Author: Andrew Sullivan

by Patrick Appel

It's good to have Daniel Larison blogging again. Catching up on old news, Larison takes on Douthat's worries about Muslim assimilation:

What we’re talking about here isn’t a question of assimilation to the norms of American culture or an[ acceptance] of the principles of constitutional government, but a question of conforming to the limits of approved political discourse. Of course, there is no way for Rauf to satisfy his critics in a way that will not destroy his credibility with most other Muslims, which I have to assume is the point. Anti-jihadists are always lamenting that moderate Muslims are too quiescent, passive and silent, but the moment that one of them says anything that they don’t like they dismiss him entirely. Little wonder that many Muslims here and around the world find anti-jihadists’ professions of common cause with them hard to take seriously.

by Patrick Appel

Stephen Budiansky goes a little far here, but he's right that excessive memorialization has consequences:

It is hard in this age of endless memorialization to even express this view without sounding callous: but Londoners did not turn their entire city into a "hallowed ground" or a shrine for the dead or a monument to British victimhood. They rebuilt, they went on, they rightly saw that the truest memorial to the dead was to show the Nazis that their city would rise again as if the Nazis had never existed on the face of the earth. I have always felt a deep discomfort similarly with the entire holocaust-memorial and holocaust-study industry. As a Jew, I hate the idea that the defining fact of my people's entire history should be what the fucking Nazis did to us.

There is a great Spanish proverb: olvidar la injuria es la mejor venganza: to forget an insult is the greatest revenge.

by Conor Friedersdorf

Fortune has a great piece on the secrets that make the grocery store chain a tremendous success.

by Conor Friedersdorf

Over at Cato's blog, Jim Harper has eloquent remarks about the controversy over a mosque near Ground Zero:

There is a strategic dimension to the story. This episode is signaling to audiences around the world the current relationship between the United States and Islam. These audiences might support or oppose the United States and act accordingly to undermine or support terrorist groups. For these people, knowledge of a Muslim community, active in New York and proximate to Ground Zero, would help put the lie to the “clash of civilizations” narrative sought by al-Qaeda and its franchises, undercutting their support.

The debate itself sends signals: If the United States were predominantly anti-Muslim, this debate wouldn’t be happening. If our political leaders had the power to decide matters of religious observance, this debate wouldn’t be happening. The debate is helping to show Muslim populations around the world—who might not know otherwise—that we think and debate about these things, that we are a functioning democratic republic, and that our country is undecided about the position of Muslims in the United States or, at worst, weakly anti-Muslim. 

In the video clip after the jump, conservative icon Ted Olson expresses well, I think, how standing by our constitutional values is good counterterrorist signaling. These strategic considerations may not be dispositive, but my preference is for this project to go forward and communicate to worldwide audiences that we are still the pluralistic, welcoming, confident society we have been in the past.

Islam did not attack the United States on 9/11. It is simple collectivism—the denial of individual agency that libertarians reject—to believe that the tiny band of thugs who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks speak for an entire religion, culture, or creed. Our sympathy to families of 9/11 victims and our vestigial fears should not allow us to indulge gross and wrong generalizations about individuals of any faith.

Awhile back, Noah Millman made the case against signaling, and doubted our ability to do it effectively.

by Patrick Appel

Radley Balko writes:

[The price] of used cars jumps 30 percent. So we have a government program whose stated aim was to shore up huge, failed corporations by giving public money to mostly upper-income people that in the end will penalize low and middle-income people. But remember folks, it’s the libertarians—who opposed [Cash for Clunkers]—who are greedy corporatists who hate the poor.

If you read the article, you'll see that certain makes and models of have jumped 30 percent. Smaller used cars cost about 10 percent more. But Balko's basic point holds.

by Chris Bodenner

John Dickerson draws conclusions from her winning streak:

Palin now has more support for a favorite story line of hers: The pundits and so-called experts said things were going to go one way but she had faith; she knew the real deal. This is part of her larger pitch: that she understands something fundamental about conservative voters. That, in turn, is what voters believe about her, which makes them think she has a special light to guide the country out of the muck. How much real power Palin has to change minds or give candidates she endorses is still a big question. She may just be good at picking winners. But the Palin brand now grows ever stronger because other Republicans will want to access that magic.

