Author: Andrew Sullivan

I guess I didn't expect much of a response to my post yesterday and I wasn't disappointed. But I am not the first to make this case. Back when democracy-building in the Arab world was a major neoconservative theme, my current boss, James Bennet, then NYT's correspondent in Jerusalem, wrote two pieces. From May 2002:

It is perhaps Pollyannaish even to conjure the scenario, at such a dark moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations. But imagine the effect on Israeli fears about Palestinian intentions, and on Arab-Israeli diplomacy, if a democratic Palestinian government sought a peace accord guaranteeing a two-state solution with Israel. Imagine the effect on Palestinian life …

Among the Arabs, Palestinians are uniquely suited for such a democratic experiment, because of their bitter, close relationship with Israel, their stateless years and the intense international focus on their cause.

Nader Said, a sociologist at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah, said that the Israeli occupation had instilled in Palestinians ''their defiance of authority in general, and this sort of tendency for freedom — wanting personal freedom, and to not be controlled.'' At the same time, he said, ''even under the worst of circumstances, Palestinians have admired Israeli democracy.'' These are experiences that Mr. Arafat and his closest associates, in exile for so many years, did not have.

He followed up a year later. I recall Paul Wolfowitz once making this point, but now that Arafat is dead and even Israelis are remarking on the solid economic and political progress on the West Bank, why are there so few neocons eager to support this emphasis? Their silence does not help them convince others that they are genuine about Arab and Muslim democracy, rather than deploying these memes as a cynical way to advance what they foolishly think are the interests of Israel in the region.

But I remain hopeful, if only because the alternative is so bloody depressing. Imagine what the $8 billion thrown into corrupt hands in Iraq could accomplish in Palestine.

A reader writes:

Thanks for the Doctor Who theme mashup. I think that show and I switched DNA somewhere when I was a kid, as evidenced by the uncontrollable smile and comfy TV chair dance I do whenever I hear the theme song. Thank you also for bringing up the Doctor’s inherent decency. It’s funny to reflect what the show has meant to me in my life having had sort of a typical broken family experience and having been raised in some small way by the TV as a result. Choosing The Doctor as an early role model wasn’t the worst thing to happen to me!

Another writes:

Here’s an amazing thing about that theme.

The original – created in 1963 by Delia Derbyshire and the BBC Radiophonic workshop – is an absolute seminal masterpiece of electronic music. Derbyshire and her team created it by generating individual electronic tones with an early analogue synth, and then edited it and assembled it by hand, splicing the magnetic tape of each note into sequence manually with scotch tape. It’s breathtaking what they achieved for the time, and the fact that it still stands up today, 47 years later.

Another:

My children are 13 and 15 and are obsessed with Doctor Who.  With the advent of YouTube, they have been able to catch up on a lot of the past forty years of the show.  My daughter feels that Eccleston was best but dearly loves Tennant.  My son and I feel that Baker was excellent but that Matt Smith might just be the best of all eleven Doctors.  His humanness is absolutely charming and at the same time even more alien.

The show has also led to some real world discussions on politics, history and science. At this moment in my life, Dr. Who has brought me closer to my teenagers.  While others feel more distant to their teens, I’m grateful that this program has helped us relate!

Another:

Finally, something we can agree on!

I’ve been watching Doctor Who since the ’70s (we Americans had to wait a while before PBS picked it up) and I’ve probably watched more hours of Doctor Who than any other program. Tom Baker is also “my” Doctor, although I was also quite fond of the Jon Pertwee era – Doctor Who remixed with a bit of the Avengers and mini-skirts is A-OK in my book.

I hooked my two oldest boys on the series by buying the old episodes on DVD and they were really getting into it when the new series began, so it’s been a veritable Who-fest around these parts ever since. My youngest son will probably start in on the older series very soon (he’s autistic, so calibrating the level of thrills is a sometimes spotty task), and I’ve even got my wife watching the new series.

Hope you’ve managed to get the hubby watching – nothing like a good Who story on a rainy evening.

