The Dish

Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton:

"Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary’s public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband’s success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark ….. In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband’s influence – from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform ….. The argument, therefore, that Hillary’s candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates’ constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women’s rights."

A self-defense.

An exclusive.

An Iraqi man stands on April 19, 2008 at his shop, burned during clashes between militiamen loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Iraqi /U.S army on April 19, 2008 in the Sadr city Shiite district in Baghdad, Iraq. Clashes continue between militiamen, loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi/U.S army in the Sadr city district east of Baghdad. By Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images.

Bryan Finoki contemplates the new barrier going up in Sadr City:

Since similar walls have gone up in and around Baghdad, officials claim reconstruction efforts and security conditions have improved in these neighborhoods. But I’m always interested how these walls are described to us politically and strategically, as either isolating the militias on the outskirts into cloistered neighborhoods, or as protecting the neighborhoods under threat behind barriers turning them essentially into "protective enclaves" and gated communities. One view is intended to describe an isolation outwards, shutting the militias out, while another describes an isolation inwards, enclosing the communities within. Either way, the wall serves these effects the same, but it is always curious to see how the wall is sold; as a gated community or an insurgent holding pen.

Nevertheless, I understand the short-term effect of these barriers, but we hardly hear enough any discussion from the media or American/Iraqi officials about the long-term effects of using this strategy. Can a nation really be successfully rebuilt behind a micro-insertion of blast walls? I understand security needs to be obtained first, [but] will the walls lead to a more long term systemic security? An eradication of these militias?

Some data from the four one-on-one Clinton-Obama debates: ABC News’ pro-Clinton bias is glaring.

Anthony Giddens‘ take:

A third dilemma is that of authority versus uncertainty. In conditions of high modernity, in many areas of social life–including the domain of the self–there are no determinant authorities. There exist plenty of claimants to authority–far more than was true of pre-modern cultures…

Some individuals find it psychologically difficult or impossible to accept the existence of diverse, mutually conflicting authorities. They find that the freedom to choose is a burden and they seek solace in more overarching systems of authority. A predilection for dogmatic authoritarianism is the pathological tendency at this pole. A person in this situation is not necessarily a traditionalist, but essentially gives up faculties of critical judgment in exchange for the convictions supplied by an authority whose rules and provisions cover most aspects of his life. We should distinguish this attitude from faith, even faith in fundamentalist religious codes. For faith almost by definition rests on trust. Taking refuge in a dominant authority, however, is essentially an act of submission. The individual, as it were, no longer needs to engage in the problematic gamble which all trust relations presume. Instead, he or she identifies with a dominant authority on the basis of projection. The psychology of leadership plays an important role here. Submission to authority normally takes the form of a slavish adherence to an authority figure, taken to be all-knowing.

(From Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.) This is a really sharp insight into what I called "the fundamentalist psyche" in The Conservative Soul. It’s what I mean when I think that globalization has fostered this kind of faith-as-submission rather than faith-in-doubt. Modernity is unsettling at the best of times; in periods of extreme danger, and vast social and economic changes, the appeal of fundamentalism is profound. That helps explain Islamism and Christianism, although Islamism is a far more potent and dangerous force in the world.

"Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and – at the apex – Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court," – Larry Wilkerson, former army officer and chief of staff to Colin Powell, US secretary of state at the time the torture program was set up.

The always-subtle Ian Buruma summarizes and debunks opposing viewpoints on America’s foreign policy future. 

A reader writes:

Regarding this entry on taxes: the inherent problem is that if you start comparing taxes to the value of the government services received, it invites comparisons of who receives the services to who pays the taxes.  When the bottom 50% of the country doesn’t pay much in income taxes, do Democrats want that kind of discussion?  Yes, the wealthy may receive more benefit (just through preservation of law and order) than the poor overall, but still not in the same proportion as the taxes paid.  And when you discuss a specific program for which you want to raise taxes, someone will point out that you’re increasing taxes on the top 10% (or 1%) in order to fund services aimed at the middle (or lower) of the income distribution.  Klein’s suggestion isn’t the "strongest argumentative ground" either.

I would love an honest discussion, one that focused on the benefits and the potential unfairness of asking Peter to pay for services to Paul — and then had the guts to say "the benefits are so great that it justifies doing that to Peter."  If they did, they might lose out on some specific tax increases but there would be greater acceptance of the rest as more than just soaking the rich.

The Democrats traditionally have not had the guts to make that argument.  If Obama is really a new kind of politician, he will.  I’m waiting.