Author: Andrew Sullivan

by Patrick Appel

Bernstein fears that we are about to find out:

Candidates aren't completely irrelevant.  The statistical models don't capture everything that happens (and don't claim to); it's certainly very possible that a good candidate could do a bit better than a lousy one.  But absent something spectacular, that's apt to be in the range of a percentage point or two.
Now, the one thing to add to this, and getting back to Palin, is that so far all the major party nominees — at least in the era for which we have good enough data to run the models — have been more or less adequate … Sarah Palin, on the other hand…we've never had a nominee anything like what she would be. 

We've had nominees with weak polling numbers, but nothing anywhere close to her unpopularity.  We've had candidates who didn't seem to have learned much beyond the basics of public policy, but she appears (still, at this late date) to be a step or two below the worst we've seen on that score.  I don't recall anyone who was nominated after the sorts of ethics difficulties she's had; I don't recall anyone who was nominated with such little experience (and, yes, Obama in 2008 was relatively inexperienced, but not as much as she is).  Despite all that, she certainly could wind up (were she nominated) doing about as well as a generic Republican as conservative as she is would do, but it does seem to me that there's a huge amount of potential downside here that Republicans would be nuts to risk. 

Of course, Republicans would also be nuts to nominate her because, should she actually win, they'd have a disaster in the White House.

She is starting to build a political operation.

by David Frum

Behold the insidious reach of the Israel lobby. Andrew Sullivan takes a holiday and he invites me of all people to join Dave Weigel as a guest bloggers. I’ll be cross-posting all this week here at the Daily Dish and at my own site, FrumForum.com.

Now – time to rethink the Middle East!

We’ll start with the Economist’s cringing obituary of the Lebanese Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Fadlallah:

“Once damned by Westerners as a mentor to hostage-takers and suicide-bombers, he was viewed by his own flock as the most open-minded of ayatollahs.”

Sound familiar? Yes, life imitates The Onion once again …

IRAQI GANDHI PREACHES SLIGHTLY LESS VIOLENCE

"Violence is not the solution," al-Naqib wrote in his breakthrough 1998 treatise Practicing Semiviolence. "It is only approximately 19/20ths of the solution. We should not work toward the total annihilation of all who oppose us—just some of them. And perhaps it is best we practice occasional mercy for the innocent, such as the young, who can easily recuperate."

In a 2003 interview with British newspaper The Guardian, al-Naqib said that the "decadent immorality of Western civilization must be almost, but not quite, wiped off the face of the earth."

Above is a clip of Dave Weigel and David Frum discussing partisanship in DC and how neither of them fit very well in either camp at the moment. I'm beyond chuffed to note that both Dave and David have kindly agreed to guest-blog this next week while I take a short break. Underbloggers Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner will be chipping in as usual. See you in a week's time. Be polite to our guests. They will be reading the in-tray while I waddle in some tidal pools.

I've gushed over her before and quoted from her new book, "Absence of Mind." There's an interview with her in the Atlantic here from 2004 by Jennie Rothenberg Gritz. So it as great to see her on Stewart, even if she probably soared a few thousand feet above the heads of many of the viewers:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Marilynne Robinson
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Alan Wolfe reviews Terry Eagleton's new book:

“We cannot pass reliable moral judgment on the human species,” he argues, “because we have never been able to observe it other than in desperately deformed conditions.” Lift the burdens imposed by scarcity and poverty, and then we will find that human beings need not kill others to make up for their moral and psychological failings. This seems to me, if I may be so crude as to repair to the language of social science, a non-falsifiable proposition, assuming, as it does, a condition that will never be met. Such futuristic speculation is not what we would expect from a self-proclaimed realist, but logical consistency is not remotely Eagleton’s strength.

A reader writes:

While I appreciate someone on the right who is willing to engage honestly and intellectually with the issue of climate change, I think Manzi continues to make some basic category confusions about climate change, particularly as it concerns this line of argument. What I mean in this case is that Manzi is confusing specific predictions about the future with observation of long-term trends.

While I agree with him that predicting a specific scenario based on climate change is fruitless, or at least so vague as makes no difference from fruitless, we can easily see the OVERALL effects that climate change will have in the future. Thus we can predict the future of climate change based on current trends (e.g. Global temperature increase and lack of species diversity will have far more negative effects than positive ones, and these effects are both compound and cumulative.) without needing to resort to any specific scenario at all.

