St. Athanasius (296?-373) was a great Egyptian bishop who played a major role in opposing the heresy of Arianism and in preserving the Church’s true faith. He was born of a Christian family in Alexandria, where he received a classical…

It's a chapter in two halves, the first being Gibbon's account of the history of monasticism up to the fifth century, and the second about the conversion to Catholicism / Orthodoxy of the various Barbarian peoples who had previously practised Arianism, of which the most dramatic incidents take place in the Vandal kingdom of north Africa. This has been so far the least exciting of the three volumes I've read, Gibbon somehow trudging through various inept rulers and barbarians, even the chapters describing the fall of Rome not exactly fizzing with energy. But now with the end in sight and ...

A brief excerpt from a lecture by Father Walter Wagner, O.P., pastor of Saint Vincent Ferrer Church, NYC. This lecture continues the "Threefold Body of Christ" lecture series, a joint preaching project of our Priories of St. Vincent Ferrer in New York City and St. Mary in New Haven, CT. ; In this lecture, Fr. Wagner approached the bodily dimension of our Christian faith from these perspectives: (a) The Hebrew/Jewish tradition (b) The Platonic insight and the Hellenic situatiion (c) Jesus at the confluence of Judaic and Hellenic thought and Gnosticism (d) The Alexandrian and Antiochene responses (e) Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism; Augustine. The complete lecture is available at the Dominican Province of St. Joseph site:
http://www.op-stjoseph.org/blog/early_challenges_and_confessions_of_the_church/

02 Aug – Memorial for St Eusebius of Vercelli, BishopEusebius (283-371) was a priest and lector in Rome, Italy. He was consecrated bishop of Vercelli, Italy in 340, but was exiled to Palestine and Cappadocia due to his struggle against Arianism. He was a friend of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. He was a prolific writer ...

Also, which concept is more offensive to God?

Imagine that Gnosticism became the dominant form of Christianity by the year 300 C.E., became the orthodoxy of the faith, and eclipsed all other forms of Christianity (Proto-Orthodoxy, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, etc.). 
What would Christianity look like in the year 1500 C.E. if this supposition had actually prevailed.

St. Athanasius (296?-373) was a great Egyptian bishop who played a major role in opposing the heresy of Arianism and in preserving the Church’s true faith. He was born of a Christian family in Alexandria, where he received a classical…

In another example of the incivility marring American political discourse, former White House political guru Karl Rove was shouted down and forced to leave the stage at a book-signing event in Beverly Hills, Calif., Monday night.

Rove, who served as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, was called a "war criminal" by one protester and rushed by another who waved a pair of handcuffs and announced she was going to make a citizen's arrest, CNN affiliate KCAL-TV reported.

Rove was at the Saban Theater to discuss and autograph his book, "Courage and Consequences: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight." About 100 people paid $40 each to hear him speak, but Rove had to walk away eventually without signing any books. Handcuff-wielding Jodie Evans, co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, confronted him, shouting, "You lied to take us to war," as organizers of the event tried to block her. Another woman yelled, "The only comfort I take is that you're going to rot in hell," CNN said.

The demonstrators accuse Rove and others in the Bush administration of overstating the threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein as a pretext to leading the U.S. into war.

Rove, who defended the Bush White House years in some heated exchanges, said his antagonists reflected "totalitarianism on the left. . . . They don't believe in First Amendment rights for anyone but themselves."

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The crash of a shattering window as a brick is hurled at a politician's office; the hiss of gas from a slashed utility line outside the home of a congressman's relative; snarling epithets left in the voice mailboxes of elected officials. These are among the most unsettling noises of the backlash against the new health care law, and to some, they sound like an echo of a checkered American tradition: vigilantism, taking the law into one's own hands.

Vigilantism is often presumed to be synonymous with racism or irrational political extremism. True/Slant's Sarah Libby decries "the notion of vigilante justice" as "a scary one that has deeply racist roots" in the post-Civil War lynchings of southern blacks. Frank Rich of the New York Times termed the spate of post-vote incidents "vigilante violence" and compared the perpetrators to the Nazis on Kristallnacht. Even the Associated Press is using the magic V-word in its write-throughs about the unrest.

