roger said…

Actually, this is known as economizing, and should be done more often. All the war pundits can have the same piece copied and published in their usual places, and then, every six months, they can change it, usually to find somebody to blame for the total failure of what they have been advising. The Perle-to-Krauthammer stretch (I wanted a war with more closet space! A-and a jacuzzi! This war is really yucky and old. When are we going to get the war on Iran, Daddy!) is fascinating to watch – mindless irresponsibility seguing into dyspeptic irresponsibility.

So Foers might be on to something.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | US scientists reject interference:

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

Lance Mannion: Ideas in search of a post:

Tolstoy on marriage; Hemingway on non-violence

David Brooks wrote an incredibly (fill in the blank) _____________ column the other day advocating joint checking accounts as a way to ensure that the human race survives the next Martian attack, or something.

I’m not sure. It’s hard to say. It’s not clear that Brooks even knows what he’s saying. Matt Yglesias captures the muddledheaded flavor of Brooks’ writing these days.

The man thinks. . . well, it’s hard to say exactly what he thinks, but it’s something about married couples maintaining independent checking accounts. He thinks that’s a bad thing. But he doesn’t deny that under some circumstances, it could be a good thing. He just thinks it would be a bad thing if this became the normal procedure — i.e., the one most people use. But he doesn’t try to go down the list to calculate whether the considerations that make separate accounts a good idea for some people do or do not apply to most couples, or are or are not likely to apply to most future couples. So it’s a bit puzzling. He also doesn’t think people should be forced to maintain unified accounts. He just thinks they should be discouraged in some unspecified way.

All of Brooks’ columns suffer from an on this hand/on that hand woolyness. It’s what happens when you try to maintain your reputation as a open-minded, reasonable although conservative thinker while simultaneously writing propaganda for a pack of Right wing zealots. They’re mutually contradictory exercises.

It’s like Bertie Wooster says about the aspiring fascist dictator Spode who it turns out runs a lingerie shop on the side.

Jeeves: Mr Spode designs ladies’ underclothing, sir. He has a considerable talent in that direction, and has indulged it secretly for some years. He is the founder and proprietor of the emporium in Bond Street known as Eulalie Soeurs.

Bertie: You don’t mean that?

Jeeves: Yes, sir.

Bertie: Good Lord, Jeeves! No wonder he didn’t want the thing to come out.

Jeeves: No, sir. It would unquestionably jeopardize his authority over his followers.

Bertie: You can’t be a successful Dictator and design women’s underclothing.

Jeeves: No, sir.

Bertie: One or the other, but not both.

Jeeves: Precisely, sir.

You can’t be a good writer and shill for a gang of ideological thugs. One or the other, but not both.

What’s clear though is that Brooks thinks that the basis of a happy marriage is an abjection of ego, particularly on the part of uppity wives who want to keep control of the money they earn.

Brooks’ teacher in the ways of blissful conjugality is…

Leo Tolstoy.

Brooks:

Tolstoy’s story captures the difference between romantic happiness, which is filled with exhilaration and self-fulfillment, and family happiness, built on self-abnegation and sacrifice.

The story he’s referring to is Family Happiness.

This is a story in which the young wife narrating the tale of her marriage realizes that she has lost her husband’s interest and affection, deservedly, through trying to enjoy herself in life and then concludes, with a shrug, well, it’s ok, at least she has the kids and the grocery shopping to make her happy again.

That day ended the romance of our marriage; the old feeling became a precious irrecoverable remembrance; but a new feeling of love for my children and the father of my children laid the foundation of a new life and a quite different happiness; and that life and happiness have lasted to the present time.

TolstoyThis is the writer Brooks wants to make our collective marriage counselor.

I have never met a woman who has read War and Peace who wasn’t appalled by what Tolstoy does to his smart and vivacious heroine Natasha at the end of the novel. I haven’t met any man who’s read Anna Karenina who doesn’t think the Kitty-Levin subplot is insipid and a waste of time and who wouldn’t rather be married to an cuckolding Anna than to the vaccouous and docile like an over-affectionate puppy is docile Kitty.

