![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Every time I think the Washington Post may be capable of rational thought, there comes along something like this.
Of course, I may be being unfair; it's by the man who made bipartisanism into a synonym for "do what my party wants" while continuing to get tjhe respect he deserved when he used to do actual reporting. Even the infernal Ruth Marcus has had a glimmer of common sense; it may be that the rest of the page is shaping up.
And it is of course possible that this is an example of the new business model of the Post, I did log on to respond to it; others have done the same - the Post's advertisers are doubtless duly impressed, even though I didn't look at any ads, and would regard sponsorship of this column as a direcommendation.
To content:
After having outlined a substantive disagreement between the Ambassador to Afghanistan and the field commander, His Wisdom quotes Clark Clifford " a wrong decision was better than no decision at all." There are times when that is true; but if pausing about Afganistan for a month is one of them, we we've already made the worst decision 90 times or so; one more won't hurt.
But this is more than "get off the pot"; the decision the Fighting Keyboarder opposes would be worse than none:
Let's have a thousand words:
This is Dr. William Brydon, all that returned of the first European army that tried to govern Afghanistan. The Soviets did too, as even the press corps should recall. I do not think that that makes Obama's decision obvious; but tjhe Village Idiots think there is nothing to consider.
Of course, I may be being unfair; it's by the man who made bipartisanism into a synonym for "do what my party wants" while continuing to get tjhe respect he deserved when he used to do actual reporting. Even the infernal Ruth Marcus has had a glimmer of common sense; it may be that the rest of the page is shaping up.
And it is of course possible that this is an example of the new business model of the Post, I did log on to respond to it; others have done the same - the Post's advertisers are doubtless duly impressed, even though I didn't look at any ads, and would regard sponsorship of this column as a direcommendation.
To content:
After having outlined a substantive disagreement between the Ambassador to Afghanistan and the field commander, His Wisdom quotes Clark Clifford " a wrong decision was better than no decision at all." There are times when that is true; but if pausing about Afganistan for a month is one of them, we we've already made the worst decision 90 times or so; one more won't hurt.
But this is more than "get off the pot"; the decision the Fighting Keyboarder opposes would be worse than none:
I don't see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending. It may not work if the country truly is ungovernable. But I think we have to gamble that security will bring political progress -- as it has done in Iraq.
in short, Obama should refuse (on a political question) to back up the Ambassador he picked, and abdicate civilian control of the military; all this on the gamble that Afghanistan is governable - by the armies of a foreign power. Let's have a thousand words:
This is Dr. William Brydon, all that returned of the first European army that tried to govern Afghanistan. The Soviets did too, as even the press corps should recall. I do not think that that makes Obama's decision obvious; but tjhe Village Idiots think there is nothing to consider.
Nine Republican senators have joined to protest the idea of investigating deaths, waterboarding, and the rest of Darkness at Noon as reported by a CIA inspector general. After all, because Mukasey ignored torture, Holder must.
Among those signing this are
- John Kyl, minority whip
- Kit Bond, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee
- Jeff Sessions, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
May Aceldama take them.
This is from the LA Times, almost a day ago; the Washington Post does not yet have it, although the Washington Times does (and, being what they are, supports the letter); nor does not the New York Times
Ruth Marcus, fresh from explaining why we shouldn't prosecute torturers, now explains why Michelle Obama shouldn't mind "Sweet Sasha" and "Marvelous Malia" dolls. After all, it's good for black self-esteem; and anyway, when Marcus exploits her own children's cuteness for her column, why should Mrs. Obama mind somebody else exploiting hers?
Possibly: because it's somebody else? After all, we couldn't suggest that some mothers would prefer not to see their children exploited at all.
Possibly: because it's somebody else? After all, we couldn't suggest that some mothers would prefer not to see their children exploited at all.
On the contrary, the appeal of Locke and Mill and Paine depended on the force of their arguments. All three of them said this; I quote Mill below. (And if they are wrong about this essential point, the value of spreading their texts is doubtful.)