Since 2008, instances of anti-government outrage have gradually escalated, from Joseph Stack's plane crash into an Austin federal building to the vandalism, death threats and intimidation of the past few weeks. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the United States has enjoyed a 244 percent increase in the number of active patriot groups--"militias and other extremist organizations that see the federal government as their enemy"--in 2009. Pundits nervously wonder what the future of vigilante violence will hold. "The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window," penned Rich. "So far."

While the facts of some of the recent incidents are disputed, it's incredibly appropriate that vigilantism is being invoked to brand the instances of political violence. Vigilante justice is not a historical artifact of the Wild West, where American pioneers on the lawless frontier banded together to protect life, liberty, and property. From the "Dirty Harry" movies of the 1970s through the eco-terrorism of the animal rights and anti-mansionization movements, the impulse to impose "justice" where the system fails to is not confined to one era or ideological extreme. Recalling the historical roots of American vigilantism can help us understand where the current anti-government violence fits and where it may be headed.
 
While vigilantism has been defined in a variety of ways by academics, there is broad agreement that it is essentially a conservative impulse. Vigilante scholars H. Jon Rosenbaum and Peter C. Sederberg situate vigilante activity between revolutionary and reactionary violence, as "acts of threat or coercion in violation of the formal boundaries of an established sociopolitical order, which, however, are intended by the violators to defend the order from some form of subversion." Historian Richard Maxwell Brown, a long-time scholar of American violence, sees vigilantism as inherently driven by the desire to restore the sociopolitical order to a previous level of stability. The sources of instability vary throughout history--crime, demographic shifts, government corruption--but the impulse remains the same: to restore stability to a world turned upside down, and reinforce those values at risk in a rapidly changing world.

No wonder, then, that conservative backlash and the vigilantism associated with some of its adherents has been accelerating since the economic collapse and the 2008 election; notions of "change" coinciding with economic instability are a classic recipe for anxiety and paranoia.

While vigilantism was a fixture on the American frontier in small settler communities since the end of the 18th century, the current uproar has much in common with the granddaddy of large-scale American vigilante movements, the San Francisco Vigilance Committee of 1856. San Francisco had already been home to a small vigilante movement in 1851, when fears of arson and larceny in the face of the California gold rush prompted the organization of a temporary militia until municipal law enforcement could take control. But a few years later, with street crime in check, the issue was soaring municipal debt, rising taxes, and bankruptcy under corrupt political leadership, in a city described by Brown as a "seething caldron of social, ethnic, religious, and political tensions." The political elite exploited those tensions to mobilize support from its base, strong-arming elections and mobilizing the Irish-Catholic and mostly Democratic working class of the city as its political backbone. After a muckraking journalist, James King, who had been exposing machine abuses, was murdered by a political operative, enrollment in the vigilance committee soared. The vigilantes saw the municipal courts as corrupt and ineffective, so they methodically collected material evidence of election fraud and municipal corruption before ousting the machine.
 
The San Francisco Committee shares many of the same features and focus as the recent political unrest: frustration with government, underpinnings of socio-cultural strife, and urgency to act promoted by an aggressive, inflammatory press. Students of today's anti-Obama, anti-Washington rhetoric will recognize the style King employed, portraying his city as caught in the grip of a "second class" of men who "stand all day at the street corner, flourishing whale bone canes and twirling greasy mustachios. At night they flock to the gambling halls, abounding in all our thoroughfares, where they feast and carouse, bet and blackguard, damn their own souls and take the name of God in vain. Or else, flushed with wine and lust, they throng the houses of prostitution." Concluded this latter-day Glenn Beck: "Men without one particle of claim to the position have filled the post of Mayor and Councilman in the city, for the sole purpose of filling their pockets with the ill gotten gains of their nefarious schemes, their pilfering and dishonesty." King's editorials created a "near-panic psychology" concerning municipal crime (despite low crime rates reported by the California Alta), bringing the anger of average citizens to a boiling point before focusing their popular rage on the negligent state government.

