The Dish

[Patrick Appel]

It is closing:

Clinton still leads among superdelegates 241 to 181, according to the AP survey. But her total is down two in the past two weeks, while Obama’s is up 25.

New Haven, Connecticut, 11.50 am.

[Patrick Appel]

I think Elizabeth Weise may have inadvertently proven part of Peter Suderman’s thesis (either that, or we are in even bigger trouble than I thought):

As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.

The pythons can be 20 feet long and 250 pounds.

[Patrick Appel]

The March Atlantic is now online, for free. A teaser from Alan Wolfe’s article about which religion will win:

…breathless warnings about rising religious fervor and conflicts to come ignore two basic facts. First, many areas of the world are experiencing a decline in religious belief and practice. Second, where religions are flourishing, they are also generally evolving—very often in ways that allow them to fit more easily into secular societies, and that weaken them as politically disruptive forces. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal once famously showed that it would be irrational to bet against the existence of God. It would be equally foolish, in the long run, to bet against the power of the Enlightenment. The answer to the question of which religion will dominate the future, at least politically, may well be: None of the above.

by hilzoy

Last night, in the Austin debate, Barack Obama said this:

“I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition; they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that’s a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who’s going to show the judgment to lead.”

A number of bloggers on the right went ballistic. Couldn’t be true. No how. No way. Curt at Flopping Aces: “I’m gonna call shenanigans (codeword for he is lying through his teeth)”. The (cough) Astute Pundit: “Obama at Texas Debate: Liar, Dupe, Or Enemy Propagandist?” (I’ll take ‘Enemy Propagandist’ for five, Alex…)

While this was going on, Jake Tapper (yes, I know) actually spoke to the Captain in question, who confirmed the story. Later, NBC did so as well. And Phil Carter adds:

“In light of my experience in Iraq, Sen. Obama’s comments last night are eminently believable. Sen. Obama is also absolutely right to use this anecdote as a critique of the administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that the war in Iraq diverted scarce military resources (manpower, equipment, etc.) from Afghanistan to Iraq. The cost for that diversion was paid by America’s sons and daughters, and our Afghan brethren, who continue to fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We owe our troops better.”

In light of this, the best response would seem to be Tom Maguire’s: “As a proud member of the Right Wing Noise Machine (or are we now the Freak Show?) I can only say “Ouch”.” Curiously, Tom hasn’t had a lot of company. Rusty Schackleford’s take is more common among the conservative blogs I’ve read:

“Tapper called the “Captain” and asked him to verify his own story.

How, exactly, is it “verifying” anything by simply asking the same source if his story is true? This isn’t the testimony of one source verifying the testimony of another source. This is two people reporting the testimony of a single source!

No one is accusing Obama of making the story up. We are accusing the “Captain” of making stuff up—or, at the very least, using selective pieces of information in order to lend credence to the bad war/good war theory. Obama then uses an untrue story to further the narrative which he hopes will get him elected.”

Curt at Flopping Aces again:

“Of course with the “Captain” remaining anonymous its hard to come right out and say the man is lying since the Pentagon doesn’t have the particulars such as the dates, units, and other important info. With him remaining in the shadows its easier for Barack and his pal Tapper to just say “believe us” because well, just because.”

To which I can only say: wow. Or, as John Cole put it:

“Now granted, Phil Carter has some military knowledge, so I would take this a grain of salt when you compare it to the vault of information these bloggers have procured over a lifetime of arranging GI Joe dolls while watching betamax copies of Uncommon Valor in the basement apartment they rent from their parents. I know it is a tough call, but I am gonna go with Obama, Tapper, and Phil Carter on this.”

But besides that, consider two things. First, the bloggers I quoted above are accusing this unnamed Captain of lying. It’s not exactly clear why they think the Captain lied, or why he would go on lying to various TV networks, but that’s what Curt, Rusty, and the gang seem to think. And why do they think this? For the most part*, they cite claims like this (from Ace): “Milbloggers say the platoon is the basic organic unit of the army, and troops are never picked out of a platoon to serve elsewhere”, or this (from one of Steve Spruiell’s correspondents): “units as small as platoons are not pulled apart like that.” That is: claims that the sorts of things the Captain described never happen.

I think that any claim of the form “X never, ever happens” are generally dubious when made about an organization as large as the US Army. They are especially dubious when made about the Army in wartime. Sometimes you can dismiss them out of hand. If, for instance, some Captain were to say that when he was in iraq, the troops under his command would turn into little bunny rabbits and scamper away into the shrubbery, skepticism would be in order. But when someone who has served in combat says something like: my platoon was stripped of some of its men, or: we were short of ammunition, that’s really not something you can just assume is a lie in the absence of any further evidence at all.

I have no particular investment in the idea that this soldier is telling the truth. I don’t see any good reason to doubt him, but some people lie, and for all I know, he might be one of them. I do, however, care a lot about the idea that we should not impugn someone’s honor absent a good reason to do so. And that’s what Rusty Shackleford, Ace, et al have done. They are willing to trash someone’s good name because what he says doesn’t fit their political narrative. And that’s despicable.

