Month: August 2011

Joshua Goldstein sees it as a real possibility:

The late peace researcher Randall Forsberg in 1997 foresaw "a world largely without war," one in which "the vanishing risk of great-power war has opened the door to a previously unimaginable future — a future in which war is no longer socially-sanctioned and is rare, brief, and small in scale." Clearly, we are not there yet. But over the decades — and indeed, even since Forsberg wrote those words — norms about wars, and especially about the protection of civilians caught up in them, have evolved rapidly, far more so than anyone would have guessed even half a century ago. Similarly rapid shifts in norms preceded the ends of slavery and colonialism, two other scourges that were once also considered permanent features of civilization. So don't be surprised if the end of war, too, becomes downright thinkable.

An Afgan boy has his eyes checked by Medic Stephan Flynn on the Medivac helicopter of 159th Brigade Task Force Thunder during a flight to a hospital in Kandahar on August 16, 2011. The boy was wounded after stepping on an improvised explosive device (IED). Violence against civilians is at a record high in the war, with more than 1,400 Afghan civilians killed in the conflict this year, up 15 percent on the first half of 2010, according to a recently released United Nations report. By Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images.

Bruce Riedel grades al-Zawahiri's first 100 days as al-Qaeda chief:

Al Qaeda is under a great deal of pressure in Pakistan, where Zawahiri is presumably hiding out. But he is not showing much sign of it. His pace of activity is close to an all-time high, and he is trying hard to catch up with the changes in his homeland and the rest of Arabia. It is safe to assume that behind the scenes, al Qaeda is also trying hard to hit back at America. It is way too soon to be writing al Qaeda’s obituary.

Slate asked contemporary writers to pick the most overrated famous novels. Tom Perrotta's entry:

On a recent episode of South Park, the kids got all excited about reading The Catcher in the Rye, the supposedly scandalous novel that's been offending teachers and parents for generations. They were, of course, horribly disappointed: As Kyle says, it's "just some whiny annoying teenager talking about how lame he is."

Is it more than that? Lots of people, including some writers I revere, seem to think so. But I've never been able to see what they're seeing, nor can I buy into the myth that Holden is some sort of representative American teenager.

He's a self-pitying prep school esthete obsessed with his little sister, the kind of boy who takes it upon himself to erase obscene graffiti from bathroom walls. And that fantasy about catching children in a field of rye? "Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around—nobody big, I mean—except me." What's that all about? I'm not suggesting we need to like Holden in order to consider him important, I'm just baffled by the reverence and affection so many readers seem to feel for this peculiar creep.

Jonathan Rosen adds, "[E]ven as an unhappy adolescent I found the voice cloying, annoying, and frankly phony."

The Arab country's liberal parties are uniting in an anti-Islamist alliance called the "Egyptian Bloc" in order to ensure Egypt becomes "a civil democratic state." Noah el-Hennawy explores the political implications:

Speakers at the [Egyptian Bloc founding] announcement detailed their political outlook, which envisages a civil democratic state based on equality, in contrast to Islamist groups, who are believed to still be flirting with a religious order that would limit individual liberties and discriminate against women and religious minorities. The Egyptian Bloc is expected to ask the military to issue a new constitutional declaration stipulating that the architects of the new constitution should not deviate from their proposed democratic principles. Some secularists fear that Islamists will garner a sweeping majority in the new parliament and hence monopolize the drafting of the new constitution. The parliament, which is set to be elected in November, will be entrusted with electing a 100-member constituent assembly that will write the constitution.

Kevin Drum flags an L.A. Times story on the people funding the Perry campaign. It's not pretty:

Perry has received a total of $37 million over the last decade from just 150 individuals and couples, who are likely to form the backbone of his new effort to win the Republican presidential nomination. The tally represented more than a third of the $102 million he had raised as governor through December, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. Nearly half of those mega-donors received hefty business contracts, tax breaks or appointments under Perry, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis.

A reader writes:

I'm guessing I must be email #121,981 on the subject, but the Trekkie in me persists. J.J Abrams is not only wrong, he is being disrespectful of the long history of Star Trek. He's also late to the game; this clip, in which two female characters kiss, is from a Deep Space 9 episode that aired in 1995.

That clip is unembeddable, but the scene is contained in the above compilation, which "deal[s] with issues of same-sexuality or 'alternative' sexuality" in Star Trek. Another reader digs deeper:

Star Trek has already broached the subject of same sex relationships more than a decade ago, albeit after two notable failures (and the 'success' involved two attractive women kissing, but it was the '90s). First, there was the character of Elim Garak from the 'Deep Space 9' TV series, one of the major characters and initially portrayed as something like an omnisexual, who was openly attracted to the young doctor Bashir character until the studio put the kibosh on it.

Andrew Robinson provided non-canon insight into his role when interviewed by Amazon.com, stating "I started out playing Garak as someone who doesn't have a defined sexuality. He's not gay, he's not straight, it's a non-issue for him. …  Originally, in that very first episode, I loved the man's absolute fearlessness about presenting himself to an attractive human being. The fact that the attractive human being is a man (Bashir) doesn't make any difference to him, but that was a little too sophisticated I think. For the most part, the writers supported the character beautifully, but in that area they just made a choice they didn't want to go there, and if they don't want to go there I can't, because the writing doesn't support it."

However, the more relevant attempt was taken during an episode of 'The Next Generation' wherein the android officer, Data, attempts to build another android in his image with the aim of better understanding his own humanity through the act of parenting and guiding another, less-experienced being, through the difficulties of understanding humanity.  The relevant scene takes place in the bar onboard ship, where his child has become a waitress and asks Whoopi Goldberg's character why couples are kissing.

In one of the scenes with Guinan tutoring Lal about human sexuality, Whoopi Goldberg altered one of her script lines in order to turn a strictly heterosexual explanation into a gender-neutral version: "According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, 'When a man and a woman are in love …' and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands[…] But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, 'This show is beyond that. It should be 'When two people are in love.'" It was also decided on set that the background of the scene show a same-sex couple holding hands, but "someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed. [Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn't happen." (TNG research assistant Richard Arnold) [1]

This is all obviously a bit irrelevant to the point of showing an openly gay character in a new blockbuster motion picture which takes place in an idealized future, but the point remains that it wouldn't be the first time that the subject had been broached. And Ryan's point is spot on as far as the history of the franchise goes with regards to homosexuality in the future.

A reader makes a keen, if quixotic, argument:

With Gov. Perry officially entering the race, Romney has a real challenger, and it is bound to be quite a fight over the next few months. But while Perry appears, by far, Romney's most formidable opponent, he also presents a unique opportunity for Romney to own his signature achievement as Massachusetts governor, and use it to flog his opponent. Texas is the second-most populous state in the nation with over 24 million residents, 26% of whom lack health insurance – the highest rate in a nation with an average uninsured rate of 17%.

That means that Texas's uninsured population is greater that the entire population of 33 out of the 50 states, and of the eight smallest states combined. That is truly staggering. For Perry to be the last person standing after the Republican primaries, one would think he will have to answer for that. Since Bachmann is as intent as anyone to dismantle the ACA, that seems to leave Romney to be the one to grill Perry on this. If Romney does decide to own the success of MassCare, he might just wallop Perry on this count.

Sooner or later, Romney will have to run on his record, because Obama sure won't let him forget it. Better to embrace it now and defend it rather than look ridiculous by continuing to disown it in the general election as Obama hails the importance of the MassCare model.

Somehow, I lack confidence in Romney running on this accomplishments in defiance of the Tea Party. He has shown (so far) a great willingness to diminish his own achievements in Massachusetts, or at least deny that they could be duplicated in the nation as a whole. Given this Republican field, I am bound to vote for Obama pretty much no matter what, but for the good of the country I would sure like for him to have a viable opponent.

However, in a GOP primary hostile to illegal immigrants, this data point could prove useful for Perry in downplaying his state's healthcare crisis:

Non-citizens make up about one-quarter of Texas’ uninsured population, according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities’ Texas Health Care Primer. Regardless of immigration status, immigrants tend to have a higher rate of uninsurance than non-immigrants. Of the 1.2 million foreign-born, naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas, for example, 31 percent are uninsured, compared to 22 percent of U.S.-born Texans.

Simply astounding:

(Hat tip: Enn Zed)