As a mere matter of fact, this would, I think, surprise Paine most, since he wrote when the Prime Minister had an arrest warrant out for him and the President had abandoned him to a foreign prison.
With thanks to Juan Cole, whose book on Napoleon i must review.
Added: This did, however, get to me to reread Representative Government, a useful reminder that Ajami has as little to do with Mill as the Gospels have to do with the First Crusade riding red to the fetlock through the streets of Jerusalem:
How is it possible, then, to compute the elements of political power, while we omit from the computation any thing which acts on the will? To think that, because those who wield the power in society wield in the end that of government, therefore itis of no use to attempt to influence the constitution of the government by acting on opinion, is to forget that opinion is itselfone of the greatest active social forces. One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests. They who can succeed in creating a general persuasion that a certain form of government, or social fact of any kind, deserves to be preferred, havemade nearly the most important step which can possibly be taken toward ranging the powers of society on its side. On the day when the protomartyr was stoned to death at Jerusalem, while he who was to be the Apostle of the Gentiles stood by "consenting unto his death,"would any one have supposed that the party of that stoned man were then and there the strongest power in society? And has not the event proved that they were so? Because theirs was the most powerful of then existing beliefs?
- Considerations on Representative Government Chapter I.
And Mill is arguing here against social and economic determinism, not against proselytism by military force. I hope such minds as Ajami are treating Locke and Mill and Paine as mere flags, to be flown over whatever aggression suits him; otherwise we have here the doctrine of Robespierre and Lenin, that men must be compelled to be free.Fox News at work:
Hat off to Media Matters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is your favorite Scripture that you kind of lean on that sort of keeps you going?
GARRETT: Obama's answer not exactly rooted in Scripture but in the ballpark.
OBAMA: -- the Golden Rule. It's very simple. I mean, it's a very simple concept. I think what he asks of me is that I treat my brother as -- and my sister -- as I would have them treat me.
I suppose this might mean nothing more than that Obama did not quote the KJV literally. But this will be their Senior White House correspondent.Hat off to Media Matters.
John Yoo, who advised the now departing Texan that there was no law he needed to obey, and John Bolton, the United Nations ambassador who hated the United Nations, are now being given space to urge that the Obama administration be barred from making agreements with the consent of both houses of Congress, the method by which Texas - and Hawaii - became part of the United States. After all, if we actually continue to do what Presidents of both parties have long done, our modern Lodges won't be able to rule in defeat as in victory.
The House of Lords chose to be, as Lloyd George put it in 1908, "not the watchdog of the constitution; it is Mr Balfour’s poodle. It fetches and carries for him. It barks for him. It bites anyone that he sets it on to." In 1911, it ceased to be an equal member of the British Constitution. Let who will profit from this lesson.
My thanks to Digby, at Hullabaloo.
Ruth Marcus claims that we need not prosecute those guilty of torture on these grounds: There are other remedies which will prevent this from happening again (she names none but congressional oversight, an evidently useless measure; Congress immunized much of this). Those who were guilty weren't deterred by the threat of punishment (of course they weren't; they counted on not being punished, and Ruth Markus is bending every effort to make sure they are right). They had lawyers who told them their actions were legal. (So has every tyrant since Charles I; the remedy is disbarment - in addition to trials.) Lastly, that the government cannot do two things at once: preparing trials will somehow interfere with closing Guantanamo.
This is bleeding-heart conservatism. If the same reasoning were applied to a punk who held up the corner grocery store, everyone would laugh at it; this demotes the Washington Post to the level of bird-cage liner.
Law is, as Mr Justice Holmes said, what judges do; it is also what they fail to do. Ruth Markus is proposing to make torture constitutional, a political question; she should be ashamed of herself.
Did Chris Matthews really say: Do you want Caroline Kennedy to be back in the Senate? (Emphasis, and pain, added.) Is this aristocratic snob still running for Senate from Pennsylvania? Oh, teh stupid.
