Author: Andrew Sullivan

A reader writes:

Maybe this is a quibble. But as the son and grandson of gunsmiths, and a former military expert rifleman, I just wanted to point out how godawful that Palin wannabe’s shooting form is. Especially with the pistol: she leans back, doesn’t square her stance, and squeezes the trigger indiscriminately before the muzzle is settled. We call that “sprayin’ and prayin’”.  (Also, I wonder if she or the shooting range had the required federal licensing for that Thompson submachine gun.)

This, to me, is the ultimate in Tea Party posturing: someone who has no clue about guns, their lethality, or their regulations, trying desperately to appeal to gun nuts as their savior. It’s about as sensible as Rick Barber, a guy who’s never read history, trying to claim the mantle of the Founding Fathers.

Does anyone know for real if Sarah Palin has ever used a gun for hunting? My own fear on all this is that eventually, all GOP nominees will be indistinguishable from the Fox Fembots. And I guess if you want the over 50 white guy Southern vote, it can’t hurt. So when will Carrie Prejean be running for Senate?

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that Elena Kagan now renounces her previous view that hearings for SCOTUS nominees should actually explore, well, anything. This is the most conventional careerist you are likely to meet in a town of conventional careerists – you think she's going to take a risk now? Kinsley notes that this reversal is the only one possible for Kagan, since it is the only legal opinion she has ever really expressed. So the one actual opinion we have from this person with no personal life and no actual views on anything is now erased from history. I guess she had no choice given …  well, I cannot compete with Kinsmo here:

Now she says that, after her own nomination, she was persuaded by Senator Orrin Hatch (and this sentence is already pretty hilarious, no matter where it might be going, isn’t it?)…persuaded, as I say, by Senator Hatch that she should reconsider, which she did.

You now have to go across the Atlantic to find them:

The government is poised to announce the details of a judge-led inquiry into claims its secret agents were complicit in the torture of terror suspects after a spate of allegations, the BBC reported Tuesday. Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed the terms of the probe, which include possible compensation if there is proof someone was tortured with the knowledge of British secret services, said the broadcaster.

Compare Cameron with Obama on these primary matters of the rule of law and the character of the West: one has integrity, the other reeks of fear.

The case against prohibition:

In easy-to-digest cartoon form.

Howard Gleckman highlights a potential problem with 401(k) plans that automatically enroll employees:

Mauricio and Barbara found that employer match rates are about 7 percentage points lower for opt-out plans. They can’t say for sure whether auto enrollment causes lower match rates. But it sure is possible. After all, if more employees participate, their employers will have to spend more to match their contributions. Whatever the cause, it seems that while auto-enrollment may increase the number of workers with 401(k)s, it won't necessarily boost their retirement savings.     

Dana Goldstein checks how a program intended to fight rape in Congo is faring:

The State Department has provided The Daily Beast with documents detailing how the $17 million to fight sexual violence have been allocated, mostly toward treatment programs for rape survivors. But human rights advocates hope for more. They believe the US should stop sending hundreds of millions of dollars in aid–including military training–to Rwanda and Uganda, whose armed militias perpetrate violence and rape across the border in Congo. They also criticize the administration and Congress for failing to crack down on multinational corporations that operate mines in the country, some of which have paid off armed groups in exchange for access to mineral deposits.

An Africa blogger pushes back against these activists:

Legalizing and legitimizing the mining sector is the best way to stabilize the region…It's ludicrous to pretend that the mineral trade in Congo can be affected in any significant way by American legislation, or that doing so will significantly affect the level of violence in the region. Without the basic tools of public order in place and functioning as instruments of the public good in the DRC, the provisions of [the Conflict Minerals Trade Act] are likely to work about as well as does the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme does in weak states that lack functioning governmental institutions – which is to say, not at all.

(Image: A gold buyer displays a recent purchase March 28, 2006 in the gold mining town of Mongbwalu, Congo. By Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Millman goes another round:

Apart from the overarching point that our resources, our responsibilities, and our interests are all limited, the key point that Rory Stewart makes in his article that Ross cites as “admirably honest” is that “[t]here are, in reality, no inescapable connections between Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” If this is true, then if our goal is overwhelmingly to keep al Qaeda from again regaining its prior position in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Pakistan, then we should not assume that defeating the Taliban and/or keeping them out of power should be a primary war aim. Right now, nearly all the discussion about Afghanistan is predicated on the assumption that the American goal is to keep the Taliban out of power. If, instead, the assumption were that the Taliban, in some form, was inevitably going to return to power – not necessarily to exclusive power, of course – then we’d be having a very different conversation.

Sean Collins favorably reviews Daniel Ben-Ami's book defending economic growth:

The limits to growth that critics cite are not insurmountable, says Ben-Ami. For example, he argues that the answer to climate change is more and better technology, rather than reduced energy use and cutting back on economic growth. But technology is expensive, which is why growth is so important. Cynicism about growth is negative because it denies us the resources to deal with problems.

Flowing Data finds a visual of the international soccer trade: