Category: The Dish

That’s how one Muslim cleric in Australia describes women who do not wear the full Muslim chador, or are immodestly dressed. At the core of this kind of Islam is the notion of women as mere objects to men – and of men as sexual predators who cannot control their own desires. And that it is indeed incompatible with modern Western notions of basic equality and self-government.

A reader writes:

You almost got it right, when you said this:

"And I might add that this balancing act as a whole – sometimes favoring reformed liberalism, sometimes favoring chastened conservatism – might itself be called conservative in a philosophical sense because it rests on a prudential judgment as to what is right at any particular moment in a particular time and place. I.e. it is not a fixed ideology. It is about prudence or practical judgment. Which is, at root, a conservative insight."

Might? There is no might. It most certainly is conservative, and the idea of balance, prudence, and practical judgment comes from Edmund Burke himself. It’s all in the last paragraph of "Reflections on the Revolution in France":

"I have little to recommend my opinions but long observation and much impartiality. They come from one who has been no tool of power, no flatterer of greatness; and who in his last acts does not wish to belie the tenour of his life. They come from one, almost the whole of whose public exertion has been a struggle for the liberty of others; from one in whose breast no anger durable or vehement has ever been kindled, but by what he considered as tyranny; and who snatches from his share in the endeavours which are used by good men to discredit opulent oppression, the hours he has employed on your affairs; and who in so doing persuades himself he has not departed from his usual office: they come from one who desires honours, distinctions, and emoluments, but little; and who expects them not at all; who has no contempt for fame, and no fear of obloquy; who shuns contention, though he will hazard an opinion: from one who wishes to preserve consistency, but who would preserve consistency by varying his means to secure the unity of his end; and, when the equipoise of the vessel in which he sails may be endangered by overloading it upon one side, is desirous of carrying the small weight of his reasons to that which may preserve its equipoise."

It is indeed the duty of the conservative to go to the other side if his side is the one marching towards tyranny. Principled, rather than partisan, conservatives will vote Democrat or abstain this fall.

A reader just warned me that if I post Starship’s "We Built This City," he’d never forgive me. Ha!

"Re-evaluating American conservatism" can be heard on audio file here.

I cannot help but notice this casual aside in the Woodward book, a book that deserves its massive sales, because it exposes the incompetence, recklessness, and sheer brutality of the men who now run this country:

The Saudis had arrested and detained some key al Qaeda suspects immediately before and after 9/11. The president told Bandar, "If we get somebody and we can’t get them to cooperate, we’ll hand them over to you." … Though the Saudis denied it, the CIA believed the Saudis tortured terrorist suspects to make them talk. In the immediate wake of 9/11 Bush wanted answers from those who had been detained.

What’s striking both in Bush’s and Cheney’s attitude is that it never even occurs to them that there is a moral issue here. It’s a "no-brainer." Here we are on the outside having impassioned debates about the rights and wrongs of abuse and torture of detainees and these two most powerful men simply assume it’s fine. Their only concern is that they can find a legal euphemism in order to lie about it and pretend it isn’t happening. And remember who their base is: Christians. Orwell could not have invented this.

Some of the videos you sent in defy either category. They are so bad they’re great; or they’re great in an awful kind of way. Journey featured in many such submissions. "Separate Ways" soars above either bad or good. It just is:

Yesterday was a vital day of clarity for what has happened to America in the Bush presidency. It occurred in one of the more sycophantic interviews I’ve ever read by "journalist" Scott Hennen, of WDAY Hot Talk. Here’s the transcript, proudly posted on Cheney’s own website:

Q: I’ve had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we’re all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we’ve learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that. …

Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

So we waterboard but we don’t torture. It’s good to finally hear it from the vice-president’s mouth. But wait! We didn’t!

Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney had confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique. "What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program without torture," she said. "The vice president never goes into what may or may not be techniques or methods of questioning."

Do they think we’re fools? (Yes.) Do they think the international community doesn’t know what this administration is up to? (They don’t care.) Does Cheney seriously believe that waterboarding is not the infliction of "severe mental or physical pain or suffering"? (No, he doesn’t.)

Vote Democrat or abstain.

(Depiction of a waterboarding from the Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. According to Cheney, the Khmer Rouge’s tactics were a "no-brainer".)

Dan Savage suggests a new ad for Harold Ford. Ford should look in the camera and say:

The Republicans have accused me of being a heterosexual man. They’re implying that I have an interest in women. It would seem that today’s Republican Party is more comfortable with elected officials – male elected officials – who take an interest in teenage boys. Mark Foley is acceptable to Ken Mehlman’s GOP. Heterosexual men, it seems, are not.

Yes, it’s gay-baiting in Tennessee and Glenn Reynolds would get the vapors. (So would I.) But if Karl Rove were a Democrat, he’d do it in an instant. And Rich Lowry would call it effective.

Drumkeeran, Ireland, 11.32 am.

Can you reduce global warming all by yourself? Join the gang over at Slate.