From Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama:
I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourselves this way.
The picture to which he’s referring:
I got to attend the VP debate - there was a lottery for student tickets, and I had #482 out of 521 allowed in. I think the most exciting part was actually standing around inside the security perimeter before entering the building, among all sorts of VIPs. I actually wished I watched more TV, because I could hardly recognize anyone, though, even when their companions were calling them “Senator.” Luckily I ran into a med school friend (who had a real ticket through family connections) and he pointed people out. We wound up standing right next to the Daily Show crew while John Oliver interviewed another Senator I didn’t recognize. John Oliver was very nice and let me snap a picture of my friend with him.
We also were standing right on the edge of the sidewalk while Joe Lieberman’s entourage passed. He greeted us very pleasantly, while one of his bodyguards knocked a cameraman out of the way (I’m pretty sure it was accidental, but it was still funny).
Inside the debate hall, I had an “obstructed view” seat and they weren’t kidding - I could see the moderator’s desk (but she herself was obscured by a camera) and nothing else. Also, it was really freaking cold in there.
Nonetheless, impressions:
- I didn’t have to see Palin to be annoyed by her smirk. It comes through loud and clear. Good Lord.
- maverick and 4 billion dollar tax cut for Exxon Mobil tied in the no-one-cares-but-we-can’t-think-of-anything-else contest
- I love how the change Washington needs comes in the form of a man who’s been in the Senate longer than I’ve been alive and a George W. Bush with lipstick on
- fairly impressed that Palin knows the name of the US commander in Afghanistan*, especially since Biden (who brought him up) didn’t seem to
- although both candidates basically held up garlic and crosses at the idea of gay marriage they were both adamant about equal civil rights otherwise. Obviously we still have far to go, but I think that’s great progress in not too long a time.
- nucular? Again? Seriously? Come on, you can’t say “doggone” AND “darn right” AND “you guys” AND “up there in Alaska” AND “nucular”. I guess the put-on folksiness worked pretty well for GWB though.
- by far the biggest laugh line of the night was Palin’s crack about a joke that must have fallen flat because nobody got it - unfortunately I couldn’t actually hear what she said, but assume she must have been poking fun at Biden.
- I wish Biden would have said he voted for the war because Bush & Co misrepresented the evidence rather than trying to pretend that he voted for peacekeeping powers or something instead of a war.
- obviously after the Katie Couric interview somebody told Palin she doesn’t have to fully answer every question. Given that, it was brilliant for her to come out and say that she wasn’t necessarily going to answer the questions the moderator asked but talk about what the American people want to hear. Though I did wish she’d answer the questions!
- I could tell Palin was flagging by the end when she sort of fizzled out on her answer and then said “so, um, yeah, I agree…” She’s going to be embarrassed when she has to listen to that on tape.
- Overall I thought both did quite well and I don’t see this changing very much in the race.
Oh, I also have to mention that on my way through the security checkpoint, I asked the Secret Service officer if I should remove my belt before passing through the metal detector. He responded, very pleasantly: “Ma’am, this isn’t an airport.” We all got to keep our shoes, too.
*I am informed that she actually got the name wrong - it’s McKiernan not McClellan. Eh, I’m willing to call that a slip of the tongue - she didn’t say Petraeus or even MacArthur.
This recent NY Times article, A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin, had me rolling my eyes.
First of all, I find it a bit strange that the author followed the conservatives’ lead in referring to the theory in question as Darwinism. Leaving out direct quotes and references to social Darwinism, I count 12 uses of “Darwinism” and similar phrasings, with 8 uses of “evolution” or “natural selection” (three of those were in the same sentence as “Darwinism” and presumably chosen to avoid repetition). I have no objection to using a variety of phrases, and “Darwinism” isn’t particularly wrong, since the guy was, after all, brilliant and current theory bears great resemblance to what he came up with. But the current theory is generally known as “evolutionary theory” (with natural selection being one piece of it). So I don’t understand why that phrase wouldn’t be used, especially to provide some variety given that the conservatives quoted almost invariably use the eponym.
Second and more importantly, it drives me crazy that so many prominent thinkers appear not to have a basic understanding of philosophy. I was fully able to grasp the is/ought problem when I read Hume in high school; I think that people who make a living pontificating on the relationship of science and politics should educate themselves on it.
