Author: Andrew Sullivan

“Opinions flourish only in periods or cultures without a dominant religion. A medieval monk in his Cluniac abbey or a contemporary mullah in his mosque and, indeed, a fine Victorian gentleman, had little use for original opinions. The collective opinions of religion are inflexible dogma, not interesting expressions of private thought. The best opinions are contrarian, not conformist, although that is in itself a matter of opinion.” – Stephen Bayley, Daily Telegraph.

FISKING THE GUARDIAN’S GRAPHICS: A blogger decodes some fishy graphs on global warming. Meanwhile, the whole notion of an unprecedented modern human impact on the atmosphere is given a little more perspective here.

A SPANISH DISSIDENT: Former deputy and avowed leftist, Pilar Rahola, is having the same epiphany that others on this side of the Atlantic have had:

The most absurd thing is to watch leaders of the left today greet and celebrate Arab leaders, even when they are fundamentalists. For example, in the debates that followed the attacks of September 11, we heard an anti-American discourse here, pooh-poohing the victims, something which is in and of itself terrible ! And there were those who tried to downgrade-with that tawdry third-worldism which characterizes some circles of the left-the danger embodied in individuals like Bin Laden, who is, in fact, an authentic fascist. I believe that for the moment the world remains blind to the biggest totalitarianism of the twenty-first century, which is Islamic fundamentalism. Now we must prepare ourselves seriously to face this danger : For me, this totalitarianism is without any shadow of a doubt comparable to Stalinism and Nazism, the biggest scourges of the twentieth century.

Rahola even supports – shock, horror – the existence of the state of Israel. No wonder she has few friends on the European left these days.

This one is against terrorism. Why hasn’t the NYT covered it? Perhaps tomorrow. From this photograph, it looks substantial to me.

The Alexandria Library has removed the copy of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” from its display, after protests. Even UNESCO objected.

Always remember to feed Johnny Apple. He gets grouchy without regular infusions of carbohydrates and a decent Bourdeaux. Or you’ll get write-ups like this:

Once proud of being on time everywhere, Dr. Dean was late at most stops last weekend, only partly because of the snow in Iowa. His entourage went without enough work space and sometimes without food and drink.

You gotta focus on the issues, don’tcha?

CONASON WORRIES: About Dean’s vulnerability and early success. This might be the earliest example of buyer’s remorse I’ve yet read.

David Ignatius has a must-read column. He keeps getting better and better.

The case that Muslim military chaplain James Yee was a spy for Syria or anyone else has been falling apart. It’s not even clear that the documents he was carrying – the original basis for the charge – were in any way classified. For this, he was put in solitary confinement for three months. Worse, the military – having failed to make their case – subsequently used their search warrant to reveal an extra-marital affair by Yee and are now prosecuting him under military law for this indiscretion. This is called framing someone. The trial has now been suspended because the prosecution cannot prove the classification of the documents in question. This seems to me to be a text-book case of military abuse of basic standards of fairness. A Muslim-American, who may well be completely innocent of all espionage charges, may now face years in jail for having an affair.

THE FRAMING OF JACKSON: I might also add that I’m deeply suspicious of the attempt to nail Michael Jackson for alleged child-abuse. I haven’t commented on the case because it’s really a piece of celebrity insanity. But if it’s actually a case of prosecutorial misconduct, it becomes a serious matter for public concern. You only had to watch the prosecutors’ news conference to see that they were trying to use the law – any way they could – to destroy an eccentric figure they despised. If the case falls apart, these witch-hunters need to face public accountability.

“Your quote of the day from Ward Connerly makes a good point about the need for conservatives of all stripes to stick together in the current political climate of our country. To adopt a pithy phrase from Benjamin Franklin, we “either hang together or hang separately.” But I think it would be remarkably short-sighted for those of us on the libertarian end of the conservative movement to underestimate the amount of betrayal that many social conservatives feel, not only about the issue of same-sex marriage, but also about the failure to substantially alter the political and judicial culture on a host of other issues (abortion being the most obvious issue, but many social conservatives are also disappointed that divorce, in the face of a mountain of social science data on its detrimental consequences for children, is not a topic of discussion within the broader political culture as well). Libertarians often treat social conservatives as useful idiots – folks who are good to have around because they tend to vote Republican, but not really the folks you want to have sitting at the “grown up table” deciding social policy. That may be a correct judgment in substance (although I don’t think so), but it is a disastrous way to run a coalition.” – more criticism (of my coverage of the Dems) on the Letters Page.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I am not trying to say that [the Americans] are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation.” – Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, speaking to an Italian journalist.

I’ve been reading the transcripts so far in this election but watched last night’s debate in full. What a truly depressing spectacle. The sheer torrent of tired cliches, dead metaphors, and hoary old stem-winders was enough to numb what’s left of my cold-riddled sinuses. The sheer lack of talent on the stage was what struck me. Only four candidates seemed the faintest bit credible: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman. Edwards revealed why he hasn’t caught on – not just the accent, but the exhausted and obviously phony Shrum-like rhetoric about “special interests” and lobbyists. I kept thinking to myself: the guy’s a trial lawyer. Who does he think he’s kidding? Moseley-Braun is a complete embarrassment. She has nothing to say except “I’m a black woman.” She is, of course, an insult to black women, most of whom do not respond to life’s problems by reiterating ancient boilerplate about helping kids and moving forward. Kucinich was mesmerizing in his way, with his huge ears and beady little eyes. He kept arguing as if there were 170,000 U.N. troops sitting around, waiting to be told that it’s time to replace all those Americans in Iraq. Presumably he knows this is a fantasy. He doesn’t seem to be illiterate. He puts sentences together with correct structure and grammar. So how can he keep reiterating something that is as feasible as handing Iraq over to Martians? And why wasn’t he laughed off the stage?

ALSO-RANS: Clark was dull. He joined in the major, communal self-deception of the Democrats: that after 9/11 the whole world – especially the French – were all desperate to join in a war against terrorism and terrorism-sponsoring states, if only we’d asked them nicely. I guess you could make some kind of case that a real diplomacy offensive might have won the second vote in the Security Council for war against Saddam. But the French were just as intransigent with regard to Saddam throughout the 1990s. They vetoed the final inspection proposal before even Saddam did. But looking at reality in international affairs would rob the Democrats of blaming every single problem on the planet on George W. Bush. The deeper quandary of a uni-polar world where only the U.S. has the military capacity for world policing – and yet is resented for doing what is necessary – didn’t seem to register. As for Sharpton, he had a few good lines. And he destroyed Ted Koppel at one point. But he’s a buffoon, another insult to black voters’ intelligence. He’s not a serious candidate for high office or any office. It seems absurd that real potential presidents have to stand on the same stage. It’s not a racial thing. He’s no crazier than Kucinich. But at least Kucinich has done something in elective office, if only bankrupt a city.

KERRY’S AWFULNESS: I liked Lieberman the best substantively. He’s the only one even to suggest that Saddam was a past and future threat to the U.S. He was the only one who didn’t seem desperate to pander. He was the only one who seemed to relish the liberation of people from unspeakable tyranny. The rest greeted the greatest world event in the last year as if it had been a trip to the dentist’s. Dean was quiet, terse, punchy – not a great performance, but an understandable one if you’re sitting on a lead that large. His only weak moment came when he tried to talk his way out of his previous raising of a conspiracy theory about 9/11. He now describes such theories as “crazy.” So why did he raise them in the first place? Gephardt seems to me to have improved a lot in his demeanor, his ability to speak candidly, and his focus on the usual Democratic policies of taxing people more so that the government can take better care of them. I don’t buy the argument – none of the candidates said a single word about wealth-creation – but, hey, I’m not a Democrat. If I were, Gephardt would seem the best option – more stable and somehow more decent than Dean. Kerry looks the part; he has a great voice, a firm manner, and speaks well. I just don’t buy his spiel. When he proposes a world religious summit – with the Dalai Lama included – to talk about issues of politics and religious fundamentalism, you can’t help your eyeballs from rolling reflexively back into your head. When he assumes that all you need is global conversation to end global conflict, you wonder whether he has the faintest clue about the kind of enemy we face. When he argues that the Bush administration has done nothing about AIDS in Africa, you realize he simply cannot believe that such a policy could ever have originated from the other side. He’s the only candidate you just know for sure would be a terrible president – indecisive, vain, out-of-touch and incapable of rising to the occasion. Dean, Lieberman and Gephardt all strike me as men who could grow in the office. Not Kerry. He’s Gore, without the charm.

So far, so great. Thanks so much for all the contributions, especially from those of you who’ve already given these past two years. You’ve come through again. We still have a way to go, though. The reason is simple enough. The very success of the site – doubling in traffic roughly every twelve months – has also meant ever-expanding expenses, bandwidth and workload. We’re now catering to the same number of readers as established political magazines, but we have essentially an editorial staff of one. It was once relatively easy to deal with the work part-time. No longer. From filtering through over 700 emails a day to scanning the Internet for stories and ideas to writing tens of thousands of words a month, this blog is a full-time job. I love it; I’ve learned an enormous amount from it; but it has meant giving up other assignments, postponing a book contract, and working on weekends and in the early hours of the morning. I’ve rarely missed a day in the past twelve months, apart from the yearly August breather. And I am not beholden to any big media entity. But that’s why I need your support – to keep this site independent, aggressive, timely and indebted to no-one but you. In an election year, that’s even more important than usual. So please help out – and prove that this kind of independent, reader-supported blog can work financially. If you read the blog regularly, we’re asking for the same amount as a good cup of coffee a month. If you think this site is worth that, and you want to keep it afloat, please help. All the details are here. Without you, this new experiment in online journalism is impossible to finance. With you, it can go from strength to strength. So please don’t delay. Click here.

PAY TO PLAY: One of the best decisions yet from the Bush administration – cutting Russia, France and Germany out of Iraqi reconstruction projects. The rationale is obvious. Our allies have to understand that membership has its privileges – and that betrayal has its consequences. Why should U.S. tax-payers help line the coffers of companies from countries that did all they could to keep Saddam in power? Let Britain, Japan, Italy and Australia benefit from their solidarity.

Bill Kristol thinks so.