This phenomenon was repeated in the Montana vigilante movement of the 1880s, where leader Robert Fisk used the territorial press to hype a declining crime problem and feed the vigilante fever by demonizing his adversaries: "There is no disguising the fact that Helena at this time is the rendezvous for a score or more of very hard characters--men that have no visible means of livelihood and that are watching for opportunities to rob and even murder, if necessary, to carry out their infamous purposes," wrote Robert Fisk in the Helena Daily Herald. "Would it not be a wise precautionary step to invite some of these desperate characters to 'take a walk' or shall we wait for other murders and robberies, and perhaps until they burn the town down again?" Next to this, Sarah Palin's use of "crosshairs" to mark her political targets almost seems tame.

Such scare tactics have found fertile soil in modern media. Cries of socialism, Marxism, communism, and totalitarianism broadcast--usually unchallenged--across the airwaves and blogosphere resonate with those already unnerved by "change you can believe in." Thus, a bill that true leftists abhor promoted by a president unloved by the hard left is easily spun into a subversive effort by committed enemies of the American way to undermine the fabric of American society. Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) recent calls for civil disobedience are self-explanatory. Steve Benen highlights the incendiary rhetoric of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who claims "Americans are reacquainted with the danger of an arrogant all powerful government, a deadly enemy within, a clear and present danger in Washington." Or, as Glenn Beck puts it: "the end of America as we know it."

History suggests this level of fear--and the activism, non-violent and otherwise, it fuels--is difficult to sustain. Even with control of the press, the leaders of the San Francisco and Montana vigilantes could not maintain a panic psychology after justice was served, and their movements dissolved. But today's digital media provides a wider--and more accessible--avenue for rabble rousing, and there's nothing to stop those who want to keep the fire burning from doing so. Take away her book, speaking engagements, and Fox News platform, and Palin could still have an impact; during her post-resignation months in the political wilderness, she built a loyal base entirely through her Facebook page. And no one can control the likes of Mike Vanderboegh, the 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama who encouraged those who agree with him to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide in protest of "Pelosi's Intolerable Act." (profile) The easily accessible platforms of the blogosphere and social media can make any wing nut an overnight pundit with a digital bully pulpit.

The sight of partisans quickly taking sides and pointing fingers in the debate over the emerging vigilante culture and violence associated with it suggests another reason why the phenomenon may linger--it's in the self-interest of some to keep it going. We're already seeing how both Democrats and Republicans have recently sought to capitalize on these months of political upheaval as a fundraising tool. Even if saner heads do prevail, they'll likely be drowned out by media outlets catering to an ideological ("narrowcast") demographic. Video of rabid right-wingers hoisting signs equating Obama with Hitler is mother's milk to the talk-show hosts on MSNBC, just as ceaseless garment-rending over the "Cornhusker Kickback" is a ratings-grabber for Fox. Any hope of more sober dialogue will surely have to wait until after the November election, or perhaps beyond--unlike the social and political grievances that inflamed 19th century San Francisco and Montana, our economic woes and complex health-care reforms won't be resolved in short order. The "mad as hell" crowd of the moment seems destined for a madder than hell future.
 
Today's journalists and politicians correctly invoke vigilantism to describe the recent violence. But having done so, they bear responsibility for learning history's lessons. For instance, Reason's Matt Welch chides journalists for their emphasis on the "narrative" of politics and encourages them to focus on policy rather than inflammatory sidebars. Politicians should also heed Welch's advice and reconsider the need for narratives, for as much as modern vigilantism reflects the cycle of populist violence in America's history, the prospect of a never-ending crisis spun by message-makers is cause for concern that vigilantism's comeback might be a permanent one.

Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, who has been a vegetarian for over 30 years, finds vegetarianism “very simple, tasty, and most enjoyable”.

Return with me now to the lusty days of yore, when engagé public intellectuals battled it out over Trotskyism, anarcho-syndicalism, and just who betrayed whom in the bloody streets of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War—and later in the savage pages of The Partisan Review, where those battles were refought. Sometimes the intense seriousness of the intellectual combat can sound overstrained in retrospect (cf. the Woody Allen joke about Commentary and Dissent merging to form Dysentery). But in fact these were foundational postwar arguments, waged by some of the sharpest thinkers in print as they clashed over urgent questions about the future of totalitarianism and democracy.

[more ...]