Mr. West made a similar point, saying you could find justification in Darwin for both maternal instinct and for infanticide.
It is true that political interpretations of Darwinism have turned out to be quite pliable. Victorian-era social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer adopted evolutionary theory to justify colonialism and imperialism, opposition to labor unions and the withdrawal of aid to the sick and needy. Francis Galton based his “science” of eugenics on it. Arguing that cooperation was actually what enabled the species to survive, Pyotr Kropotkin used it to justify anarchism.
It’s certainly true that an understanding of science can inform policy decisions, but it’s important to understand that what science can tell us involves how things are now, how they were in the past, and how they got from there to here. It may be able to make predictions about what will happen if we make certain changes, though it should also remind us that such predictions are often wrong because the real world is complex. It has nothing whatsoever to say about how things ought to be.
This confusion exists on both the pro- and anti- evolutionary theory sides. I think Darwin would be shocked to learn that Mr. West believes his theory provides “justification” for maternal instinct and infanticide. The theory may be able to explain why those things exist, but it’s silent on their moral status. Then, Mr. Arnhardt thinks that “human nature” is a reason to push policies like an all-male military or traditional social sex roles. He’s making the added mistake of believing that because certain trends (like males being more powerful) evolved in the past, they must continue to be helpful now. A better understanding of the theory would show that fitness depends on the current environment; now that for humans, physical strength is dwarfed in importance compared to attributes like intelligence, it’s not at all clear that males will continue to be dominant or that traditional divisions of labor will even make sense.
Thankfully, the article does point out that “nature is morally neutral” and cite writers who understand this. John Derbyshire, whatever his other failings may be, is doing good work:
As for Mr. Derbyshire, he would not say whether he thought evolutionary theory was good or bad for conservatism; the only thing that mattered was whether it was true. And, he said, if that turns out to be “bad for conservatives, then so much the worse for conservatism.”
Ever wished there were some sort of record of cell phone service providers’ outages, so you could see who provides reliable service before signing up? The FCC keeps one, but you can’t see it.
The Federal Communications Commission does know something about outages, however. It has collected outage reports from telecommunications firms since the early 1990s. Any time a carrier has an outage that affects 900,000 caller minutes – say a 30-minute outage impacting 30,000 customers – it must report it to the Network Outage Reporting System.
In the beginning, the reports all were from “wire line” telephone providers and were available to the public. But in 2004, the commission ordered wireless firms to supply outage reports as well. But at the same time, it removed all outage reports from public view and exempted them from the Freedom of Information Act.
The FCC took the action at the urging of the Department of Homeland Security, which argued that publication of the reports would “jeopardize our security efforts.”
“The same outage data that can be so useful … to identify and remedy critical vulnerabilities and make the network infrastructure stronger can, in hostile hands, be used to exploit those vulnerabilities to undermine or attack networks,” DHS said.
It’s unclear how terrorists would use this information; perhaps with an appeal to the same magic force that would let them use an ounce of shampoo in an 8-ounce bottle to take down an airplane.
But it sure is clear how this policy benefits the cellular companies.
Via Julian Sanchez, I find James Wolcott’s scathing review of Dinesh D’Souza’s upcoming book, The Enemy at Home. I love a no-holds-barred book review, especially of a book as dishonest and freedom-hating as this one seems to be.
This, though, made me do a double-take:
“I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector [profiteers are always patriots, of course], and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”
[…]
“Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.”
I like that “Thus,” as if he’s actually proven something.
“I realize that this is a strong charge,” D’Souza writes, “one that no one has made before.”
But wait. That argument sounds awfully familiar. Didn’t somebody say that at the time? A quick google shows that yes, somebody did. Jerry Falwell in mid-September 2001:
“The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I’ll hear from them for this, but throwing God…successfully with the help of the federal court system…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”
So he’s not even original. On the other hand, even Falwell apologized.
Fury as Berlin Opera Cancels Performance
The German government accused a Berlin opera house of “self-censorship” on Tuesday for cancelling performances of a Mozart opera because it was concerned about attacks by Islamists.The Deutsche Oper, one of Berlin’s three opera houses, was due to show a controversial production of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” by director Hans Neuenfels in which the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha are placed on four chairs.
