The Brits and Terror

You can take one reassuring thing from the alarming story about Islamist terrorists allegedly planig to abducty and behead a British soldier in Britain. It’s the following:

The suspects – believed to be of Pakistani origin – were detained under the Terrorism Act after a six-month surveillance operation. It is thought they are being held in Coventry. Two are said to be males aged 31 and 29. The latter has been named locally as Amjad Mahmood. Brunt said officers feared the alleged plot was "coming to fruition".

Recall that the alleged plot to bring down several airplanes over the Atlantic was also exposed because the suspects had been under intense surveillance for months. The awful news is that these fanatics exist; the less-awful news is that their neighbors and friends obviously have an eye on them, and the police are on the case. This kind of police work is essential – just as essential as the more conventional forms of warfare.

The Politics of Psilocybin

Michangello-lastJudgment-B

A reader makes a realistic point:

The one area of your blog I’ve without exception agreed with is your admirable and consistent defense of liberty. But don’t expect any politician to share those views.

Psilocybin and THC are chemicals that are less toxic and less addicting than currently legal psychoactive substances. And they may have significant physical and mental health benefits. However, a major difference between these two substances and legal intoxicants is the for the former to induce new ways of thinking (sometimes disturbingly so, it must be granted). In early 21st century USA, what politician would want to support anyone thinking outside of  Republican and Democratic orthodoxy? In a world where we cannot be trusted to plan for our own retirement or health care, where we must be protected from nicotine and transfats, how can our “leaders” allow us to ingest substances that may encourage thinking?

(Painting: Michelangelo’s psychedelic version of Heaven.)

Pro-Democrat Romney

The Massachusetts flip-flopper also threw a fundraiser for a Democratic candidate in 1992. It was for an open Senate seat. Money quote:

A Romney spokesman, Kevin Madden, confirmed that the fundraiser had occured but dismissed its significance. "Doug Anderson is a close personal friend of Mitt Romney," Madden told us. Madden added that "sometimes friendship qualifies politics, and that was the case with Doug Anderson and Mitt Romney in 1992."

The fundraiser is significant because it shows that Romney actively sought to help a Democrat take an open Senate seat from the GOP. Romney has already been heavily criticized by conservatives who think his socially liberal views in the early 1990s — he migrated from a pro-choice position to a pro-life one several years later, and underwent a similar conversion on gay rights — are a sign that he would be an unreliable ally in the White House. Romney has aggressively been moving to explain his earlier views in an effort to convince conservatives they can trust him.

In many ways, I find Romney an appealing, moderate Republican: competent, reformist, articulate. And then he tried to run as Hewitt-theocon.

Jeb in 2008!

A reader insists:

Hear me out on this. They’re still using Rove’s game plan, which is: The religious base is worth 30 percent of the vote. You carry some libertarians and tribal Republicans and you’re home free.  Whoever gets the GOP nod MUST have this 30 percent.

So who can do it? McCain?  No way. They hate him, and know that, secretly, he hates them. Dobson has already nixed him. Romney? Anyone who thinks a candidate whose core religious text is subtitled ‘Another Gospel of Jesus Christ’ hasn’t been living in this country these last seven years. Rudy? Ditto. Divorced. Gay rights supporter.  No way. Brownback? He’ll get most of the 30% but has no crossover appeal. Hagel? The base will never forgive him for his apostasy on the war.

So who can do it? JEB. And they’ll run it just like Clinton did in ’92. They’ll wait until the last possible moment and then step into the vacuum created by the lack of appeal in the above roster. The Bush name won’t help him, but he’s got a reputation for being level-headed, he’s certainly competent, and he has crossover appeal. Waiting will mitigate talk about "Bush Dynasty" etc.. I’m a Democrat, can’t stand this administration, but have to say that Jeb could be a winner for the GOP in ’08. He just gave that speech you posted in which he talked about going back to core conservative principles. In short, he distanced himself from his bro.

Brownback has some cross-over appeal. Anti-war, big government Christianism has a real constituency. And the press will eat up his desire to spend government money on the poor, sick and needy. But this reader makes me pause.

Sam Is Back!

The blogalogue continues. Here’s part of the latest from Mr Harris:

I remain open to evidence and argument on this and all other fronts. In fact, I could easily imagine a scenario that would persuade me of the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, and the utter sanctity of the blessed Virgin. Granted, this communication would have to be of the crass "signs and wonders" variety, for I am a very doubting Thomas, but there is no question that my mind could be fundamentally changed, even in this email exchange. If, for instance, your "Imaginary Friend" gave you some highly specific information that you could not have obtained by any other means, I would take this as powerful evidence in favor of your point of view.

To increase my vulnerability to this line of attack, I have just written a 30-digit number on a scrap of paper and hidden it in my office. If God tells you (or any of our readers) what this number is, I will be appropriately astounded and will publicize the results of this experiment to the limit of my abilities. It is, of course, true that your success would be open to a variety of interpretations-perhaps such a miracle says nothing about the existence of God but demonstrates that clairvoyance is an actual power of the human mind and that you possess it in spades. Or perhaps it proves that Satan exists, and he is similarly endowed. Of course, we should expect some skeptical readers to accuse us both of fraud. Let us cross these bridges if we ever come to them. The point, of course, is that if God exists, it would be trivially easy for Him to blow my mind. (Hint to the Creator: I’m thinking of an even number, and it’s not 927459757074561008328610835528).

Read the whole thing here. Red the whole blogalogue here. I have to do some work on the transition to the Atlantic, but I hope to respond within a day.

Off the Bus in 2003?

A reader rightly corrects me:

I only thought to look back at your archives because I was reading your blog every day in 2002, 2003 and 2004. My sense was that you ended 2003 thinking things were tough but headed in the right direction, and soured on the war (as executed, if not in theory) in late winter/early spring of 2004. I can pinpoint the time when I went from supporting the war, to being doubtful, to wishing we’d never started it. It was the winter and early spring of 2004, when I made my first trip to Iraq.

I think there may soon be a temptation, if there isn’t one already, for ex-hawks to fight over who turned against the war too soon, who turned against it too late, who turned against it for bad reasons, etc. I think we’d be much better off putting that aside and focusing on what we can do to save lives in Iraq, and what we can do to make sure we don’t make a mistake remotely like this again in our lifetimes.

Agreed. My own doubts about force levels, expressed soon after the invasion, didn’t really morph into "getting off the bus" until the end of 2003, beginning of 2004. But you can raid the archives and see the shift for yourself.