Author: Andrew Sullivan

David Sessions follows Alex Pareene's lead and gives us the ten hackiest religious pundits. It's hilarious. Here's his takedown of Al Mohler:

The constantly blogging, tweeting president of the SBTS tries his best to make Baptists cool, and he does a decent job of it. He seems like a nice enough guy. It’s sort of backwardly admirable the way he defends really odious views while managing to barely sound like a fundamentalist. He’s even taken some nuanced stances on his signature issues, like writing that gay marriage isn’t nearly as big a threat to Christian marriage as divorce. But ultimately, Mohler’s use of his formidable brain power defending fundamentalist Christianity is too egregious to let slide. He was almost singlehandedly responsible for turning the Southern Baptist Convention into a reactionary conservative institution. And what is wrong with a world where the man Time calls “the leading intellectual of the evangelical movement” is defending young-earth creationism, calling gay marriage “a direct threat [to the] central institution of human civilization,” warning Christian parents against university education, opposing yoga on spiritual grounds, and defending complementarian gender roles? Mohler will fight for his Biblical inerrancy if it kills him, and he holds to it consistently in every issue it touches. But consistently doesn’t absolve him—a seminary president, a man capable of quality scholarly work—of devoting his intellect to the service of the anti-intellectual.

Repeat offenses: Anti-intellectualism; fundamentalism; Christianism.

Representative quote:

“For too long, those who hold to traditional understandings of manhood and womanhood, deeply rooted in both Scripture and tradition, have allowed themselves to be pushed into a defensive posture. Given the prevailing spirit of the age and the enormous cultural pressure toward conformity, traditionalists are now accused of being woefully out of step and hopelessly out of date. Now is a good time to reconsider the issues basic to this debate and to reassert the arguments for biblical manhood and womanhood.”

Can't wait for the top five.

"This is one Republican who would prefer that the former half-term governor promote her reality shows and hawk her books without demeaning the reputations of Presidents Reagan and Bush. These great men dedicated their lives to public service and are too good to be fodder for her gaudy circus sideshow. If Republicans want to embrace Palin as a cultural icon whose anti-intellectualism fulfills a base political need, then have at it. I suppose it’s cheaper than therapy. But if the party of Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio wants to return to the White House anytime soon, it’s time that Republican leaders started standing up and speaking the truth to Palin," – Joe Scarborough.

Jeffrey replies to my inference that he wants a war with Iran:

I am opposed to a military strike on Iran for the foreseeable future. Last week, I wrote, of the Stuxnet virus that has apparently slowed down Iran’s centrifuges: “It is too early, obviously, to assess how much long-term damage the virus has done to the Iranian enrichment program, but I think it is possible to say that Stuxnet might be the best thing to happen to the Jewish people since the discovery that Scarlett Johansson is an M.O.T.”… I believe, with some relief, that we are farther now from a military confrontation with Iran than we were six months ago, when I wrote my cover story on this subject, in part because of the subterfuge program, and in part because of the sanctions regime put in place by President Obama.

I take him at his word, and he has a right to veer back and forth on this as events and circumstances change. That’s called exercizing practical judgment, even if it can be confusing for some readers over time. But in addressing his ugly claim that I believe

it is a group of warmongering Jews — alone — who seek to ignite World War III.

he now merely writes:

What is pleasing about the Wikileaks dump to me is that it disproves the narrative perpetrated by Andrew, and others, that it is only Israel advocating for war against Iran. This is an argument he has been making obsessively for more than a year. These documents seem to prove that, all the while, the most strident lobbyists for war against Iran have been Arab leaders, not Jews. I can understand why Andrew is so upset.

Notice something about these two passages. Jeffrey interchangeably uses “Israel” and “Jews” in the paragraph above, when it suits him, which makes anyone’s commentary on Israel at any particular time indistinguishable from some grand ethnic or racial statement about “Jews”. For me and most people, there is, of course, a distinction. There is also a distinction between Israel and any particular Israeli government. And that is why strongly resisting the arguments and actions of any one Israeli government is not about Israel as such or “Jews” or “the Jews.” It is about my good faith belief about US interests. By conflating these things so casually, Jeffrey keeps the anti-Semite card fully on the table, chilling criticism of Israel as if it were indistinguishable from bigotry. This rhetorical game really does have to stop. As for the substantive issue, I am not upset, just amazed at how shamelessly many neocons dance from one position to another – now seeking to destabilize the Arab autocracies, now citing them as allies in their campaign for World War III. And it is simply a fact that I have not argued that Israel alone wants war, although Israel has obviously been the main public champion. I have long fully understood and acknowledged that the Arab Sunni dictators are deeply hostile to Iran’s nuclear weapon development, and would love to crush the “Shiite trash” they despise and fear, especially if someone else can take the blame. Since Jeffrey actually witnessed my taking on the King of Jordan in this respect, and since it is integral to my most detailed argument about Israel and Palestine here and here, it is particularly disingenuous of him to maintain the canard that I have denied this in some fashion.

