Author: Andrew Sullivan

Bernstein notes how the debate has shifted:

By 2008, the only way to fully support George W. Bush was to oppose torture but to either ignore the vast evidence of what the United States had done, or to oppose torture but define it narrowly to exclude virtually everything that had every been considered to be torture.  And after the election, the emphasis shifted again, and while few have explicitly said that "torture" per se is good, the disclaimers are increasingly, as far as I can see, less and less prominent.  The old debate about whether the revelations were true, a very live debate through the middle of Bush's second term, is long gone, and explicit torture supporters (explicit in supporting everything but the actual word) dominate conservative discussion of the issue. 

Marcy Wheeler partially blames the press:

Is it possible…that by embracing the torture apologists’ relativism, newspapers encouraged individuals to think about torture as a political preference? This is all obviously speculation on my part. But it seems to me the most important question raised by this study on public opinion about torture is why under a then-popular nominally anti-torture president, torture became popular.

President Obama signaled as much by his actions, if not his words. By declining to initiate prosecution of indisputable war crimes, he tacitly endorsed them as not that serious, and continued America's withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions (it is a breach of the conventions not to prosecute clear instances of war crimes). And the hiring of torture supporters, like Marc Thiessen, at newspapers like the Washington Post, definitely entrenched the precedent.

The moral certainty of the Cheneyites, in other words, was compounded by the moral cowardice of the Obamaites and the Washington establishment. Yes, torture ended in 2009, and we should all be relieved by that. But that was at the cost of its long-term legitimization. It will return as soon as we get a Republican president. Can you imagine the extent and gravity of it under a future president Palin?

From TNC's take on the NYT's cowardice:

Some years ago, I heard a linguist jokingly assert that the difference between languages and dialects, was that languages had armies. I am not convinced that this holds in every case. Nevertheless his point was that the labels we affix to things have a direct relationship to power. Throughout the 20th century, unpleasant regimes have made use of waterboarding. But they lacked the power of proximity, and thus could not cleanse their acts with the white words of "enhanced interrogation."

And few newspapers rushed to cleanse their record for them.

And dozens more pickup lines from Mad Men:

Money quote:

One problem with political discourse in our age is that in the heat of debate, we too easily suspend a disinterested search for the truth and advance a more narrow, partisan aim. That leads to hypocrisy and double standards. Very few of us are completely free of such things. We view the world through a tinted lens. But we ought to at least aspire to intellectual integrity and uphold as models those who embody it.

A reader writes:

Her moves and the GOP's current condition suggest to me that what she's really running for is vice president again. I'm surprised that no one out there seems to be considering this possibility, since from what I can tell it's pretty much inevitable.

For both her and her competitors, it's the only way to square the circle. No one in the party can win without her support, but she lacks the credibility with the public to make it on her own. And if she loses on her own two feet, she's toast – not just in politics, but with her emerging media empire as well. But an alliance with either Romney or Gingrich would instantly make them a favorite, while perfectly setting herself up for a future presidency. If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can form a successful alliance, then Palin should have her pick of suitors.

Another writes:

The one question I haven't seen raised – and it could be because I haven't been looking particularly hard – is what will happen if she runs and loses the nomination. Since McCain brought her into our lives almost two years ago, it's become pretty apparent that she cares little about anyone but herself and is more than a little delusional. Why WOULDN'T she run as a 3rd party? Do we really believe she thinks (or will think after what is sure to be an ugly primary) that she owes the GOP establishment anything?

In my mind the Republicans will end up with one of three situations: 1) Sarah Palin as nominee, 2) Sarah Palin as VP to appease her, or 3) Sarah Palin as general election opponent. How can this be anything but an unmitigated disaster for them?

A recent USDA study found that a "tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children." Reihan's response:

I tend to think that some kind of soda tax is inevitable. As Alan Viard suggests, it is very tempting to tax seemingly frivolous goods, like tanning and “luxury” vehicles. I would much prefer having a simple, transparent revenue source. But stealth taxes like the soda tax are a way of keeping the headline numbers on income taxes and flat consumption taxes low. And if the soda tax really does lead to a significant public health improvement, well, who can strenuously complain? Cigarette taxes seem to have turned out reasonably well when we consider reduced levels of cigarette consumption on the part of teenagers and young adults.

I'm with Reihan on this. Sin taxes are not the same as prohibition; they just help to finance the social costs of the sin. Although I'd much rather have a small but slowly increasing tax on carbon than on soda.

Free Exchange tries to explain why some of the largest countries fare so poorly in international sporting events:

People…need a certain level of wealth before they are able to take the kinds of risks necessary for what must be one of the highest-risk, highest-return kinds of careers. Take music: it is very easy to ask, why don't more (pick your developing country) people make a career in music or art? Well, because it's risky; risk appetite is low at very low levels of income. It also takes a lot of resources to train a world-class athlete in any sport.

Palin's hairdo is all the rage among Hasidic women:

In Brooklyn’s Borough Park … stylist Gail Rosenzweig said half of her Orthodox Jewish clients want Palin’s style. “It’s a fashion statement,” said Rosenzweig as she worked on a Palin wig. Even though Palin is a Christian from Alaska, where Jews make up less than 1 percent of the state’s 670,000 population, Rosenzweig said her clients “like her classic look. It can be worn up or down.” Shlomo Klein, an Orthodox Jew and vice president of wig maker Georgie Wigs, said he sold more than 50 of the “Sarah P” wigs across America in recent weeks to women wanting wigs either for medical or religious reasons.

Bobby Jindal goes there. Churches too, of course. Because, as Jesus put it,

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Do these people actually believe they are Christians?