Another:

The compilation you posted struck a chord with this Yank. Not owning cable nor having a TV when Dr Who has been available in the US has left me entirely in the dark – until three weeks ago, when I was browsing my girlfriend’s Netflix instant watch.  Since then I’ve managed to watch every episode from the modern series up to Matt Smith. I just finished the last David Tennant episode last night and I was almost in tears.

It’s remarkable to me how a show can be so quintessentially British, yet still have such a massive universal appeal. It’s a paradox of local and global in the way it manages to be such an icon for the British, yet still be so engaging for someone who has never even visited the British Isles. To me, that’s the sign of a good show. The Greatest Show in the Galaxy.

Reihan clarifies and defends himself:

What I take strong exception to is the notion that I wrote my JList column out of careerist motivation rather than a nice guy motivation.

I kid you not. Or maybe just not paralyzed by Clintonian fear.

Serwer argues that the political wilderness has made Republicans less tolerant of Muslims:

As one of Josh Marshall's readers suggests, what's happened here is exactly what happened with torture, Gitmo, and using civilian trials to try terrorists. Free from the shackles of responsible governance and having to defend a Bush administration that insisted on characterizing Islam as a "religion of peace," they can give free rein to their prejudices and preferences. Hence the myth that Bush didn't have a default policy of trying most terrorism suspects in civilian court, the end of the once bipartisan agreement over closing Gitmo, and the forthright embrace of torture now that there's no need to defend Bush's insistence that "the United States does not torture." 

Once Republicans take back power, the policy implications of their current sensibilities will be unsustainable. But it will be too late, because they will have created a constituency that demands them.

Like I said, it will get worse before it will get better. The potential cost to this country's social cohesion and foreign policy remains, however, enormous.

Pejman pushes back. There's a blizzard of ad hominem insults, but no argument so far as I can see, except that we should all be careful before we write for fear of unintended consequences. I understand the point, and will try to be more vigilant about hyperbole (blogs are real-time thoughts and not the place for truly considered writing), but I have to say this is not my view of what writers should do in general, regardless of the form we are using. I think our core responsibility is to tell the truth, as best we can, to our readers. Sometimes, that means saying things that might not have the best consequences in real life, or can give comfort to those who should be given none, or foment hatred, or complacency, or any number of bad things.

But my instinct when told not to say certain things in certain ways – not because they are not true, but because it is somehow irresponsible to say them – is to talk about them more candidly. I published the Bell Curve excerpt in TNR because I deeply believed it was a debate worth outing rather than stigmatizing – although it could clearly foment racism. When I wrote "When Plagues End" in 1996 about the profound impact of new HIV treatments, I knew that all the caveats in the piece would be ignored and I'd be attacked for promoting complacency and more HIV-transmission and be accused of being callous toward those left behind in the plague. But what I wrote was true, and has been borne out by subsequent events. When I wrote "What's So Bad About Hate?" I knew that many of the arguments would be disturbing and could be used by bigots to feel better about themselves. So what? Either my argument succeeds or fails. And as long as I am vigilant against my own human dark side (we all have one), I feel I should veer toward candor rather than sensitivity.

On Israel, I see a great opportunity being wasted and a country I deeply admire slowly killing itself. The notion that I should suppress these beliefs – or focus always on relaying them with extreme sensitivity to language – is one I'll resist. In fact, I think the chilling effect of this charge of fomenting anti-Semitism by criticizing the actions of the pro-Israel lobby is worse than getting it all out in the open.

"Last night cannot be unseen. Yes, we all shared a few laughs as you gave us your list of reasons for the transformation, but our laughter turned to tears when we realized the clean-shaved Jon Stewart we knew and loved was naught but a memory," – style blogger Rika Nurrahmah, begging the Daily Show host to shave off his new go-tee.

As a strong supporter of facial hair, I do wish to concur with Stewart himself when he noted that he was twenty years late with the go-tee. Damn right. Go for the full beard, or a super-cool, ahead of the curve mustache. I'm afraid I can't look at him without thinking of Colonel Sanders right now. Or three words: Just For Men.

Monkey wrangles goat (which is close enough to a lamb).