in disgust from the spectacle of them wading through blood to the Holy Sepulchre of Christ, and wonder if we would not have found their enemies — the silk-clad viziers of Islam, or the suave, scented courtiers of Constantinople — more to our liking. Well, perhaps we would; but let us at least acknowledge that these rough soldiers carried with them to the East the germ-seeds of modern civil society. Palestine proved to be stony ground: but that is the East's loss, as the eventual flowering of those seeds elsewhere was all of humanity's immeasurable gain. In spirit and in values, though at an immense distance, the Crusaders were our kin. While not forgetting their many transgressions, we should weep for what they lost and remember with pride their few astonishing victories. Ville gagnée!

Posts Of The Year: What Happened In 1990?, July 7, 2009

(I joined the gay rights movement publicly in 1989 with a cover story for TNR, making the case for marriage equality. I had been out for a while, and made the same case in the Advocate a year earlier, but that was my first foray into public advocacy for civil rights for gay people. Looking back, I am in shock and disbelief at the progress we have made.

This first decade of the 21st century has been an astonishing thing. I'm now legally married in both places I reside: in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Five states now recognize marriage equality and many countries. My home country offers all the rights of civil marriage to my husband. The cynical use of homophobia by the GOP worked for a while, but has since faded. Meanwhile, the dialogue has deepened and widened, and, as it has done so, attitudes have shifted more profoundly than at any previous point. Ted Olson is now one of the faces of gay equality. The next generation gets the fact that gays are human beings, have relationships as valid as straight ones, and have love as deep.

It can be hard to recognize it, but we have come an enormously long distance, even past the narrow defeats in Maine and California. We have overcome. And we shall again. – Andrew)

6a00d83451c45669e20115719a35ed970b-800wi

Several readers have wondered what my best guess is for why that year was the turning point for gay rights in America. Here's my best shot at some of the factors, although it seems clear to me it was multi-determined as my shrink often (helpfully) says. The first is that this coincides with a re-framing of the issue in public discourse. Many of us then derided as right-wing fascists believed that the focus on sexual liberation, on "queerness" and subcultural revolt were not actually very descriptive of most gay lives and not the most persuasive arguments for gay equality. I mean: if you want to be queer, why seek any legal acceptance at all? Isn't marginalization the point? Why not revel in oppression as the only legitimate way to live as "the other"?

So in the late 1980s, the homocons, as we were subsequently described, started making the case for formal civil equality, not counter-cultural revolution. 1988, I wrote a piece for the Advocate arguing that the legal bans on military service and civil marriage should be the focus of the movement in the next decade. I gave a speech on those lines to HRC a little later (they were, for the most part, appalled). In 1989, I wrote the first cover-story in favor of same-sex marriage in a national American magazine. By 1993, with the military ban in the news and Hawaii's ruling on marriage equality, the intellectual structure for re-framing the debate on grounds finally favorable to gays was in place. Ever since, the dynamic that posits gay men and women as heroes trying to serve their country or human beings trying to construct families keeps adding to the momentum – and the next generation, having imbibed this new order, are the most adamant of all.

But much, much more important than all of this, in my view, is something the younger gay generation rarely mentions, remembers or honors any more. That was the transformative, traumatizing effect of AIDS on both gay and straight America.

It came in the early 1980s, but the deaths only reached their stunning peaks in the early 1990s – which is when the polling shifts.

Remember: most of these deaths were of young men. If you think that the Vietnam war took around 60,000 young American lives randomly over a decade or more, then imagine the psychic and social impact of 300,000 young Americans dying in a few years. Imagine a Vietnam Memorial five times the size. The victims were from every state and city and town and village. They were part of millions and millions of families. Suddenly, gay men were visible in ways we had never been before. And our humanity – revealed by the awful, terrifying, gruesome deaths of those in the first years of the plague – ripped off the veneer of stereotype and demonization and made us seem as human as we are. More, actually: part of our families.

I think that horrifying period made the difference. It also galvanized gay men and lesbians into fighting more passionately than ever – because our very lives were at stake. There were different strategies – from Act-Up actions to Log Cabin conventions. But more and more of us learned self-respect and refused to tolerate the condescension, double standards, discrimination and violence so many still endured. We were deadly serious. And we fight on in part because of those we had lost. At least I know I do. In the words of Mark Helprin:

He knew that this was because the war was still in him, and that it would be in him for a long time to come, for soliders who have been bloodied are soldiers for ever. They never fit in. Even when they finally settle down, the settling is tenuous, for when they close their eyes, they see their comrades who have fallen. That they cannot forget, that they do not forget, that they never allow themselves to heal completely, is their way of expressing their love for friends who have perished. And they will not change, because they have become what they have become to keep the fallen alive.

Yglesias Award Nominee

“As a Christian organization, Focus on the Family Action encourages pro-family policies. As such, we respect the desire of the Ugandan people to shield their nation from the promotion of homosexuality as morally equivalent to one-man, one-woman marriage. That said, the purpose of laws is to make societies safer, and there is legitimate concern that the legislation being debated in Uganda will incite violence against homosexuals. That is morally unacceptable, as is enacting the death penalty for homosexuals, which some versions of this bill are reported to require,” – Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

Your cultural hangover seems to extend to embracing unfortunate aspects of British nonsense as well:

`Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first – verdict afterwards.'

Obama has already proved he’s not Bush, otherwise he would be clubbing down the press and political opponents by suggesting that any critique of government would embolden “the enemy”. Rather, Obama has conceded to a breakdown in the system and vowed to correct it. Can you conceive of Bush ever admitting to a mistake on his watch?

Demanding the immediate sacking of Napolitano as a symbolic gesture of accountability is akin to requiring idiotic new airline screening procedures – it provides the illusion of decisive action and does nothing except create a false sense of “something is being done”. If an investigation shows that she utterly failed at her job, then by all means she needs to go. However, to fire Napolitano without evidence of incompetence would be opportunistic, craven, and foolish (also trademarks of the Bush administration).