Author: Andrew Sullivan

At least that's the picture he presents to Jon Rauch.

James McWilliams is aghast that sustainable farming advocates are against petri dish meat:

The politics of meat is the politics of self interest—no matter what side of the debate one is on—and, as is always the case, everyone's interest is fiercely protected except that of the animals. Just as corn and soy are the bread and butter of Big Ag, the persistence of small, traditionally conceptualized farms practicing time honored agricultural techniques is the sine qua non of the sustainable food movement. Without these small family farms, and without animals being humanely raised to be slaughtered, the movement's turf would shrink. The knowledge that science and technology could have the potential to fundamentally redefine (and improve) the very agricultural tradition that so many organizations are designed to protect is knowledge we can hardly expect interested parties to evaluate in fair terms. My guess is that it probably terrifies them.

A reader writes:

To paraphrase Barry Corbin in WarGames, piss on a spark plug if you think it will help.  Of course you should pray for Hitchens, if you think it will accomplish anything.  Or do it if it makes you feel better, which is what I think prayer is really good for. It doesn't require anything from him, not a signature or thumbprint or even his assent.  It also does not require his knowledge.  And there is Biblical support for always praying in secret: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."  Matthew 6:6.

Another writes:

I was intrigued to read your follow-up post with the cancer expert's empirical data: no effect from undisclosed prayer, but a negative impact from the mockery.  Upsetting an ill person wouldn't seem to be the best prescription for his welfare.  On the other hand, I do think that Hitchens is that rare person with the nerve and strength of conviction not to be adversely affected by such undesired gestures.  Reminds me of the dying Thoreau's familiar response to a friend's intercessionary inquiry as to whether he had made his peace with god:  "We've never quarreled."

Another:

I have cancer.  I found this out 3 weeks ago.  In that time I have grieved like I have rarely grieved. 

I have pitied myself in great quantities.  I have questioned the lifestyle and choices I have made over the years.  All these emotions add to the overwhelming feeling of despair.  The best way to combat that is to engage with loved ones.  Reach out to people you know.  Let them know what is going on.  The support of my family and friends brings me back from …. whatever. 

I am also a so-called non-believer. Many have shared their thoughts of prayer for me.  I am not offended by these gestures.  I welcome each and every one.  That and just the simple act of reaching out to me is worth as much as the specialists, surgeons and medicines I will be experiencing over the next several months.  I see their act as a show of caring and however way they want to show it is fine by me.

And you are spot on about the "treating as a tender soul" thing.  Engage me in something, anything, other than my cancer.

Todd May celebrates it:

There is much that might be said about friendships. They allow us to see ourselves from the perspective of another. They open up new interests or deepen current ones. They offer us support during difficult periods in our lives. The aspect of friendship that I would like to focus on is its non-economic character. Although we benefit from our close friendships, these friendships are not a matter of calculable gain and loss. While we draw pleasure from them, they are not a matter solely of consuming pleasure. And while the time we spend with our friends and the favors we do for them are often reciprocated in an informal way, we do not spend that time or offer those favors in view of the reciprocation that might ensue.

Friendships follow a rhythm that is distinct from that of either consumer or entrepreneurial relationships. This is at once their deepest and most fragile characteristic.

And that is why I wrote a book arguing that the virtue of friendship is the virtue closest to true human freedom.

Adam Ozimek looks at the case for and against short-term stimulus paired with a long-term budget fix:

I think the best case against short term stimulus is to say that the government can’t be trusted to combine a serious long-term budget fix with a short term stimulus package. This means that no matter what they promise they will really pass a stimulus package without long-term cuts, which…will signal to the market that they are even more cowardly with respect to addressing the long-term problems than we first thought, and thus the fiscal position just got worse vis-a-vis politicians ability to handle it.

I think this is wrong though. If stimulus critics were to settle for a second best policy and use their political capital to haggle for serious long-term budget fix I think they could be successful.  Like Krugman, Ezra Klein, and Brad Delong, most liberals already seem to agree on the need for long-term budget fix, and so conservatives should be able to get a good deal on a long-term fix that they like.

That is, if "conservatives" were actually interested more in doing the right thing than in demonizing Obama. I'd like a second stimulus now combined with an ambitious long-term plan for slashing entitlements and defense. That fits no party's agenda. But my bet remains on Obama to do the right thing next year.

LitBrit pushes back against Amanda of Pandagon:

Not only would every single doctor in the world who was worth his medical license NOT tell a woman whose water had broken at eight months of pregnancy that it was okay to fly (!) for that long (!!) and take yet another flight (!!!) for a similar length of time (!!!!), and drive for an hour or so through the snowy, curving roads between Anchorage and the valley (!!!!!), it would not be physically possible for any woman, even Sarah Baracuda, Queen of the Tundra, to endure, for that long, that kind of pain–the baby's heavy, hard, bony skull is now lying smack on top of the contracting and dilating cervix, without the benefit of much or any water to cushion it.

That's why contractions hurt so damned much once the water breaks.

You couldn't do it without at least wincing, over and over (as I wrote before, for me, it was more like screaming pitifully, and other mothers have reported choking their husbands, threatening the nurse, and being willing to take the epidural in their eyeball, if that's what it took to subdue the pain).

In short, people would, at the very least, suspect that something was wrong.

Amanda's real point in a rather lazy and uninformed post is the same as DailyKos's in the first place: political. To wit:

The Palin conspiracy theory seems tailor-made to rob liberals of our moral authority against nutty right wing conspiracy theories.  It allows false equivalence to sneak in—both sides have their Birthers!

So it doesn't really matter what's true; what matters is if the inquiry could hurt liberals! As for her debunking of what's true, she should know that this blog has never claimed that Trig was Bristol's kid, just that I don't believe Palin's stories and would like to have simple, easily provided, proof. So please, once again with feeling: please prove me wrong. Any medical record clearly showing Palin's maternity will do. There must be a mountain of them. But no press outlet, apart from the ADN, will ask.

(Photo: Sarah Palin pregnant with a previous child.)

The Republican polling outfit did one of its usual numbers today, putting out the astonishing notion that 60 percent of Americans want health insurance reform repealed, and half want that strongly. It was picked up by the usual suspects – Ace of Spades, The Weekly Standard, Powerline, etc. But here's the poll of polls on health insurance reform, even including Rasmussen (which I routinely omit):

Rasmussen, I should add, hasn't been polling this question since March. But they did manage to churn out a 'poll' designed to confirm the passions of the GOP base and the GOP media. They found a sample that turned a 43 percent disapproval into a 60 percent support for repeal. And the direction of the polling is clear: opposition to the reform has fallen from around 54 percent in January to 43 percent at the end of June.

Chait on Brooks. I like David immensely. He's a truly civilized man. I never miss a column, and it's rare I don't learn something. I don't link when the column is persuasive as they often are. I feel lately, however, a reticence to take on the right when they truly need taking on. That was particularly true today.

A brilliant little scene about gay men, straight men and words – from one of the most brilliant comics around, Louis CK. In all this, there is a lovely American sanity – not too much defensiveness, a whole lot of candor, and a deep well of friendship:

The etymology, however, is completely bullshit.