This sort of thing is exactly how the Islamic fanatics are trying to spread their nuttiness.
It is true that it’s difficult to think about how to deal with delusional nutcases, though: the fanatics see a performance like this as an attack on Islam (though anyone sane can see that it’s treating all religions equally), and that confirms what they see is a clash of civilizations. But self-censoring is playing into their hands and validating their notion that any sort of criticism of Islam is an attack.
That said, I think the point is that when you’re dealing with someone who isn’t rational, while you should of course be prepared for their likely responses, you probably don’t want to be making decisions based on their delusions.
[Disclaimer: My title is unfair; all the governmental officials quoted disapproved of the cancellation, which is good. And I don’t have a problem with France. I just couldn’t resist a surrender-monkey reference.]
President Bush used the first veto of his presidency today to block federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. My best guess is that he decided he needed to appear to take a firm stand on something that his base cares about.
But this is the wishy-washiest stand ever.
This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush, speaking at the White House, said after he followed through on his promise to veto the bill. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.”
This particular moral boundary is in fact so important that we… we… we won’t give anyone federal funds for crossing it! That will keep our society decent!
Bush is trying to pretend that he’s so serious about this issue that he’s willing to bring out the big guns, but it seems to me that if he were really serious about the need to respect this moral boundary, he’d actually do something to prevent people from destroying embryos, not just continue to deny them federal research funding.
I personally am happy that he’s not that much of an extremist, but I wonder if his socially conservative base will notice that this isn’t exactly a brave or principled stance.
I’ve been following the network neutrality debate with interest, largely through Tim’s excellent posts at the Technology Liberation Front.
Recently Ed Felten came out with a very good paper (pdf) on the subject, in which he comes to the conclusion that the best thing to do is wait on any legislation unless or until it becomes necessary.
There is a good policy argument in favor of doing nothing and letting the situation develop further. The present situation, with the network neutrality issue on the table in Washington but no rules yet adopted, is in many ways ideal. ISPs, knowing that discriminating now would make regulation seem more necessary, are on their best behavior; and with no rules yet adopted we don’t have to face the difficult issues of linedrawing and enforcement. Enacting strong regulation now would risk side-effects, and passing toothless regulation now would remove the threat of regulation. If it is possible to maintain the threat of regulation while leaving the issue unresolved, time will teach us more about what regulation, if any, is needed.
Bill Herman from Public Knowledge disagrees:
I dare say that current political theory demonstrates that his policy option is quite unrealistic; the chance to act will expire too quickly, and the threat of regulation will have passed.
(He has a fairly lengthy and thoughtful explanation following the brief part I quoted.) Tim Lee and Professor Felten maintain that there are several reasons to wait, each describing ways that passing legislation now could backfire.
It seems to me that there’s another reason there’s no harm in waiting: yes, as Herman says, the issue is currently in the public eye. But why? A few ill-advised comments from a telecom CEO and a bunch of wild speculation and exaggeration. It doesn’t appear that there have actually been any serious violations of network neutrality yet. (One dinky ISP in North Carolina blocked rival VoIP services, but the FCC stopped that with current regulations.)
So if the issue is this hot based only on a theoretical threat, I can only imagine that if ISPs actually started violating network neutrality principles, the grass roots would be even more outraged. There would be plenty of political will to enact regulations at that point, if necessary.
Via Matt Yglesias, I find this rather goofy article, Polygamy Versus Democracy. Apparently there’s a prevailing opinion in legal circles that polygamy should be legally recognized, and this is Stanley Kurtz’s argument that it shouldn’t be recognized because it isn’t compatible with democracy.
I tend to agree that traditional patriarchal polygamy isn’t compatible with a liberal society - certainly not if it’s a cultural norm. Strangely, Kurtz never mentions one of the primary reasons this is so: the fact that, by definition, patriarchal polygamy involves making women a lesser class than men. When half your society doesn’t have the same rights as the other half, truly liberal government is pretty much impossible. The closest thing I can find to an acknowledgment of women’s oppression in polygamous societies is the remark that “polygamy opens the way to marital discord, divorce, and the consequent destitution and abandonment of women and children.” Of course, this phrasing implies that women are something to be taken care of, just like children, so I’m still not at all sure that the subjugation of women is a factor in Kurtz’s dislike of polygamy.
