The Dish

Kevin Sullivan posits:

China is behaving how many realists would expect a powerful state to behave. This doesn't preclude conflict (obviously it potentially heightens the chances of conflict) but it does present something of a rub for the United States, especially for our politicians and our foreign policy punditry. We love ideological enemies. Revolutionary regimes – be they in Moscow or Tehran – excite us in a way that grubby, material-interest seeking states do not. This, I think, explains the rather flaccid attempts to date to dress up China's fusion of authoritarianism and capitalism into some kind of looming ideological challenge to the U.S. Otherwise, China's deal cutting with third world tyrants, its military investments, its economic agenda, just doesn't pack that dramatic punch.

An Iranian reader writes:

Only 21 hours left till the equinox and the arrival of spring/Persian New Year known as Nowruz. This ancient tradition is the most important of Persian festivities. We sit around a spread called the Haft Sin (seven items that start with the letter S).  Traditionally, families set as beautiful a Haft Sin table as they can, as it is not only of traditional and spiritual value, but also noticed by visitors during Nowruzi visitations and is a reflection of their good taste. Based on the same tradition, if a family has lost a loved one in the previous year, they take their Haft Sin to the grave of their loved one on the last Thursday of the year.

The painful scene of Neda Agha Soltan's mother and many people who joined her at the grave of Neda with her Haft Sin is a reminder of the terror and brutality Iranians faced for demanding their basic rights in the year that is about to end. She cries: "How do I change my year without you…my Neda..who do I scream this pain too…I wish I were dead and would never see this….."

Drum argues that suburban residents love sprawl. Avent counters:

[T]he notion that suburban sprawl wins out simply because it is so popular is belied by housing cost data. People live where they can afford to live, and if they can’t afford to live in a walkable area, then they’ll opt to live in sprawl rather than go homeless. And once there they’ll act to defend their investment by fighting development projects that may have unpredictable impacts on the value of nearby single-family homes.

Meanwhile, Kevin asks if there are walkable areas built outside of urban centers. Yes, there are. In suburban Washington, municipalities have been extraordinarily successful building walkable neighborhoods around Metro stations. This is an increasingly popular model around the country.

Tom Ricks prints an e-mail from Army Capt. Michael Cummings:

What sticks with me most about war dogs was the lengths officers, NCOs and soldiers would go to keep them out of harm's way. I've seen Sergeants Major and Lieutenant Colonels risk their careers over their favorite dogs. About a week before we were supposed to leave country, word came down to get rid of all the animals on every FOB. They weren't authorized, we were told, so they had to go before the new unit came in. The day our full-bird colonel and his replacement came on a battlefield tour, suddenly all the dogs were gone.

I assumed they had been taken to the trash pit and executed, the fate of many dogs downrange. But as soon as the chopper took off, bounding around a corner were the mini-pack: Mama, K2 and the dog with no name.

One of the most vivid if vague memories of my childhood was my grandfather recounting how as a soldier in the British army in India, he felt he had to shoot his beloved dog before he left for home. He feared the dog would be mistreated if left to fend for himself, and did what he had to do. I cannot imagine doing such a thing. But I do remember being deeply shocked by this story at the time, one of my earliest premonitions that life is cruel, that choices are hard, that this tough old veteran (he used to order his children to chew their food a specific number of times) was also a man of deep love beneath.

And, of course, it just confirms my belief that the love between dog and human is real and deep and precious. Even in war. Perhaps especially in war.

Oh, and Washington.

William Shields reports on a debate between Steve Coll, Tom Friedman, and David Ignatius:

[Ignatius] recounted writing a column arguing that the United States should support Salam Fayyad's two-year transitional plan towards statehood. When a U.S. official called to tell Ignatius that this indeed was the United States' policy, Ignatius responded, "Well, it's news to me." (Anyone wanna contribute to hire him a researcher?) Ignatius…argued that the United States needs to more clearly articulate its policy to give Fayyad the political support he'll need to convince a Palestinian public that is skeptical of a phased transition.