The Israeli government and the Arab dictatorships, for different reasons, want military action sooner rather than later. We all know this. All the Wikileaks cables prove is how gutless, cynical and two-faced the Arab dictators are in public. Again: not exactly news. When they openly campaign for war on Iran in public, when they join hands with the Israelis in demanding action on the world stage: that will be news. And it will matter.

And, by the way, if you want to read an analysis of the Iranian nuclear crisis that truly is focused almost solely on Israel’s existential fears and push for war, try Jeffrey’s cover-story. Yes, he acknowledges in an aside that

moderate Arab regimes … fear an Iranian bomb with an intensity that in some instances matches Israel’s

as I have as well. But the narrative Jeffrey has been promoting is exactly that Israel more than any other country cares about the Iranian nuclear program – and for good reason. I agree with him. But it is a little rich for him now to accuse me of the very narrative he has been pushing, when almost everyone has been pushing it, and when it logically does not exclude the fact that privately, cynical and self-serving Arab autocrats are as hostile to Iran as Israel.

John Bolton joins Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum as FNC employees running for president. Has this ever happened on any news channel before anywhere?

Adam Serwer smacks around the WaPo columnist and torture apologist:

Last week, I wrote that many of those writing in support of the military commissions in the aftermath of the Ahmed Ghailani verdict, like Marc Thiessen, were actually just writing in support of torture. Then Thiessen obliged me by proving my point, spending a few sentences defending the military commissions and a few hundred words defending the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation program."

This is because a defense of the military commissions is very hard to make. In their entire history, only five convictions have been secured through military commissions, most through plea agreement, while civilian courts convicted hundreds throughout the same period. They've yielded light sentences, except in one case where the accused simply boycotted the trial. Even with the rules tilted towards the government, they have proven to be ineffective. They're expensive and more vulnerable to overturn on appeal than convictions in civilian court. Conservatives support them not because of their efficacy, but because they sound tough. Thiessen of course, is a perfect example of this. The Obama administration's hybrid approach to trying terrorists is, sadly, almost indistinguishable from that of Obama's predecessor and Thiessen's former boss…

In all honesty, the fact that we are even arguing whether or not evidence gleaned from the use of torture techniques originally meant to elicit false confessions should be admissible in court seems utterly surreal. Thiessen's ongoing, peculiar fascination with torture has led him to believe having a court system that would allow such statements would be a virtue rather than an utter disgrace to everything the United States is meant to stand for.

Yglesias isn’t scared:

It’s true that any particular doctor can refuse to see Medicare patients and instead fill his schedule with the privately insured, but doctors as a whole can’t do this. Medicare beneficiaries are too big a slice of the market for the entire doctoring industry to give them up as clients. Instead what you’re looking at is that in markets with meaningful competition among health care providers, the most in-demand providers are filling their schedules with the highest-paying customers—i.e., not Medicare beneficiaries. Medicaid has even lower payment rates than Medicare and so we already have a quite robust “lower-tier” of health care providers who take Medicaid patients and a higher tier that doesn’t.

Aaron Carroll is much more glum.

Cory Doctorow:

Hideyuki Nakayama's glass globe doorknob refracts the scene on the other side of the door in its depths, giving you a preview of what's going on in the next room before you turn the knob.

Yeah, right.

PPP runs the numbers:

Only 28% of voters in the country think that Palin is capable of defeating Barack Obama while 60% think she is not and 12% aren’t sure.

More importantly:

[L]ess than half of Republicans think she’s capable of beating Obama- 48% think she would be able to, 37% think she would not be able to, and 15% have no opinion.

This of course does not mean they won’t still vote for her.

Dan Ariely's rule of thumb:

I think that the best gifts circumvent guilt in two key ways: by eliminating the guilt that accompanies extravagant purchases, and by reducing the guilt that comes from coupling payment with consumption. The best advice on gift-giving, therefore, is to get something that someone really wants but would feel guilty buying otherwise.