So why does he dislike it? Supposedly, of course, because it’s incompatible with democracy. He uses the Mormon society of the 19th century to demonstrate this.
Brigham Young was simultaneously head of the church, governor of the Utah Territory, and a member of the boards of major businesses. Young decided where his followers lived, the crops they grew, where they shopped, the professions they chose–and who they married. There was little government beyond the church’s structure. Religious leaders schooled their families privately, while most of the territory’s children remained illiterate. Elections were understood not as forums for debate and decision, but as occasions for popular acclamation of God’s choice.Underlying all this was a deeply communal ethic: Men and women were willing to defer to the church’s leadership for the sake of the broader Mormon society, even in so personal a matter as marriage–within which, of course, wives deferred to husbands.
(There’s another hint at women’s subjugation… but no exploration of how this might harm a society.) It seems fairly clear here that the theocracy was the problem, not the polygamy per se. I guess the argument is that polygamy fostered a communal ethic, which then led to acceptance of theocracy. But there’s not too much explanation of how that works, and I’m pretty sure it’s not a necessary condition. (See: Scientologists - not polygamous as far as I know, but happy to let their crazy church control their lives.)
Sure enough, Mormon resistance was broken by taking apart the theocracy first:
Attending to the social and economic foundations of Mormon power, Congress set out to break polygamist rule. By 1833, the disestablishment of churches in the American states was complete, and it had been accomplished partly by state legislatures’ setting limits to the churches’ business and property holdings. Congress now applied these standards to the Utah Territory, modeling its legislation on the original “mortmain” laws that had curbed church power in England. In this way, church control of Utah’s economy was dissolved, and erstwhile church property was used to fund public education, with a curriculum designed around democratic values.The result was capitulation. With the economic and social foundations of theocracy destroyed, a shooting war unwinnable, and the quest for statehood hanging in the balance, the Mormons renounced polygamy and set themselves on the path to democracy.
Perhaps theocratic rule by a nut was what led to the polygamous practices? No mention of that possbilitiy.
Some time later, Kurtz argues that successful polygamy depends on giving up individual autonomy:
This same emphasis on rules and hierarchy within a tightly bound group explains why the Bedouin children studied by Al-Krenawi turn out all right. Things get better when Bedouin kids grow up and receive surrogate parenting from their extended kin. But that depends on giving up what Al-Krenawi calls “the Western liberal conception of individual autonomy.” To get all that surrogate parenting, the Bedouin adopt an “authoritarian and group-oriented” identification with an extended family and tribe.
Cognitive dissonance at hearing “individual autonomy=good” and “identification with extended family=bad” from a conservative aside, this is probably the most persuasive argument he has. But two paragraphs later, we get this:
Yet the weakening or even disappearance of extended kinship groups from family life in the West poses a problem. If families aren’t going to be held together by collective honor, mutual obligation, and shared economic interest, how will they cohere? The answer is love. Exclusive affection for a unique individual is the structural foundation on which Western families are built. In polygamous societies, where marriages are arranged and wives and children live collectively, too much individualized love (for spouses or children) endangers group solidarity. Yet in a democratic society, individualized love is praised and cultivated as the foundation of family stability.
Wait just a minute. Families aren’t held together by collective honor, mutual obligation, and shared economic interest? I thought those were a huge part of why people do form families! While love is a wonderful thing, it can’t be the only basis for a marriage or family. Love doesn’t conquer all, folks. Expecting it to do so is a significant factor in the current high divorce rate - if you don’t love each other any more, why stay married? Especially if you’re not supposed to hold your family together with honor, obligation, or economic interest!
