The Dish

With a little help from GoogleEarth.

Literally.

Pew reports a drop in mothers preferring full-time work. Cathy Young wonders why.

They exist. I guess I’d have counted as one of them in a loose description. And this passage from Randy Barnett makes sense to me:

Other libertarians supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.

Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was "legal" cause to take military action against Saddam’s regime–from its manifold violations of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the "no fly" zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam’s regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops.

Yes, but. The "but" gains traction from the events of the past four years and the appalling mismanagement of the war. It has chastened any rational interventionist’s conviction, especially libertarians’, as Barnett rightly understands. Jeffrey Tucker explains here.

Barnett, however, still believes we should pour money and troops into the sinkhole of Iraq. Why?

They hope that the early signs of progress in this offensive will continue, so that American and Iraqi forces can achieve the military victory necessary to allow the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people from terrorists, as well as from religious sectarian violence.

But the Iraqi government is a key propagator of sectarian violence and it is largely controlled by Shiite militias. There is no way Maliki or whoever poses as an "Iraqi" "government" will want to protect their sectarian enemies from sectarian violence. That’s the problem. The argument for the surge rests on an abstract fantasy.

Its … Barry Manilow!

It’s been amusing to see Hugh Hewitt’s site constantly festooned with cartoons mocking John Edwards’ expensive haircuts and grooming. I’m not holding my breath for the equivalent about Romney.

Mean girls, more like it:

Many Republican candidates talk the talk. But only one truly walks the walk.

A new report in Vanity Fair documents more about this administration’s authorization of torture as its main tool in intelligence-gathering in the war on terror. Among the facts that are becoming clearer is the cooptation of the psychological profession to craft, monitor and adjust torture techniques for detainees. Some in the professional psychological and psychiatric community are raising hell. Money quote from a press release from Physicians For Human Rights today:

"The indisputable evidence disclosed today that the US government, with the assistance of psychologists, was engaged in psychological torture tactics for the CIA is as morally reprehensible as Tuskegee and the MK-Ultra program of the 1950’s and 60’s," stated Leonard S. Rubenstein, Executive Director of PHR. "It is imperative that both White House and Congress explicitly prohibit the use of these specific tactics once and for all.  They have no place in lawful and honorable military and intelligence communities," …

"The use of psychologists by the military and the intelligence community to inflict psychological harm on detainees in our custody is the most severe affront to health professional ethics imaginable," stated Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, MD (USA-Ret.), former Commander of Southeast Medical Command and a Senior Advisor to PHR. "This scandal has stained the core ethical and legal foundations of two professions — the soldier and the healer. Those uniformed and civilian officials who authorized this perversion of the military medical corps’ mission should be ashamed of their actions and be held to account."

In my view, they should be prosecuted for war crimes, along with their civilian administration masters. PHR goes on:

Beyond the disclosures about the alleged actions of psychologists at CIA Black Sites, today’s report in Vanity Fair contains disturbing new information about high-level authorizations in late 2001 of broad parameters for CIA interrogations involving personnel, including psychologists, seconded from the DoD.  These authorizations strongly suggest the involvement of senior-level Bush Administration officials in the events that led to the regime of psychological torture that migrated to all three theaters of operation in the "War on Terror," including Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA Black Sites.

"The long-standing distinctions between the roles of the military and intelligence communities appear to have been ripped asunder in the rush to employ abusive interrogation tactics after the tragedy of 9/11," stated Xenakis.  "Harnessing the medical knowledge of health professionals to break bodies and minds is, sadly, but one of many egregious consequences when over two centuries of military tradition and ethical discipline is tossed aside."

The Pope’s recent reiteration of differences between the various Christian churches (although he doesn’t want us to even call them churches) was both an event and a non-event. A non-event because there was nothing new in this; an event because it seemed all the more arbitrary as a consequence. There’s nothing that radical about restoring the old Latin mass either. But you get the feeling, and more than the feeling, that Benedict really does regret the Second Council, in his heart if not in the letter. And although I am ingrained with suspicion of Protestantism, I know that’s not the spirit of the Gospels. Others have simply moved on. An Episcopalian priest writes:

Relational ecumenism may be the strongest among us Christians in our 20s and 30s, the so-called "post-denominational" set. Upwards of 60 percent of us no longer consider denominational affiliation as important as it was to previous generations, and we also get around more, experiencing different denominations before possibly committing to one — if at all. Such experiences mean that, while not necessarily dismissive of the conversation, we’re just not interested in waiting around until the old men in robes hammer out every minute detail of doctrine before we can share in each other’s faiths.

But this spirit isn’t just limited 20- and 30-somethings.

Several of my older parishioners who still identify as Roman Catholics regularly attend my mass because they like me—and I them.  The Catholics and Anglicans on the New York Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue Committee represent all different generations, and even as the Vatican tells us we’re not on an equal footing, we still talk about doctrine, politics, faith and life as though we were.  While visiting Rome last fall for the 40th anniversary of the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogues, I repeatedly heard female priests obliquely referred to as “obstacles” to unity in the endless round of talks I sat through. Yet once the talks were over and the cocktails wheeled out, I chatted and swapped email addresses with several Roman Catholic priests who daringly made a point to tell me they thought my priesthood was valid.

(Photo: Franco Origlia/Getty.)