Author: Andrew Sullivan

Clive Crook throws a bucket-load of English empiricism at the AEI macher.

Scott Horton:

The Gates Pentagon prepared the manual for the military commissions completely behind closed doors. It disregarded established procedures under which proposed procedural rules are disclosed for public comment and the views of the military bar itself are explicitly solicited. We now see that it turned to secrecy because it had something to hide: the rules were recognized as flawed and weak even within the Obama Administration, where they were subjected to appropriately sharp criticism. Had they been publicly aired, the Pentagon would have been forced to work out the contradictions in them. But it opted to keep the country and the bar in the dark.

A critical vote for repealing DADT – and one that was iffy this morning.

John Hudson looks at all the dirty bits:

Regulators in charge of overseeing offshore drilling cruised porn sites, shook off crystal meth hangovers, and accepted lavish gifts from oil and gas companies, according to an Interior Department report. The agency at issue is the Minerals Management Service. At its Louisiana branch, where the Gulf oil spill continues to cause an environmental catastrophe, the inspector general found "a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies was widespread."

The Atlantic.com crosses a threshhold. It's great to have so many new readers from Britain and Canada.

Steinglass sees it among defenders of DADT:

I think proponents of the status quo assume the military is unique in less admirable ways. They believe bigotry is so enmeshed in the bureaucracy as to make DADT's repeal impractical. Few congressmen or pundits put it so bluntly, but their projected homophobia is obvious in their vague warnings about the detrimental effects of repeal. There is no evidence to support casting such broad aspersions on America's soldiers. In fact, it seems likely that many soldiers are already aware of their gay colleagues—they must know they exist—and still manage to carry on with their tasks. Frankly, the argument that the military is unique in its homophobia, to such a degree as to seriously threaten its effectiveness if DADT is repealed, is beginning to look about as silly as this video.

A reader writes:

All these musings about complexities and "trump cards" strike me as akin to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin; no matter the scholarship or "plain truth" or ideological bent, we must each ultimately make our own decision, and will make our own decision, even if that decision is to follow someone else's truth.

That decision, for me, seems the worst decision of all, because giving over your own truth robs you of all the work and responsibility and burden (not to mention the obvious direct benefits) of taking that journey yourself for yourself.  Not just in the end, but all along the way, you will be living someone else's truth and expectations and rules, which inevitably leads to these very strange debates.

Having pursued a master's in religious studies myself, as part of my own journey since age 7, I have taken for myself the wisdom of doing unto others/doing no harm (pretty universal), and recognized that all the great sages and prophets and holy men/women have always reminded us that whatever they are doing, we can do, as well.  And I believe one of them is said to have mentioned that "lest ye see miracles, ye will not believe."  

I don't need miracles (suspicious of them, actually), and I don't need God (the Father restricts me from my spiritual quest), and I don't need God miraculously in the flesh performing miracles until he miraculously vanishes back into God again.  And I sure don't need debates about the manuscripts and scholarly "truth."  I'll take the men – Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama, whomever – and my truth plain and simple, and personal; that was the message I "got" (just reading, nothing miraculous) from those lives and a list of others who took up the quest well.  

And just for the record, this decision has not closed my spiritual life, but opened it up, infinitely.  Abandoning expectations freed my soul.

Julian Sanchez doesn't think being friends with your interlocutors is such a bad thing:

When we’re talking about actual friends, as opposed to folks you might see around now and again, I think there’s probably an effect, but I think it’s almost entirely limited to tone. I disagree in print with real-life friends (and, for that matter, coworkers) pretty much constantly. It’s honestly never occurred to me that it would be a problem to take a hammer to a friend’s argument because, hell that’s what we do. Now, it’s true I’ll probably refrain from really tearing into a good friend. (And I hope that, by the same token, I’d never find myself on the wrong end of the tone Matt Yglesias reserves for Jonah Goldberg, even if I’d written something incredibly dumb.) But is that really a problem? Is our political discourse really plagued by a stultifying reluctance to be vicious and snarky to folks you disagree with? If, as I think, the effect of social ties is mostly to make us a little more charitable in interpretation and a little more respectful in disagreement, well, that’s a feature, not a bug.

A reader writes:

President Obama is not changing his tune on DADT.  This has all been in the works for a long time.  In fact, a reader of your blog predicted almost exactly how this would all come about. (Allow me to gloat for a moment;  that reader was me.)

Another writes:

It seems to me that Obama has done exactly what many of us said he would do from the beginning. 

He allowed the debate to re-emerge in the public consciousness, then stood back (while attending other, equally important issues) and waited for the military leadership to take the initiative.  Like a good manager, he was patient and allowed those who are ultimately responsible for the policy’s execution to assume ownership of the problem, and its resolution.  As with health insurance reform, he didn’t allow the debate to be about him.  He let it play out more-or-less on its own, and now that the opposition is essentially spent, he’s ready to step in and act in his proper executive capacity.  This is how real, lasting change can be affected, when one is not overly concerned with receiving personal credit.

Another:

Perhaps it's just a bone to progressives, to stop us from complaining when he is forced by "pragmatism" to eliminate all the real reform in the Financial Reform bill. Or to distract us from the oil spill. Or the secret prisons. Or the ongoing wars that must be funded so we "have" to cut Social Security.  In any case, don't be surprised if the shiny toy is snatched away at the last second – Public Option, anyone?

Another:

It might have had something something to do with this – Log Cabin Republicans vs. The United States of America, the only contemporary legal challenge to DADT to succeed at the district court level. The trial starts June 14th.  If DADT does not get repealed, or if the Pentagon does not change the policy, then this suit may force the military to treat LGBs equally. Perhaps it may even get us stricter protections approaching Suspect Class. Anyway, if they repeal the statute before or during the trial, I have no doubt that the DOJ will attempt to get the suit thrown out. Hopefully the judge will not buy it, and keep the suit alive until the DADT policy (not just the statute) is off the books.