Month: October 2011

"The term 'Islamophobia' itself was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the political fountainhead of Islamic terror, having spawned al-Qaeda and created Hamas. Not coincidently, the reports themselves have been produced by Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, and jihadist apologists like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But the latest and most elaborate Islamophobia report, transparently derivative of its predecessors, has been issued by the Center for American Progress, which is a brain trust of the Democratic party. It thus marks a disturbing development in this ugly campaign. On examination, the term "Islamophobia" is designed to create a modern-day thought crime, while the campaign to suppress it is an effort to abolish the First Amendment where Islam is concerned," – Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, NRO.

"Rather like bailing out Wall Street, America’s unconditional support for Israel creates “moral hazard”: Like investment bankers, Israeli politicians can adopt aggressive, high-risk strategies in the knowledge that Uncle Sam will come to the rescue if things go wrong. What does the United States get from Israel in return? Precious little.

On this very blog back in 2009, when I was a moderator, I posed the deliberately leading question, “Is Israel a strategic liability for the United States?” No less a figure than Dov Zakheim, a top Pentagon official under Donald Rumsfeld, acknowledged that, in cold strategic terms, it was. After laying out a long list of advantages of the alliance, Zakheim wrote that

None of the foregoing, however, can fully justify the vast aid that the United States provides to Israel on an annual basis. There is more than a little truth to the fact that America aids Israel for reasons that go beyond purely military and intelligence benefits….On the other hand, that support demonstrates American credibility, and commitment, and a sense that it does stand by the values it constantly trumpets: the primacy of democratic values and the right of small nations to exist in freedom and security.

There’s a lot I agree with here. For both moral and strategic reasons, the United States owes Israel the same support that it owes any other small democracy in a precarious strategic situation – for example, Taiwan. Let me emphasize, however: the same support, no more, no less," – Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr.

Sometimes you have to get out of the cocoon to see what reporting actually is. Here's Stephen Amidon on McGinniss's book, from an email forwarded by Joe to me:

I knew that I would react differently to it from the way Maslin et al would have had me, but I wasn't prepared for just how different that reaction would be.  First of all, as a writer, I admire the book immensely for its craft.  The prose is pitched exactly right.  I love your tone, the sense that you don't for a minute take this clown seriously but are willing to be serious about getting to the heart of the phenomenon.  It can be very funny.  The passages all feel right and add up to an overwhelmingly convincing portrait.  People who call it 'gossipy' are dolts.  To write ponderously about this person would be dishonest and foolish.  Instead, you write intelligently, incisively, playfully.  

That's important.  I think inserting yourself into the narrative was not only a good authorial choice, but essential from an epistemological point of view.  Unlike Tallyrand, Kissinger or JFK, Palin relies on the perceiver to exist.   She has no weight in the world of ideas or policy, but rather serves only as a presence in the imagination.  To write about her 'objectively' is to miss the point.  Her reaction to your presence next door was also so hysterical, so bizarrely over the top that it spoke volumes about how she would handle pressure.   And it is not a pretty picture. 

This leads to my other big difference with the Maslin Crew – the idea that you focus on 'personal' or 'private' stuff to the detriment of …. what, exactly?

There is no 'there' there.   It's impossible to think that one could write about Palin without the lion's share of your focus being on matters like her lack of loyalty to supporters, her vindictiveness, her narcissism, her utter lack of truthfulness.  That's the bloody story!  Again, to write a book about Palin's political philosophy or policy goals would be profoundly wrong-headed, even deceitful.  She is all about developing, masking, packaging and projecting her self.    And you have, quite brilliantly, exposed that self for the fabricated, noxious thing it is.  

I do not understand why the Village cannot handle or absorb this.

A quote worth pondering from Dr. Peter Whybrow, a British neuroscientist at UCLA:

“What we’re doing is minimizing the use of the part of the brain that lizards don’t have. We’ve created physiological dysfunction. We have lost the ability to self-regulate, at all levels of the society. The $5 million you get paid at Goldman Sachs if you do whatever they ask you to do—that is the chocolate cake upgraded.”

But far more gorged on cup-cakes.

I'm sorry to say I can't see any kind of smoking bigotry in Rick Perry's heart from the story in the Post yesterday, although the details of the story were really fascinating. Money quote:

The cowboys, when they were gathering cattle, they'd say they're going to the Matthews or Niggerhead or the Nail" pastures, said Bill Reed, a distributor for Coors beer in nearby Abilene who used to lease a hunting parcel adjacent to the Perrys'. "Those were all names. Nobody thought anything about it…"

You know, Texas is a little different — you go where it's comfortable," Reed said. ". . . It would have been one thing if they had named it, but they didn't. So, it's basically a figure of speech as far as most people are concerned. No one thought anything about it."

Not a racist thought in their heads. I'm with TNC on this one:

In all seriousness, I think this says very little about Rick Perry, and a lot more about the country he seeks to govern.

Tomasky sees a hint of hubris in Herman Cain's loud lurch toward victimology. Hey, it works for Palin, if you recall who she is or was.

Walter Russell Mead's review of Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum's new book is a classic of the genre. For the order of the brown nose, the Dish bows in awe in front of the following sentences:

"That Used to Be Us" represents an effort by Mr. Mandelbaum, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and one of the country’s leading public intellectuals, and Mr. Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times whose three Pulitzer Prizes only hint at the global influence of his work, to describe the rocky conditions of the present day and prescribe a way forward… 

These are big truths, and the authors see them clearly and whole. As is usual in Mr. Friedman’s work the power of the core argument is buttressed by detailed reportage and blizzards of specific fact and detail, but the accumulation of anecdote and evidence never detracts from the book’s central thrust. "That Used to Be Us" is an important contribution to an intensifying debate, and it deserves the widest possible attention.

Yes, he has some quibbles. But still. There's nothing quite so cloying as members of the establishment congratulating themselves on their brilliance.

A new trope from the president's stump speech, tailored to the Human Rights Campaign on Saturday:

We don’t believe in a small America. We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the President of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that. We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. We don’t believe in them being silent since. You want to be Commander-in-Chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.

We don’t believe in a small America. We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot. We believe in an America where we’re all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody. That’s what we believe. That’s what we’re going to be fighting for.

What you're beginning to see here, I suspect, is a tipping point on the social issues. As a majority of Americans back marriage equality in polls, the GOP's position of regarding gays as an immoral and icky minority has become a liability, especially in wealthier suburbs. Ditto the denial of climate science and evolution. The easy wedge issues of the 1990s are the Democratic hopes of the 20teens.

The "big America" vs "small America" theme is also a useful formulation against small government conservatives, a Hamiltonian theme.

Dusty, waiting …

Over the weekend, the Texas governor said that Mexican drug violence "may require our military in Mexico." Steven Taylor's head hits the table. Pete Guither wonders if Perry understands what he said:

Based on reading the whole article, it appears to me less that Perry is really thinking about sending troops into Mexico, but rather that he hadn’t really thought anything through at all, and that’s the first thing that popped up in his head at the time of the question.

It sounds "tough", doesn't it? Perry really is Bush without the restraint.