(Of course I haven’t met a man who isn’t convinced that if he was married to an Anna she wouldn’t have reason to look twice at any Vronksys swaggering by.)

The Kreuzter Sonata was the single most misogynistic piece of writing in the Western Canon before Hemingway sweated out The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber after waking up in the middle of the night screaming from yet another feverish nightmare in which his mother came at him with a meat cleaver

Brooks wants us to take advice on a how to live happily ever after from the author of The Kreutzer Sonata?

Tolstoy’s ideas on family happiness aren’t a recipee for a happy marriage. They were a recipee for a very unhappy Mrs Tolstoy.

This is so intrinsic to both Tolstoy’s work and his biography that I wondered if Brooks had actually read anything by him. I’ve always suspected that despite the way conservatives tout for The Great Books and push to have college literature courses teach them to the exclusion of all else, they themselves have never actually read any of The Great Books and don’t want to. I think this because I believe that if they had read those books and absorbed their lessons they wouldn’t be conservatives.

Wishful thinking, I suppose. Education rarely trumps vanity and self-interest, even in liberal academics.

But I was thinking that Brooks couldn’t have read even the story he quotes from. I figured he has a well-thumbed edition of Bartlett’s on his desk and he had flipped to the index and looked for quotes that included the words “family” and “happiness.”

Then I remembered the time in Doonesbury when Trip Trippler went to work for George Will as a quote boy. (And liberal admirers of Brooks who keep asking ruefully what happened to Brooks’ writing skills should re-read some of Will’s books. I think Brooks is trying to rewrite Wills’ old columns from memory and he needs to take more ginseng tablets.) Maybe, I thought, Brooks has a quote boy celebrating his last day on the job by playing a practical joke.

Hee hee. Mr Brooks thinks I’m giving him a quote that supports his argument. He’s also writing a column on humility and I’m going to slip him this great quote from Nietzsche.

Family Happiness is a great story—and very interesting to read in conjunction with Chekhov’s better story The Party. Chekhov was a highly critical admirer of Tolstoy.—but its basic message on the subject of marriage is the same as in all of Tolstoy’s work: Intellectually and sexually independent women are scary as all get out and the key to happiness for a man is to marry a doll.

I couldn’t believe that Brooks would honestly think that using a story by Tolstoy as an example would be persuasive to an audience of 21st Century readers, particularly his female readers.

But Amanda Marcotte at Mouse Words set me straight. She’s got Brooks’ number. Marital happiness isn’t Brooks’ concern. The happiness of men is. Brooks, she says, “is a firm Victorian, completely convinced that a man’s life is empty without the rustle of petticoats in his home, soothing the tired brain after a day of man-work.”

What Brooks wants, Amanda says, is to bring back the Victorian idea of The Angel of the House. Victorian men insisted that

…there were two realms, the private/feminine one and the public/masculine one, and that women were to be relegated to the private one with their main duty to be subservient to men and make the home pleasant for men who were doing the hard, manly work in the public realm. Brooks avoids using gender-specific terms in this paragraph, but the fact that the only examples he uses of spouses who are too fond of their independence are wives makes it clear who he thinks has the duty of sacrificing for the private realm.

Daily Kos: Bush did NOT know there was difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until Jan ’03:

n case you missed it like me, here’s more proof our president is in over his head, a national security risk. According to Peter Galbraith former U.S. diplomat on a Channel 4 special aired Nov 21, Bush didn’t know there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims as late as January 2003. The report (link to video at the Dossier below) has a lot more …here’s the part where Bush shows again how in over his head he really is.

Oborne: I traveled to Boston to meet a former U.S. diplomat who had been a leading authority on Iraq for over a decade. A chance remark made just two months before the war, hinted at how the complexities of Iraq had bewildered Americans at the highest levels.

Peter Galbraith – former U.S. diplomat: January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, “You mean…they’re not, you know, there, there’s this difference. What is it about?”

continuing with Galbraith:

For the United States to launch a war where the president is not aware of this very fundamental difference between Sunni and Shiite Arabs is really stunning. It’s a bit like the U.S. president intervening in Ireland and being unaware that there are two schools of Christianity – Catholics and Protestants. -snip-

Oborne: It’s perfectly clear that neither Tony Blair here in London or George Bush in Washington had the faintest idea what to do after the invasion of Iraq.