This idea of predicting without predicting is somewhat easier to see in the realm of, say, cultural history. Consider one of Obama's favorite quotations: "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe this to be true. All the evidence before me indicates that this is true. Thus, I can say with confidence that gay marriage will eventually be legalized in the United States. I can't use the abstract principle to construct a scenario-specific prediction about the exact socio-political conditions of our society when this legalization happens, but I can say from the abstract principle that this is the direction we are heading. I make this judgment based on a variety of political, cultural, and demographic factors.

Similarly, although I cannot make a bunch of concrete predictions about what the world will look like in 2400–or even in 2100, or any other specific time Manzi wants to name–I can definitely say that, to borrow a phrasing, "The arc of climate change is long, but it bends towards an inhospitable planet." The problem with the 2400 date isn't that it's impossible to predict that far, it's that the thinking embodied by that question is still short-term.

That might seem crazy at first blush, but 300 years is LESS TIME THAN OUR OWN VERY YOUNG COUNTRY HAS ALREADY EXISTED. Why are we putting an endpoint on human history at all? Isn't it of critical importance that we as humans find some way to exist in actual equilibrium with our planet, so that humanity can continue indefinitely? In 100 years or 300 years or 500 or 1000 years I plan to have descendants alive on this planet. Why should any of them be sacrificed on the altar of American consumption?

A reader writes:

There are a couple of positive aspects to horoscopes, biorhythms, etc.

1) Asking the question serves a purpose in itself. There's a lot of the same benefits here as we find in prayer. Part of the benefit is just the actual act of forming the question, people deciding that yes, I really have to wonder if I'm in the right job/relationship/apartment, etc. Once you ask that question, you acknowledge that it's something you are questioning, that you see room for improvement in.

2) It unconsciously taps into what you already know to be the truth. People often say that it's the reader picking up subtle hints from the readee and just bouncing it back to them. So yes, the readee is giving off signals, often as to exactly what they know the answer should be. They just need to hear it from someone.

I occasionally have readings, and I absolutely know there's nothing real, "magic," or supernatural going on; but, I do pay attention to my reaction to these fairly random bits of information. Like most people, I will latch on to the random bits that fit and let the others fall by the wayside. I am listening to what I want to hear, so I have to ask myself, "Why is it I'm wanting to hear just that; why does that strike a nerve and this doesn't?" Readings can give you a lot of insight into just what sort of answers you're looking for.

A reader writes:

How do you decide you have an open marriage?  It is much better to do it before you get married.  One of the things I most love about my husband is his honesty and clarity of thought.  We have been married for 20 years.  Before we got married we went through the Catholic Church pre-cana program.  It was very good and helped us define what we thought marriage should be.  There was a very good discussion group about sex.  Since the "mentors" in the group were a good bit older than most of us, some had been married in the late '60s early '70s and talked about the “communes” that they had participated in and the “sharing” lifestyle. 

We talked about what fidelity actually meant.  Trust and sharing, respect and honesty, these are the hallmarks of a great relationship.  We talked about sex as recreation, exercise and the difference between sex and making love. We talked about the possibilities of having other sexual partners, individually as well as together.  We also talked about our desires, fantasies and needs.  Discussing our sex life, defining it and talking about future needs etc became another segment to work on, like finances, child rearing, chores etc. 

Honestly it was one of the most interesting, honest and exceptional discussions I have ever had within the auspices of the Catholic Church.

We periodically take a weekend away to work on our relationship.  We talk about issues before they become problems and come to a mutual decision.  This has also meant we have talked about additional sex partners.  We have to both agree on the partner, whether it is someone we can share and/or enjoy individually.  We also have to think about being discrete.  Society is not really accepting and we have often passed on what might have been offers because of the ‘appearance’ issue.  And people love to talk.  Being even marginally involved with someone who likes to brag, gossip or is spiteful etc can get messy.  And despite what our teenage children think, we do consider their “ick” factor.  Because what we do also impacts them, our community as well as our relationship. 

We have enjoyed several sexual encounters over the years, both together and separately, and plan to continue to do so in the future.  Some of our past partners became great friends, even though we don't have sex with them anymore.  Being honest with them also helped curtail any messy emotional tangles.

Ventenac, France, 12 pm