Spanish Civil War - Trotskyism - Partisan Review - Catalonia - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act H.R.3590: Title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. ProPrompter Software for iPhone or iPod touch Ezra Klein: We have something to fear from fear-mongering itself I remember listening to the debate the night the House passed the Senate bill and the reconciliation fixes. There are a lot of critiques I could imagine folks on the right making of the legislation. "Regulations to define a minimum insurance benefit will impede innovation in low-deductible plans." "Congress doesn't have the will to stick to the cost savings, and until they prove able to do so, we can't pass a new health-care entitlement." "The health-care system is broken, and adding a new benefit doesn't make sense outside the context of radical reform, as it will just create a new set of stakeholders who will resist the necessary changes." But totalitarianism? Death panels? The end of America as we know it? These critiques aren't just wrong in their description of a cautious, compromised reform that uses private insurers and spends only 4 percent of what we spend on health care in an average year. They're shocking in terms of what the speakers believe their colleagues and representa Amanda Terkel: Republicans Block Senate Committee Hearings, Including On National Security Matters, For Second Day In A Row Matt Corley: Cornyn Flip Flops On Whether He’s ‘Interested In Repealing’ Popular Parts Of Health Reform Ben Armbruster: Sen. Gregg Touts The CBO On Fox News, But Then Bashes It On CNN Think Progress: Still Bitter Over Loss On Health Reform, GOP Seeks To Block Judicial Nominee For His Health Care Views Don Kohn: Homework Assignments for Monetary Policymakers (March 24, 2010) Greg Ip: Christina Romer Interview (March 23, 2010) James Fallows: If You're in England and Looking for Something Good to Read... Gooznews Media Matters for America: Goodwin Liu Confirm Goodwin Liu

Many Hollywood and other celebrities are flocking to vegetarianism for health and ethical reasons, besides reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't want to exaggerate the importance of the death threats being made against congressmen who voted for health-care reform. Nuts are nuts. But there is a danger to the sort of rhetoric the GOP has used over the past few months. When Rep. Devin Nunes begs his colleagues to say "no to socialism, no to totalitarianism and no to this bill"; when Glenn Beck says the bill "is the end of America as you know it"; when Sarah Palin says the bill has "death panels" -- that stuff matters.

I remember listening to the debate the night the House passed the Senate bill and the reconciliation fixes. There are a lot of critiques I could imagine folks on the right making of the legislation. "Regulations to define a minimum insurance benefit will impede innovation in low-deductible plans." "Congress doesn't have the will to stick to the cost savings, and until they prove able to do so, we can't pass a new health-care entitlement." "The health-care system is broken, and adding a new benefit doesn't make sense outside the context of radical reform, as it will just create a new set of stakeholders who will resist the necessary changes."

But totalitarianism? Death panels? The end of America as we know it? These critiques aren't just wrong in their description of a cautious, compromised reform that uses private insurers and spends only 4 percent of what we spend on health care in an average year. They're shocking in terms of what the speakers believe their colleagues and representatives are willing to do to the American people. Nunes, for instance, has served with Democrats for decades. He might believe them too willing to tax society's most-productive members to fund social benefits. But does he really believe them friends of totalitarianism?

And the stuff on talk radio, of course, was worse. So take the universe of people who really respect right-wing politicians and listen to right-wing media. Most of them will hear this stuff and turn against the bill. Some will hear this stuff and really be afraid of the bill. And then a small group will hear this stuff and believe it and wonder whether they need to do something more significant to stop this bill from becoming law. And then a couple will actually follow through. And one will cut the gas lines leading to house of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother after seeing a tea partyer post the address online.

Few of us are on a mountain with this stuff, of course. Many condemned me for saying that Joe Lieberman was willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands to settle an old grudge with liberals when he threatened to blow up the bill if the Medicare buy-in wasn't removed. I'll stand by the math of the comment, and the analysis of Lieberman's motivations, but I certainly wish I had phrased it somewhat more delicately. The word "cause" was ill-advised.

Still, that wasn't the tone of this blog over the past couple of months, nor of most outlets. Some politicians and media figures, however, have been in the business of ratcheting up opposition by making people afraid. But you can't count on people to simply cower when they're afraid, or write letters to the editor. Sometimes, they fight. It's a dangerous emotion, and high as the stakes are, public figures need to be a lot more careful manipulating it.

