What a hateful performance by Hillary's people. If this had been widely broadcast we'd really see the damage from her scorched earth campaign. As it is, let's hope this is the last gasp.

Posted at May 31, 2008 7:29 PM in response to DNC Rules Committee Approves Half-Vote Compromise For Florida

An entirely hypocritical and disingenuous case on behalf of Clinton.

Posted at May 31, 2008 2:41 PM in response to Clinton-Backer James Blanchard: Honor The Michigan Primary In Full

Welcome to the new absolute monarchy. Obviously we have no law in this country at all as long as the government claims the right to secretly create and secretly enforce a mysterious set of "laws." No law; no legitemate government. Here's Cesare Beccaria in 1764:

"Without written laws, no society will ever acquire a fixed form of government, in which the power is vested in the whole, and not
in any part of the society; and in which the laws are not to be altered but by the will of the whole, nor corrupted by the force of private interest. ... Hence we see the use of printing, which alone makes the public, and not a few individuals, the guardians and defenders of the laws. It is this art which by diffusing literature, has gradually dissipated the gloomy spirit of cabal and intrigue. To this art it is owing that the atrocious crimes of our ancestors, who were alternately slaves and tyrants, are become less frequent. Those who are acquainted with the history of the two or three last centuries may observe, how from the lap of luxury and effeminacy have sprung the most tender virtues, humanity, benevolence, and toleration of human errors. They may contemplate the effects of what was so improperly called ancient simplicity and good faith; humanity groaning under implacable superstition, the avarice and ambition of a few staining with human blood the drones and palaces of kings, secret treasons and public massacres, every noble a tyrant over the people, and the ministers of the gospel of Christ bathing their hands in blood in the name of the God of all mercy."

But, hey, who needs the Enlightenment?

Posted at May 1, 2008 12:02 PM in response to Today's Must Read

Beautiful. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Posted at April 19, 2008 5:04 PM in response to Why Nash McCabe Makes Barack Obama's Point

It seems to me that anyone who understands "electability" as some mysterious quality apart from issues that actually matter (like the war and the economy) is hopelessly confused. As long as the media defines who's electable in terms of stupid gaffes and half-truths, and as long as we let them get away with it, then yes, that matters. But if you think we aren't doomed as a country when we start electing people based on their lapel pins, you need a reality check. When the media does a decent job providing information about actual ideas, then the candidate who is most qualified will be most electable. Period. There are differences between these candidates that matter--plenty that isn't hair-splitting on health care, but isn't bogus either. How will they clean up after Bush to restore the Constitution? That hasn't even been asked. And on and on. So here we are, in the dark.

Posted at April 17, 2008 9:40 PM in response to Debating Electability

Well said. The "electability" defense is an empty bit of circular reasoning: Stephanopolis and his ilk justify their dismal coverage and superficial predetermined narratives about "character" on the grounds that future media coverage will be equally dismal, so we have to see how the candidates fare in those conditions. They define down "electability" to their own pitiful standards--then inundate us with lame coverage, then claim that the public is demanding this to see if the candidates are electable. Asinine.

Posted at April 17, 2008 8:29 PM in response to Debating Electability

Too true. Do these people have kids? Wouldn't you be ashamed? Wouldn't you?

Posted at April 14, 2008 8:30 PM in response to Schaffer Played Attack Dog against Exploited Marianas Worker

Actually, the typo "military interrogators could torture detainees as long as their only motivation was sadism" expresses the real outcome of the policy almost perfectly. The Yoo analysis excuses torture in any case provided some ideological excuse can be found (for the good of the USA etc): it's forbidden only if one can (impossibly) show that the torturer acted chiefly from libidinal thrill. But isn't that exactly the result of Bush-style pseudo patriotism and nationalism? --empty of practical morality or purpose, it promises that feelings of personal worth and psychological well-being(=libidinal thrill) can accompany any depraved act done for the alleged higher purpose of national security.

Paging Mistah Kurtz...

Posted at April 11, 2008 4:04 PM in response to Berkeley Law Dean: Yoo Was Not The Decider

Zoom: Congress certainly does have the right, indeed the duty, to reject nominees who offer clear evidence that they will not uphold the responsibilities of their office or the U.S. Constitution. Mukasey had offered ample evidence that he was no better than Gonzalez on those scores--and this in the context of a rudderless, politicized justice department--and they confirmed him anyway. Holding out for a responsible candidate who meets those minimal requirements for an Attorney General is hardly rejecting everyone who "doesn't agree." As for the advice to "grow up," that sort of pathetic attempt to portray yourself as somehow hardheaded and mature is usually the marker of someone whose argument is infantile, as yours certainly is.

Posted at April 10, 2008 1:26 PM in response to Mukasey Refuses to Say Yoo Fourth Amendment Memo Withdrawn

Waldman is right that 18th century evangelicals had good reason to favor of the separation of church and state—but he’s disingenuous in pretending to refute two sides equally in the so-called culture wars. The narrative here is driven by the right wing: the comments a couple days ago made clear that progressives are well informed about what Deism means (that it isn’t atheism), and don’t argue for “irreligion”, but rather argue for an evolving legal separation of church and state within the framework of the courts—something the right has shown little respect for. Let’s remember that the very notion of a “culture war” is a radical right wing narrative. There are few, if any, progressives who avail themselves of this divisive and stupid rhetoric.
Hovering in the background here is Waldman’s persistent notion of “orthodox” and “serious” Christians—which is historical nonsense. No scholar of the eighteenth century will let him get away with this. The mix of Protestant sects in the eighteenth century included no such generic animal: if he means to specify some persuasion, Anglicanism or otherwise, he needs to say so. The way he uses the phrase suggests quite plainly that what he regards as “orthodox” Christianity is that Christianity which is acceptable to modern conservative American evangelicals (even if he does deny that they founding fathers were such a thing). His attempt to “pick” a rough religion (“radical Unitarianism”--?) that fits all the founders generally is a manifest abdication of responsibility to put their views in the varied and interesting contexts in which they arose. In short, this is a book by someone who couldn’t really be bothered to learn much about eighteenth century religious discourses--whether theology or religious practice (two things that are not, by the way, the same) and how those views translated variously into political positions.
I’m also unimpressed by the coy game of “hide the argument” being played here, and the sloppy use of both Deism and Unitarianism as key terms. Also these straw men positions, liberal and conservative, are trotted out to no particular effect. One thing that needs to be pointed out again and again—against the generic notions of both ‘Christianity” and “religion” being applied here, is that the modern evangelical mode--of a personal Jesus, personal access to revelation, miraculous interventions, intrusion of church figures into law etc etc—was anathema to almost every sort of learned tradition, whether conservative Anglican or radical Enlightenment, that the founders would have drawn on. Even English “theocrats” as they have been mischaracterized here, who enforced Anglican conformity did so for the express purpose of maintaining a civic life free from the rantings of religious enthusiasts of today’s stripe. In other words, even if the founders were the best equivalent to “orthodox Christians” at the time, their views would be miles from those of conservatives today. To use this modern trend in Christianity to work backward to what was “orthodox” is extremely sloppy. I wonder if Mr. Waldman intends actually to engage with any serious criticism or dialogue, or if getting a publisher is sufficient reason for him to bypass what, in an actually per-reviewed context, would be a withering judgment that the research on this book is far from complete.

Posted at March 12, 2008 2:37 PM in response to Militant Unitarians