***

* Footnote: A Pentagon spokesman later said that he found the Captain’s story implausible, though since he didn’t know the Captain’s name or any of the details, he couldn’t say for sure. Most of the blogs posts I’ve read accusing the Captain of lying were written before this spokesman appeared; Curt’s at Flopping Aces is the exception here.

by Reihan

I’ve been meaning to write a kind of lengthy meditation on the future of neoconservatism, taking off from Mark Lilla’s entertaining and mostly unfavorable review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right. But to do that I first need to go through some of Lilla’s earlier writing on the reactionary mode and the neoconservative reinvention of Leo Strauss. The thing is, I have to go see a movie in about thirty minutes. This is very troubling to me. I will, I pledge, write the post, which will be a little anticlimactic, at The American Scene. Briefly, I’d like to associate myself Peter Berkowitz’s excellent short essay on "The Neocons and Iraq."

So I guess this is goodbye. I’d like to thank Andrew for allowing me to befoul his beautiful home on the web. Because I was a fan of Andrew’s long before we ever met, I still feel very humbled and honored to work with him. I remember this blog when it was in its infancy, and it makes me very happy indeed to think that Andrew is introducing people, particularly young people, to his invariably brilliant, idiosyncratic notions and his slightly off-kilter sense of humor. One hates to gush, but Andrew’s extraordinary success with this blog fills me with a lot of joy. It’s a bit like Lost. The fact that millions of Americans watch Lost suggests to me that there are many millions of Americans who are incredibly cool and brainy. Pace Michelle Obama, this fills my heart with pride. You catch my drift here. Oh heck, I’ll say it: I think you readers are pretty cool, particularly those of you who’ve advocated my summary execution on grounds of committing user-generated video crimes. 

You should know that we have many, many exciting plans here at The Atlantic, some of which you’ll see as soon as the middle of the next week. More on that to come.

Also, a brief plug: if you’ve enjoyed Jim Manzi and Peter Suderman, you’ll find them and many others at The American Scene. I’ve been subtly trying to woo hilzoy, but I fear that’s a lost cause. One of these days I’m hoping to get Pope Benedict XVI as a guest-blogger. And also Oakland-based rapper Too $hort. This would give us the breadth we badly need.

Take care. Have a lovely weekend! I have a terrible stomachache. Too many pears, possibly. Let’s hope it’s not fatal.

by Reihan

I avoid caffeinated beverages, alcohol, all illegal drugs, and prescription medication. Only two drugs have appealed to me: MDMA, for its supposed therapeutic properties, and Adderall. I’ve never used Adderall, despite the fact that I clearly suffer from a serious if undiagnosed form of ADHD. Molly Young’s very insightful reflections on Adderall have piqued my interest.

Of course, I could have studied in college without Adderall, just like I did in high school – I just couldn’t have studied with such ecstasy. Theoretical texts, in particular, were transformed into exercises as conquerable as a Tuesday crossword. I could work out in the gym with a Xeroxed packet of Gayatri Spivak perched on the elliptical machine in front of me, reading and burning calories at the same time. The efficacy of the multitasking was exhilarating. On Adderall, the densest writing became penetrable. I had an illusion of mastery, at least, that lasted long enough to write the necessary papers and presentations.

Inevitably,

there’s a downside to a drug that makes everything interesting. By the end of junior year, I still had no idea what I liked or was good at. This past fall, when my senior year started, I took a break from the drug – at first because I couldn’t find any, and then because I refused it. It took these four abstinent months to realize that I was not supposed to be electrified by everything I learned in school; that some of it had a vaccinating purpose, so that by trying a little now and reacting badly, I could fend it off later.

Young ends on a thoughtful and skeptical note.

There were no more ecstatic Joan-of-Arc-in-the-library experiences, no more imagined channeling of dead literary critics – but this, I suppose, is appropriate when what’s at stake is only a 15-page essay on Jane Austen, double spaced.

Perspective is a good thing, of course. One of my best friends was recently observing that his students spend a surprisingly large amount of time making excuses and demanding that exceptions from class rules be made on their behalf, as though getting a zero on a problem set is somehow the end of the world. There are graduate students, by the way, many of them in their 30s. Still, Young’s essay makes me look forward to the exotic wonder-drugs of the future, when we’ll have a more detailed understanding of the brain, and perhaps even a finer-grained understanding of the way different chemical compounds interact with individual brains.

A scientist, I forget who it was, once posited that the reason superintelligent extraterrestrials haven’t bothered to get in touch could be that they are too busy playing unimaginably elaborate video games, or perhaps using unimaginably excellent drugs. It is, so to speak, a sobering thought.

[Patrick Appel]

Matt writes about my earlier post:

This strikes me as a pretty lazy equivalence. In a nation of 300 million people, I’m sure some people on the left have jumped at the opportunity to skewer McCain, but just about every liberal I read has taken the time to note that the Times’ sexual innuendos were a pretty inappropriate way to frame a news story.

Ben Smith also has a post about liberal blogs staying skeptical of the McCain article. Yes, many on the left have been healthily skeptical of the NYT coverage of McCain, but if you were reading the posts on some of the far-left blogs when the story broke, there was immediate glee at the chance to bash McCain. Still, I’ve been re-reading the coverage and it was fairer than I recalled. Also, in the ensuing hours and days the liberal blogs have gotten more skeptical, and they will continue to get more skeptical the longer it takes for real evidence on the sex scandal to surface (if it ever does). The Washington Post story today about lobbyists in McCain’s campaign makes a much more legitimate point. The key graf:

By the group’s current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton.

This is a justifiable criticism since McCain is considered anti-lobbyist, and it will hurt him throughout the campaign, but the sex scandal, if real, would sink him. Arguing about lobbyists is somewhat academic; a sex scandal any voter can understand.