The Dish

"America’s friends abroad have felt more despair this past five years than in the previous 50. To turn a phrase once applied to Britain by the American diplomatist Dean Acheson, America has acquired an empire but not found a role," – Simon Jenkins, The Times.

In some ways, this is one of the most important issues in this election after the astonishing power-grab by Bush and Cheney. The Boston Globe sent out a questionnaire on executive power to all the candidates. Unsurprisingly, Giuliani didn’t respond, except with bland mush from Ted Olson. Only McCain and Paul among Republicans repudiated the notion that the president is above the law, can ignore treaties at will, and has the inherent power to seize, imprison and torture anyone on the planet he deems an "enemy combatant" without due process. But the most interesting responses were from Romney and Clinton. Clinton – as always – hedged. She left some space for signing statements. But she is admirably candid in some respects:

The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress’s prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration’s view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.

Romney, however, clearly represents the continuation of the de facto protectorate of the Bush-Cheney administration. He backs the use of signing statements, the right of the president to ignore treaties if he wishes, and only supports "some type of habeas corpus relief" for US citizens seized by the government. On torture, he believes that the president can torture and is under no obligation even to answer questions about it:

A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.

It seems to me that that kind of power is monarchical not presidential, secret and dangerous rather than open and legal. According to Romney, the president doesn’t even have to say if he believes Congress can ban, say, waterboarding? A vote for Romney is a vote to continue the unprecedented and indefinite powers that Bush and Cheney have seized for themselves.   

A reader writes:

I too, wanted to pretend like I didn’t see that video of Ron Paul saying that he can’t accept Evolution.  I admire the man.  He is clearly the most legitimate GOP candidate.  But this has completely damaged my perception of him.  As an Athiest, I often find it absoultely mind-boggling that so many people in the United States, in this day and age, can still deny that Evolution is real.  But the truth is, while pretty much any person you meet who doesn’t believe in Evolution is doing so for religous reasons, it is important to note that this issue goes far deeper than just religion itself.  After all, the present day Vatican, and even Pope Benedict have a very sober stance towards Evolution.  So this to me, highlights why Paul’s denial of Evolution is such a big deal.

It is important because it says much more about him than merely what his religious beliefs are.  It illuminates a major element of his thought process.

It tells me that he is able to completely filter out an entire planet full of empirical evidence supporting Evolution, because this evidence conflicts with his beliefs.  Notice his choice of words: "don’t accept".  Its an act of outright denial.  How could you possibly live in our world, as an educated person in 2007, and refuse to acknowledge that you see natural selection occurring everywhere around you?  It is as if he is an ostrich, burying his head in the sand because he is too scared to acknowledge reality.  It is truthiness, in its finest form, and it reminds me of the way Bush thinks.   

This to me, has major implications for a presidential candidate.  If he is able to turn a blind eye to Evolution, and deny it simply because it conflicts with his religious beliefs, how can I ever trust him to have sober judgment when it comes to serious issues facing a presidency?  He has now demonstrated the ability to look away from reality when it proves inconvenient to his own beliefs.  How could we ever trust him to deal with Global Warming, or Islamic terrorism, or any other issue that requires wide open eyes?  The man really dissapointed me today.  I could handle his legion of whacko supporters, I could handle his extreme libertarianism, but I’m afraid I can’t handle this.

850 show up for Obie. 350 for Edwards. At this point, these numbers are about as useful as the polls.

Probably not for his Iraq expertise:

"I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America, that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni, or the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq has always been very secular."

Yeah, I don’t have a leg to stand on. But at least I’ve acknowledged how wrong I was.

A Republican writes:

A party that is as motivated by revanchist impulse as today’s Democratic Party cannot bring itself to transcend its anger. That is why Hillary will survive the Obama insurgency.

Yes, Obama would beat us, bad. We would hemorrhage Republican women and a significant number of conservatives would vote Obama to teach the Republicans in Washington not to deviate from Reagan and Goldwater. We would be forced to return to first principles, and we would.

But that is not what Democrats want. They do not see this opportunity. All they see is Bush, and they are obsessed with the man who will not be running in 2008.

This is what we are counting on. We instantly understand that Hillary controls the money. Hillary controls the Superdelegates. Hillary controls the Party Apparatus. Hillary knows that her base voters are more filled with anger at Bush than they are with hope for the future and change for all the American people.

Oprah has nothing on Michelle. Nor does Hillary:

She has the potential to be as transformational a First Lady as her husband would be a president. The opening for black America in particular is immeasurable. I know many of you think I’ve become a shill for the Obama campaign. So be it. I admit to a visceral response to the Clintons and their machine. But it isn’t just visceral. It’s a function of watching and following them very closely for many years. They have many, many qualities. They are both extremely talented. But they are also deeply flawed and would in my view, be terribly divisive for the country. I guess my elbows have been a little sharp with respect to Clinton. But I make no apology for throwing myself into this Clinton-Obama struggle. After these last few years, it seems to me to be an epic battle between fear and hope. I think we need more hope right now and less fear. We need fresh voices, not exhausted and bitter ones. We need to believe in America again. Clinton cannot do that. Obama can.

I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. You don’t have to read this blog. And I don’t have to write it. My emotions sometimes get the better of me. But if you are an Iowa Democrat, do yourself a favor and listen to Michelle Obama. Don’t throw this chance away.

Hat tip: Ambers.

"In the early days of sexbots very few people indeed will be able to afford to buy one. But the robots-for-hire business model will work. As more and more people experience robot sex and communicate their experiences to their friends, and in the media, so the demand will increase and the price will drop. Eventually is a very long time, but consider television in the early days very few could afford it, but nowadays some homes have 3, 4 or more TVs," – David Levy, author of Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. And you never have to call the next day.

I have to say that John Paul II has one of the best statements I’ve read on the subject:

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer."