Author: Andrew Sullivan

One critical aspect of president Obama’s Middle East policy is finding a way to stop Israel continuing to expand settlements on the West Bank. Without a permanent cessation of such activity, there’s no way to get the two sides together. But Israel simply refuses to cooperate, as it has refused for two decades in its land-grab, and is eagerly anticipating the end of its temporary semi-freeze of some settlements, while it maintains its policy of populating East Jeruslame with as many Jewish-Israelis as possible. In such a situation, having some leverage over Israel is essential to advancing US interests in forging a settlement that could help undercut some of the rationale for Islamist terror. So what do several sitting Senators do in such a delicate situation in which George Mitchell has recently raised the option – a remote one, but an option – of withholding loan guarantees as the first Bush administration did. They go to Israel and back prime minister Netanyahu against their own president in an open news conference. 

The man who lost the last election reacts by directly undercutting the victor’s foreign policy goals, and does so abroad in the very country Obama is trying to push toward change.

Lieberman, for his part, is effectively telling the Israelis that Obama does not control US foreign policy with respect to Israel, and that he will be prevented by Congress from exerting any pressure. He says this with a certainty, as if the autonomy of the president is simply moot. And remember that Lieberman and McCain often invoke the necessity for sanctions against foreign countries the US is trying to nudge or persuade in one way or another. Here’s Lieberman’s quote (and the video of his backing Netanyahu against Obama is here):

Any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel to the negotiating table, by denying Israel support will not pass the Congress of the United States. In fact, Congress will act to stop any attempt to do that.

Message to a foreign government: if the US president tries to pressure you in any way, we will stop him and back you. McCain endorses Netanyahu’s position entirely, ignoring the settlement issue, and boldly supports a foreign leader over his own president. For good measure, they also both back the Netanyahu government’s position on Iran, calling for massive, general crippling sanctions rather than more targeted measures against the Revolutionary Guards. This again is effectively backing Netanyahu against Obama.

Are you surprised? Me neither. As an Israeli reader writes:

I was under the impression that foreign policy was formed in the White House, not congress, and isn’t it a bit weird for two right-wingers to attack the US administration on foreign soil? Then again, It’s Israel.

In coming to terms with that part of the conservative mindset that switched overnight from being skeptical of government power to wishing to grant it dictatorial authority to suspend core constitutional guarantees, Roger Ailes might be an interesting case. If you think Dick Cheney is terrified of al Qaeda – and I mean scared out of his wits by these medieval loons – then you need to meet the padded bunker of the man who unleashed Hannity and Beck:

On the day of the attacks, Mr. Ailes asked his chief engineer the minimum number of workers needed to keep the channel on the air. The answer: 42. “I am one of them,” he said. “I’ve got a bad leg, I’m a little overweight, so I can’t run fast, but I will fight. We had 3,000 dead people a couple miles from here. I knew that any communications company could be a target.”

His movements now are shadowed by a phalanx of corporate-provided security.

He travels to and from work in a miniature convoy of two sport utility vehicles. A camera on his desk displays the comings and goings outside his office, where he usually keeps the blinds drawn.

Mr. Ailes said he received frequent threats over the years, but his concerns for the safety of his family were heightened by an incident at his New Jersey home after the 9/11 attacks. There was an intruder on his property, but no arrest was made. In Putnam County, he has bought several properties surrounding his home. A sign outside his house shows an illustration of a gun and advises visitors that it is under video surveillance.

This is the Cheney mindset too: paralyzed by fear. If al Qaeda wants to know who it really succeeded with these last few years, nervous nellies Ailes and Cheney are heard to beat.

Berkeley Hills, California, 4.45 pm

A reader writes:

You wrote about your enjoyment of Avatar:

“Or I really am becoming a goddamn hippie after all these years.”

Finally, you begin to understand.

We have been working on you for years. Hard work.

We thought about just shooting you, but — like Jake Sully —  you have a strong heart: Eywa said to save you. And perhaps for the same reason Jake was saved.

I used to live in Portland, Oregon — home to so many fine old hippies, including the famous science fiction/fantasy writer Ursula K. le Guin. About science fiction, she wrote:

“At this point, realism is perhaps the least adequate means of understanding or portraying the incredible realities of our existence… The way to see how beautiful the earth is, is to see it as the moon.”

— or in the case of Avatar, a moon in a far distant solar system, in a far distant future. The point being that the distancing of science fiction — in space, time and imagination — is necessary in order to actually see the here and now, which is the real goal.

Conor is right — Cameron is not commenting on American Indians, he’s “allowing humanity to reflect on its circumstances and fallen nature in a novel way.” Avatar is a better movie than the critics think. 

Btw, these labels — human and Na-vi, liberal and conservative, atheist and theist — these are a fool’s game, children squabbling over imaginary sandcastles. Take these quotes, all by the same author — are they “liberal” or “conservative”?

“If one believes that words are acts, as I do, then one must hold writers responsible for what their words do.”

“The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next.”

They are all — surprise! — by Ursula K. le Guin. I would call them all conservative (using the Sullivan conservative standard). But I can tell you, without doubt, that le Guin never voted for Bush. She would be considered the most radical of “liberals” by non-Sullivanic conservatives. 

The labels are all hogwash. There’s something else, that transcends these silly labels, that waits to be discovered. 

… you'll love the Filthy Critic's review.

“I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’ horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to,” – Matthew Freud, Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, on the propagandist Roger Ailes.

(The first version of this quote confused Lachlan Murdoch with Freud.)

A "twelve-step plan" for Republican self-destruction.

Ben Smith points to a new and particularly disgusting Dolchstoss ad from Liz Cheney’s “Keep America Safe” group. The family's attempt not to go down in history as an incompetent bunch of war criminals who made America tangibly less safe is certainly impressive. But the bitter bile thrown at a president of the US from a former vice-president is unprecedented and classless – like so many of the proto-fascist panic-moves by the scaredy cats posturing as tough guys:

From the prologue of Sean Carroll's new book on the nature of time:

If everything in the universe evolves toward increasing disorder, it must have started out in an exquisitely ordered arrangement. This whole chain of logic, purporting to explain why you can’t turn an omelet into an egg, apparently rests on a deep assumption about the very beginning of the universe: It was in a state of very low entropy, very high order.

The arrow of time connects the early universe to something we experience literally every moment of our lives. It’s not just breaking eggs, or other irreversible processes like mixing milk into coffee or how an untended room tends to get messier over time. The arrow of time is the reason why time seems to flow around us, or why (if you prefer) we seem to move through time. It’s why we remember the past, but not the future. It’s why we evolve and metabolize and eventually die. It’s why we believe in cause and effect, and is crucial to our notions of free will.

And it’s all because of the Big Bang.

(Hat tip: 3QD)