After reading that, I had to google to make sure this guy is actually a conservative. He is! And in an NRO article from just last week, I found the following:
Consider Anthony Giddens, the most influential sociologist in Britain, and arguably all of Europe. Giddens’s 1992 book, The Transformation of Intimacy, with its famous notion of “the pure relationship,” is the text most frequently invoked by European demographers to explain trends like parental cohabitation and same-sex unions.Giddens’s point is that modern marriage is slowly being divested of connections with anything beyond the purely emotional bonding of adults. It used to be that the love of husband and wife was only part of the picture. Men and women were held together by love, but also by economic interdependence, and a shared commitment to parenthood. But gradually, says Giddens, the marriage alliance is becoming less and less about a shared project of prosperity and parenting. Increasingly, marriage is being reduced to a strictly emotional connection between two adults: “the pure relationship.”
For Europe’s demographers, Giddens’s idea of the pure relationship makes sense of why so many parents now avoid marriage. When having a child turns into an experiment that might possibly lead to marriage, rather than a reason to get married in the first place, you know that marriage has been narrowed into an identification with the adult love relationship. Gay marriage fits in here, as well. When gay-marriage advocates define marriage, they carefully confine themselves to the adult love relationship, insisting that parenthood has no intrinsic connection to marriage.
He goes on to argue that this trend is undermining the traditional family, which, after all, does require commitment and economic interdependence beyond just love. If you accept Kurtz’s argument in the Weekly Standard article that “individualized love is … the foundation of family stability” and individual autonomy is key in a democracy, maybe it’s gay marriage and not the traditional family that’s truly compatible with democracy!
My head is hurting from trying to wrap my mind around these arguments. So that’s the end of the substantive criticism, but there are two more ridiculous quotes that I can’t resist including.
Of course, liberal law professors aren’t defending polygamy out of affection for patriarchy. Their goal is to establish the principle that individuals have the right to create and define their families as they see fit. Ultimately, that would put same-sex marriage, polyamory, nonsexual group partnerships, and even singlehood on a par with traditional marriage, resulting in the effective abolition of marriage itself as a legal status.
O NOES! Singlehood might become just as accepted as marriage? The horror! (I thought we’d long ago stopped calling people old maids and bachelors….)
You can’t send the message that marriage means fidelity when even a small portion of recognized marriages are polyamorous.
Sorry to break it to you, but currently a small portion of marriages ARE polyamorous. There are a whole bunch of people out there who are legally married to each other but sleep with other people. (Many of them even organize their marriages that way on purpose.) I don’t think that’s harmed the general conception of marriage. Oh, the problem would only happen if the outside relationships were recognized by the government? Mr. Kurtz, what kind of conservative are you?
Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
Christian groups (mostly on college campuses) are upset that tolerance codes prevent them from expressing their beliefs about homosexuality or accepting non-heterosexuals (or people who don’t have a problem with that) as members.
Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality “a natural part of God’s created order.”Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.
The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.
I think student groups should certainly have the right to express their opinions and to choose their membership as they wish; the rest of us have the right to either ignore or picket the bigots. I don’t like the idea of tax dollars going to support such groups, though. Actually, I don’t understand why the funding of religious student groups by state universities doesn’t appear to be controversial at all; it seems like a violation of the establishment clause to me. And if universities start making judgments about groups’ stated beliefs before awarding funding, that definitely sounds like a problem.
But the solution to this issue looks pretty simple to me: stop funding student groups with university money. There’s no need for official recognition at all, in fact; any student should be able to reserve unused classroom space for any (legal) purpose, while more popular spaces (like large auditoriums) should come with a fee.
I don’t see why student groups need university funding at all; most of it appears to go to free pizza and copying expenses. If the groups are popular enough, they shouldn’t need to bribe students to attend meetings, and if flyers weren’t so heavily subsidized I suspect most groups would move to more-effective, less-annoying advertising like emails to interested students rather than polluting the campus with brightly-colored paper.
Groups that attract enough interest should be able to fund whatever needs they actually have with member dues, bake sales, and outside donations. While many college students will claim that they couldn’t afford to pay dues, this isn’t true for most of them (and if the “activities fee” went away as a result it would be true for even fewer). For those few individuals who really can’t scrape up any extra cash without skipping meals, groups could certainly waive fees. As an added bonus, this might cut down on the number of annoying people who join every group around as a resume-padding tactic.
And it would spare university resources by cutting down on a useless bureaucracy as well as legal fees resulting from denied funding.