Room For Debate addresses the question of how the Church should respond to the crisis. Here's David Clohessy:

[C]onsidering the fact that only two or three bishops, out of 5,000 worldwide, have resigned for covering up predator priests, it’s clear that church laws and courts are ineffective in doling out punishment. … Thus lawsuits, settlements and news media coverage don’t deter recklessness, callousness and deceit by bishops. The Vatican should order bishops to turn over priest personnel files to law enforcement. It should beg secular officials to launch investigations and prod lawmakers to reform archaic, predator-friendly laws (like statutes of limitations).

Nicholas P. Cafardi advises along the same lines:

[A]llow an investigation by a non-clerical panel, and cooperate with that investigation. That is what the American bishops did when they established the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Youth, composed of lay people. The bishops cooperated with the review board and the John Jay College of Criminal Law, whom the board engaged to study the crisis. When the investigation is over, publish the results and apologize again. Transparency is critical to repairing this crisis.

Clive Crook repeats a common worry:

I don't question the competence of the CBO's analysts, but I wouldn't bet my 401(k) on these numbers turning out to be even roughly correct. The uncertainties lie in both directions. The plan might save more money than the CBO says: it has scored the efficiency-promoting experiments conservatively. The bigger risk is that the provisions yielding the projected savings and tax increases will be reversed before they take effect. I would need to think about it, but I might be willing to bet my 401(k) on that.

Cohn differs:

Remember, when the CBO makes a projection for how much a program will cost over time, it isn't just spitting out a single number. It's giving a range of numbers. It's typically the midpoint that you hear about, but there's always a chance that the number will be higher or lower, by a certain interval. And, in order to play it safe, CBO decided it would judge health care reform based on the worst possible estimate within that interval.

Johann Hari does a thought experiment:

Imagine I discovered there was a paedophile ring running our crèche, and the Editor issued a stern order that it should be investigated internally with "the strictest secrecy". Imagine he merely shuffled the paedophiles to work in another crèche at another newspaper, and I agreed, and made the kids sign a pledge of secrecy. We would both – rightly – go to prison. Yet because the word "religion" is whispered, the rules change. Suddenly, otherwise good people who wouldn't dream of covering up a paedophile ring in their workplace think it would be an insult to them to follow one wherever it leads in their Church. They would find this behaviour unthinkable without the irrational barrier of faith standing between them and reality.

Yes, I understand some people feel sad when they see a figure they were taught as a child to revere – whether Prophet or Pope – being subjected to rational examination, or mockery, or criminal investigation. But everyone has ideas they hold precious. Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.

Chill, Johann. I'm religious. I demand to be protected from no debate. And many of us who believe are indeed saying – and have been saying for a long, long time – that using religious authority to cover up child abuse is evil, insupportable, corrupt and wrong. But if the church hierarchy does not understand this, if it does not instigate root and branch reform, if it uses this occasion to double down further, then it will deserve the secular assault that will come.

I fear the Church's hierarchy is as over now as the Soviet hierarchy was in the 1980s. But, unlike the lie of Communism, the truth of the Gospels remains. So when will we Catholics have our velvet revolution? When will we finally stand up and deliver our church from the evil that now controls it? And when will this farce of an establishment finally crumble into the dust it deserves?

Ackerman wonders:

Most observers expect Clinton to sound decidedly reconciliatory notes in her AIPAC address. Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who works with Atallah at the New America Foundation, encouraged Clinton to pivot to productive moves on peace negotiations — especially the presentation of the administration’s own peace plan. “Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has often drawn the analogy between ending the conflict and cutting off the tail of a dog – in other words, you do both in one chop, not incremental snips,” Levy said. “When it is ready to lead rather than be led, the administration should place a clear choice of an implementation plan for two states in front of Israel and stick to that plan.” Levy added that Netanyahu’s embrace of settlement expansion “may strengthen American resolve to put forward such a plan.”

I suspect that the current state of Israeli politics makes a direct US plan the only way forward. But David Remnick's question remains:

Does there exist a Netanyahu 2.0, a Nixon Goes to China figure who will act with an awareness that demographic realities—the growth not only of the Palestinian population in the territories but also of the Arab and right-wing Jewish populations in Israel proper—make the status quo untenable as well as unjust?

I think not. But we'll see, won't we?