Month: August 2010

Judging a Book By Its Title

by Conor Friedersdorf

Michael Moynihan takes aim at the overheated language on the cover of that new book by Markos Moulitsas, "American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right." And he rightly dings progressives who gave it cover blurbs, despite lamenting similarly idiotic language when it was used by blowhards on the right.

I understand the financial incentives that cause authors and publishing houses to choose these kinds of titles. But I don't know why anyone thinking strategically about political impact cheers them. It's a marketing strategy that basically guarantees a book will never be read by anyone who disagrees with it. The emotional satisfaction some people get from extreme vitriol is an astonishingly powerful driver of counterproductive political behavior.

Despite my reputation for calling out vituperation, I really don't think my standards are particularly exacting. Don't compare ideological adversaries to murderous totalitarians. Refrain from rudely interrupting emotionally troubled black women if your planned interjection is the n-word. Don't tell callers to your show that they're so annoying their spouse should put a gun to their head. (Note to skeptical Web historians: yes, those are all actual examples!) It's getting to the point where publishing houses are going to start re-issuing classics from their catalog under new polemical titles.

The Military Takes Over? Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Exum Londonstani sounds less worried about the political clout of Pakistan's military than Rashid:

The military in Pakistan is hugely influential but doesn't define the state – possibly because it wasn't instrumental in its inception. The idea of Islam defines the state, but at the same time it remains a vague concept that the people who call the shots don't agree on. That's a problem but also an opportunity for Pakistan. Those who say Islam is all about fighting Kafirs can't completely silence those that say its about raising living standards and providing medical relief.

The question about engagement in Pakistan isn't about whether or not potential partners exist.

The Critic as a Useful Enemy

by Conor Friedersdorf

Reihan Salam has nice things to say about Will Wilkinson:

Will is one of the best, most trenchant libertarian critics of U.S. conservatives and conservatism. He's the kind of thinker who keeps you on your toes by identifying and dismantling muddled thinking. I happen to think there's something to be said for incompletely theorized agreements and muddling through, which is why we don't always see eye to eye. But I know that engaging with Will's work has made me sharper. With enemies like Will, who needs friends?

It's all true. And that kind of attitude toward political discourse helps to explain why Mr. Salam is one of my favorite writers, though I'd go even father, and say that if ideological allies permit you to persist in muddled thinking too readily or regularly, who needs enemies?

As Mr. Wilkinson leaves The Cato Institute, along with Brink Lindsey, another sharp liberaltarian critic of the right, the libertarian think tank remains staffed with a lot of first-rate thinkers doing exceptional work; but it's lost two exceptional in-house safeguards against group think. That important role is among the most undervalued in Washington DC.

Real Life Illustrations

by Zoe Pollock

This week BBC reported that, according to a new police-department probe, in 1972 “the police, the Catholic Church and the state conspired to cover up a priest’s suspected role” in an IRA bombing that killed nine people, including an 8 year old girl. Connecting it to the continuing controversy over the Cordoba mosque, Commonweal's Mollie Wilson O'Reilly asks:

On one level, it’s the same dynamic we’ve seen revealed in the sex-abuse scandal applied to a different crime. But it’s also the real-life illustration we didn’t know we were looking for on the question of how much responsibility ordinary believers ought to take for the worst atrocities committed in the name of their religion. After all, the Catholic church wouldn’t tolerate, let alone harbor, terrorists. Certainly not terrorists implicated in the death of eight-year-old girls. Would it?

Where The Rich Live

by Patrick Appel

Dylan Matthews looks at the distribution of high earners across the country, which prompts Reihan to sound off on dual-earner families. I'm with Joyner:

[Reihan] points to a posting by Gothamist‘s Jen Carlson (“Think You’re Making $250K In Manhattan? Think Again“) which notes that a “lifestyle that would cost $250,000 in Salt Lake City would cost $545,000 in Manhattan, $261,750 in Miami-Dade, and $405,250 in San Francisco.”  That’s true if by “lifestyle” you mean “house size and model of car.”  Otherwise, I’d posit that a Manhattan, San Francisco, or even DC “lifestyle” isn’t available in Salt Lake City at any price.

Regardless, all of this shows how complicated gauging relative wealth is when dealing with a diverse, continental country.

Epistemic Closure Watch

by Chris Bodenner

Gays are either destroying the moral foundation of our country or don't exist:

Mehlmanmention It’s unclear why Fox News ignored the story, since some Republicans have embraced Mehlman’s coming out. Current Republican Party chairman, Michael Steele, for instance, issued a supportive statement: “His announcement, often a very difficult decision which is only compounded when done on the public stage, reaffirms for me why we are friends and why I respect him personally and professionally.” Mehlman has also said that President Bush has been “incredibly supportive” of his coming out.

Ignoring stories which undermine conservative causes, however, is the norm at Fox. Earlier this month, Fox News refused to run a single segment on Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s racially-charged rant, after which she resigned from talk radio.

“It’s Just A Cat” Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Your reader who defended the woman who threw a cat into a trash bin made some good points but used a couple of lousy examples.  I love cats and own three, but I most certainly don't place their well being higher than a human's. However, it's pretty well known that serial killers start with animals.  The kid your reader mentioned has some serious problems if he's setting cats on fire.  Yes, he had a harsh past and should be getting treatment rather than incarceration.  And those cat lovers sending him hate mail need to chill out.  But torturing an animal is a huge big red flag for future, much worse behavior.

As to labeling a cat as "cruel" because it "plays with" a mouse, that's just plain ignorance.  It's survival instinct, not cruelty, when a cat lets go of and recaptures its prey. Explanation here.

From that article:

A cat will “play” with her prey to tire it out in order to reduce the risk of injury to herself, but she is not actually playing in the human sense. She is simply doing the job that her instincts tell her she must do in order not to starve, and protecting herself in the process. If the prey is lively, the cat could suffer a serious bite that might become infected and lead to death. Only when the prey is sufficiently tired and dazed is the cat able to make the kill.