Author: Andrew Sullivan

Elizabeth Pisani reacts to the news. She notes that the test subjects weren’t very good at taking pills:

[Taking the pill is] a smaller protective effect than using a condom all the time, of course. The thing is, we know that people aren’t good at using condoms all the time. And what these study results show us is that people aren’t very good at taking a pill every day, either, though they are keen to tell researchers that they do. One of the most striking things about the results was the mismatch between self-reported pill taking and measured levels of active drugs in people´s bodies.

Her second fear:

10 people who tested negative at the start of the study were actually in the very early stages of HIV infection. Both of the 2 who happened to be assigned to the Truvada group developed resistant forms of the virus, suggesting that giving these drugs in the early stages of infection when the virus is replicating very rapidly may fertilise resistant strains.

Her bigger point on the politics of the breakthrough:

Worries about resistance aside, the news seems pretty good. So why do I say it’s a political nightmare? Because antiretroviral drugs are expensive; a lot of people who need them to prolong their lives can’t get them. Now we’re talking about giving them to gay guys so that they can go out and screw around as much as they like without having to think about using the cheaper and potentially more effective (but generally more bothersome) option of condoms. I’ve been a bit sniffy about this myself in the past, though I did spend about 15 years taking a pill every day so that I could have as much sex as I liked without contracting that long-term, life-changing sexually transmitted condition called pregnancy. But in many countries it is still very hard to give out condoms because it is seen to promote promiscuity.

If we could figure out a way to improve adherance, putting ARVs on the public tab will probably save money overall. It’s certainly something we should be trying out in all sorts of different ways. That includes the possibility of “disco dosing” — taking pills only on the days when one has a pretty good idea that one’s going to end up barebacking. But as condoms have taught us, the fact that things work technically doesn’t necessarily mean they work in real life, let alone in politics. Even if we can find a better way to deliver pre exposure prophylaxis (implants? it’s what I do instead of pills these days against that other STD, and I love it) I think it is going to be a hard sell in many countries.

Never stop believing in RoboCop:

(Hat tip: Rob Scott)

Dave Roberts has a theory:

Beliefs tend to be reverse engineered, as it were: People tend to construct an identity around what they (and their tribe) do. That suggests that they will only construct a different identity when they start doing different things. So imagine the same guy who rejected human-caused climate change in the poll.

Imagine that bike riding were made convenient and useful enough that he started doing it. Imagine that his neighbors started getting solar panels, to the point that he felt pressured to do it, and he became a power producer. Imagine he's in the military and his platoon started insulating their tents and carrying solar water purifiers.

Next thing you know, he's a guy who uses solar power and rides a bike. His behavior has changed, so he's telling a different story about himself. That new story, that new identity — the guy who rides a bike and uses solar power — is much more likely to incorporate climate change concern than the previous one.

Not all poseurish musical acts are uplifting and liberal. Some are smug and Palinesque:

Pareene is on a roll, calling out pundits he despises. Here he is on Marc Thiessen:

While the worst thing about Thiessen as a person is his unequivocal support for torture, the worst thing about hiring him to pen an Op-Ed column is that he's a boring, predictable columnist. The man got famous for arguing that plainly illegal treatment of prisoners is in fact both legal and necessary, and then he writes columns about how earmarks are bad. It's like telling Torquemada to film a TV pilot and he comes back with a three-camera sitcom about a lovable fat guy dealing with family life. 

Prospero revisits the great writer's last days and looks sadly at the country he loved:

Devastatingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the 100th anniversary of Tolstoy’s death is hardly marked in Russia. Tolstoy was a man who opposed state violence, who considered the Church’s union with the state as blasphemous, who denounced pseudo-patriotism, and who wrote to Alexander III asking him to pardon those who assassinated his father. These principles are firmly out of fashion in today’s Russia. By turning Tolstoy into an icon, the Soviets ultimately hollowed him out.

A recent political manifesto published by Nikita Mikhalkov, one of Russia’s most odious, wealthy and Kremlin-favoured film directors, is a good example of the country’s dreary move away from Tolstoy’s ideals. Called “Right and Truth”, the 10,000-word call for “enlightened conservatism” draws on the ideas of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, one of Russia’s most reactionary thinkers, who viewed Tolstoy as one of his most dangerous enemies. (He once denounced democracy as "the insupportable dictatorship of vulgar crowd", and saw Tolstoy’s non-violent resistance as a real threat.) As a senior figure in the Church, Pobedonostsev helped to initiate Tolstoy’s excommunication. In 1899 the Holy Synod banned all prayers in Tolstoy’s memory after his death.

A hundred years after Tolstoy’s death, this ban feels very much in place in Russia today.

(Photo: Tolstoy's simple grave.)

Palin repeats it in her new book.

Mark Thiessen regrets it:

Can any of us imagine the debate we’ve had in recent weeks unfolding in the days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001? Would any of us have objected to the deployment of millimeter-wave scanners had the technology been available then? The current uproar could happen only in a country that has begun to forget the horror of 9/11.

Conor pounces:

Isn’t that something? In Mr. Thiessen’s view, decisions are best made by putting ourselves in the sort of mindset we had just after watching Al Qaeda murder thousands of our fellow citizens, as if only the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack affords the clarity necessary to make smart policy. Should time pass, affording emotional distance that puts the threat of terrorism in perspective, he sees it as a bad thing. And an argument is apparently disqualified if on 09/12/2001 it would’ve proved unpopular.

Yglesias has related thoughts.

Reza Aslan keeps hope alive:

The country’s right-leaning parliament did in fact attempt to impeach Ahmadinejad on 14 counts of violating the law, including illegally trading 76.5 million barrels of oil valued at approximately $9 billion and withdrawing nearly $600 million from Iran’s foreign reserve fund without parliamentary approval. These are serious charges that would lead not only to impeachment but, possibly, to arrest and imprisonment. However, according to reports from a number of conservative newspapers in Iran, lawmakers were kept from bringing the impeachment charges to a floor vote through direct interference by none other than the supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei… On Monday, lawmakers started circulating a petition to begin openly debating his impeachment. They need 74 signatures to proceed. Thus far, they have received 40, and counting.

Part of the mess is due to Ahmadinejad's dictatorial flouting of parliamentary prerogatives; but part is also due to the remarkably successful sanctions regime Obama relentlessly put together.

Evan Osnos says that getting China to lean on North Korea isn't likely:

By the morning after North Korea’s most serious artillery attack on the South in decades, the unofficial American consensus had coalesced around a clear, unsurprising, and ostensibly comforting position: “The United States and its allies should hold Beijing responsible for putting a stop to Mr. Kim’s dangerous behavior,” as the Washington Post editorial page put it. The Times agreed: “China … has the best chance of walking the North back from the brink. It must take the lead.”

Now that this is settled, there’s only one problem: China doesn’t want to take the lead, and chances are that it won’t anytime soon. Adopting that as the ultimate goal of international strategy is probably a recipe for non-action.

Greg Scoblete doesn't think China has all that much power over the Hermit kingdom:

It's possible for China to really pressure the North by cutting off aid, but, as Jian notes, fears of a refugee flood and the prospect of an American military presence directly on their border has thus far stayed China's hand.