Even if they don't believe it really exists, they have to pretend it does or risk winding up like Lisa Murkowski. If she ever decides to run for president, her opponents will have to treat her very gently.

Meanwhile, Alexandra Gutierrez earns herself a Von Hoffman award.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Starflyer 59 is one of the most consistent rock bands around, God-fearing or otherwise.  And with 17 years worth of stellar records populating Christian bookstore bargain bins everywhere, they practically define the term "underrated."

Another writes:

I love Jason Martin's band Starflyer 59.  I had several albums before a friend informed they were a Christian band.  I was lucky enough to have Jason Martin mix my (secular) band's first EP and he gave us his signature sound.

Martin talked about his faith with the Blue Star Journal:

BSJ: It seems in every interview I've read with you, you are asked about the 'spirituality' of the SF59 lyrics. I for one appreciate any Christian artist who does whatever he/she feels led to do, whether it is blatantly spiritual or not. I am sure you are tired of addressing the issue of SF59 lyrics not being 'Christian enough'. Will "Americana" have a more direct spiritual theme?

JM: Yes. The theme of "Americana" is basically how unimportant music is, and it should not be your lord – Jesus Christ is. I mean it's hard to explain lyrics because a lot of it is me talking to myself in a song. But, I hope it does encourage people. I'm tired of being sad.

BSJ: There are any number of "underground" or "alternative" Christian bands – bands that have some following, but do not get wide exposure in the mainstream CCM media. SF59 would have to be considered as one of the most popular of these types of bands. Why do you think this is?

JM: Starflyer is just not very appealing to "musicians". I don't have the voice or dynamics to make the front page. I used to play in my church worship band. Most of the people were into the CCM bands. They loved the powerful voice, the dynamic lyrics, the musicianship, or whatever. I just care about good songs. But, I don't want to knock those guys. If God is using some of their ministries, it's cool, and if God is using us not on the cover of CCM, that's cool too.

by Conor Friedersdorf

Ryan writes about something I'd never heard about: rental safety inspections.

In the last two towns where I have lived (Burlington, VT and State College, PA) both had local laws requiring that rental units had to be inspected at regular intervals. In other words, once a year (or so) renters are legally required to allow a government employee to conduct a search for illegal [supposedly just safety-related] activity.  If they catch a violation either the resident or landlord can be fined depending on who's at fault.  In Burlington if you refuse them they will just come back with a warrant regardless of probable cause.  In State College there is just a flat fine for not having had it done.  I don't think you could invent a more straightforward violation of our 4th amendment rights than to get searched at regular intervals, without probable cause, to
make sure that no one is acting illegally. I seem to be completely alone in actually caring.  Am I missing something?

You're not alone anymore. This is outrageous. And the law would never stand if they tried to apply it to homeowners.

by Patrick Appel

Kevin Drum dissents:

It's useful to know where you can find political allies. If you can find liberals who favor charter schools, less regulation of small businesses, and an end to Fannie Mae, that's well and good. But that's 10% or less of my worldview. I also favor high marginal tax rates on the rich, national healthcare, full funding for Social Security, more spending on early childhood education, stiff regulations on the financial industry, robust environmental rules, a strong labor movement, a cap-and-trade regime to reduce carbon emissions, a major assault on income inequality, more and better public transit, and plenty of other lefty ambitions that I won't bother to list. If we could do all that without a bigger state, that would be fine. But we can't. When it's all said and done, if we lived in Drum World I figure combined government expenditures would be 40-45% of GDP and the funding source for all that would be strongly progressive. "Statist" is an obviously provocative (and usually puerile) way to frame this, but really, it's not all that far off the mark. It wouldn't be tyranny, any more than Sweden is a tyranny, but it would certainly be a world in which the American state was quite a bit bigger than it is now.