Video of the report from the Dossier

Dispatches – Iraq: The Reckoning — Peter Oborne reports on the West’s exit strategy for Iraq. He believes the invasion of Iraq is proving to be the greatest foreign policy failure since Munich. Oborne argues that the plan to transform Iraq into a unified liberal democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East, is pure fantasy

From Channel 4 Dispatches: Iraq: the Reckoning Peter Oborne, political editor of the Spectator, reports on the West’s exit strategy for Iraq. He believes the invasion of Iraq is proving to be the greatest foreign policy failure since Munich. Oborne argues that the plan to transform Iraq into a unified liberal democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East, is pure fantasy. Reporting on location with US troops in Sadr City, and through interviews with leading figures in Britain and the US, Oborne argues that the coalition and its forces on the ground are increasingly irrelevant in determining the future of Iraq – a future that’s unlikely to be either unified, liberal or democratic.

The film includes interviews with Richard Perle, Peter Galbraith, Deputy Chief of Army staff General Jack Keane. Oborne also interviews Rory Stewart, who worked as a deputy governor in Nasyriah and witnessed first hand the rise of the pro-Iranian fundamentalist parties that are now at the heart of the Iraqi government.

Tags: George W. Bush, Iraq war (all tags)

Steyn, unless you start reporting from haditha and the streets of Fallujah then keep your thinly veiled authortarian boner to yourself. You are a loathesome, smarmy, intellectually devoid brownshirt who places ideology before humanity. As a result nothing you say is relevent.

Your Conscience

Pop Stand:

You know what kind of decisions I face at 6 a.m.?

It’s not “Should I go to sleep, or stay up even later?” Because I’ve already decided on the latter.

No, the question is:

Which Major League sequel will I be staying up later to watch?

A Free Man’s Life: Who Assassinated Gemayel?:

The Unites States, under Bush & Cheney have refused to
1) sign the Kyoto Treaty;
2) strengthen the convention on biological weapons;
3) join the hundred-plus nations that have agreed to ban land mines;
4) ban the use of napalm and cluster bombs;
5) not be subject, as are other countries, to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
6) start and prolong the perpetual war in afghanistan
7) start and prolong the Iraq Perpetual War.
8) start and prolong Israel’s invasion in Lebanon.
9) and want to bomb Iran.

Salon News | Smearing Hillary:

Even more damning was a “Nightline” report broadcast that same evening. The segment came very close to branding Hillary Clinton a perjurer. In his introduction, host Ted Koppel spoke pointedly about “the reluctance of the Clinton White House to be as forthcoming with documents as it promised to be.” He then turned to correspondent Jeff Greenfield, who posed a rhetorical question: “Hillary Clinton did some legal work for Madison Guaranty at the Rose Law Firm, at a time when her husband was governor of Arkansas. How much work? Not much at all, she has said.”

Up came a video clip from Hillary’s April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. “The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work,” she said. “It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about.” Next the screen filled with handwritten notes taken by White House aide Susan Thomases during the 1992 campaign. “She [Hillary] did all the billing,” the notes said. Greenfield quipped that it was no wonder “the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster’s office when he killed himself.”

What the audience didn’t know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression. At that press conference, Mrs. Clinton had been asked not how much work she had done for Madison Guaranty, but how her signature came to be on a letter dealing with Madison Guaranty’s 1985 proposal to issue preferred stock. ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: “The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney — in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent — my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about.”

ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed. Within days, the doctored quotation popped up elsewhere. ABC used the identical clip on its evening news broadcast; so did CNN. The New York Times editorial page used it to scold Mrs. Clinton, as did columnist Maureen Dowd. Her colleague William Safire weighed in with an accusatory column of his own: “When you’re a lawyer who needs a cover story to conceal close connections to a crooked client,” he began, “you find some kid in your office willing to say he brought in the business and handled the client all by himself.” Safire predicted the first lady’s imminent indictment.