Photo credit: Melina Mara/The Washington Post.

The Wall Street Journal’s Jessica Vascellaro this afternoon writes in an interview with Google’s (GOOG) Sergey Brin that Google’s decision Monday to redirect its search engine from China was motivated in part by an emotional response on Brin’s part to memories of totalitarianism in his native Russia, which he left [...]

Why beauty and joy are essential to the Sabbath.

[more ...]



Religion and Spirituality - Christianity - Sabbatarianism - Practices - Shopping

A UN report that concluded eating meat contributes more to climate change than driving a car has been called into question by new research.

Google Co-Founder Says He's Troubled by "Earmarks of Totalitarianism"

The Washington Post made an interesting choice when it gave Meghan O’Sullivan the op-ed on Iraq’s na

The vegetarian cuisine from the northwestern Indian state of Gujarat is ancient and complex. Madhur Jaffrey has called it the "haute cuisine of vegetarianism." While special occasion foods are mo...

Bloggers and sceptics leaping all over a UN report that 'exaggerated' the link between meat and climate change are not revealing that the scientist challenging the figures has been funded by the livestock industry

There's been lots of excitement in the blogosphere and beyond over the news that, following the recent furore over the IPCC reports, the United Nations has been forced into yet another embarrassing reinvestigation of its data.

This time it's the turn of the highly influential report called Livestock's Long Shadow, which was published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 2006. Its headline conclusion was that global meat production was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, which was slightly more than all of the world's cars, trains, and planes combined. This astonishing fact has been cited ever since by environmentalists and, in particular, vegetarian advocacy groups as a good reason in itself to reduce meat consumption. I myself have mentioned the report when writing about this subject.

This is how the latest revelation has been reported over the past couple of days:

Boffin rubbishes Paul McCartney lentil-noshing plan - The Register.

Veggies are wrong and eating less meat will NOT save planet The Daily Mail.

Save the planet, eat less meat ... right? That's what the UN said, anyway, but one scientist has a grade A beef with that claim - Fox News.

Forget all that indecorous talk of animal flatulence, cow burps, vegetarianism and global warming. Welcome to Cowgate - The Washington Times.

The glee from the usual suspects is palpable, but not exactly surprising. The reinvestigation was triggered by the claims of Frank Mitloehner, the associate professor and cooperative extension specialist – air quality, at the department of animal science at the University of California, Davis. He presented a paper earlier this week at an American Chemical Society meeting in San Francisco arguing that the FAO's comparison with the transport sector was flawed.

The paper, called Clearing the Air: Livestock's Contributions to Climate Change, was first published last October in the journal Advances in Agronomy. In it, Mitloehner argued that while full lifecycle analysis was used to calculate the emissions for the meat sector, this wasn't the case for the transport sector, where only the fossil fuels burned by the vehicles was included, not the emissions resulting from manufacturing the vehicles.

"This lopsided 'analysis' is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," Mitloehner told the meeting.

The BBC's Richard Black has since contacted the FAO's livestock policy officer, Pierre Gerber, and asked him for his reaction.

"I must say honestly that he [Mitloehner] has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he told Black. "But on the rest of the report, I don't think it was really challenged."

Fair enough. On this evidence, it certainly seems worth examining this apparent mismatch between the methodologies used to calculate the emissions of each sector. I have no problem with that at all.

What does seem odd, though, is that none of the reports that I have seen so far have thought to mention who funded the original report. Just a cursory check online is all it takes to reveal the source of the funding. After all, it was mentioned in the original press release put out by the university last December:

Clearing the Air is a synthesis of research by the UC Davis authors and many other institutions, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture, California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Writing the synthesis was supported by a $26,000 research grant from the Beef Checkoff Program, which funds research and other activities, including promotion and consumer education, through fees on beef producers in the US. Since 2002, Mitloehner has received $5m in research funding, with 5% of the total from agricultural commodities groups, such as beef producers.

Well, that's a rather interesting paragraph, isn't it? It's funny how none of this information made it into those gleeful reports. First, let's learn some more about the Beef Checkoff Program. It appears to be an initiative of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, which, according to its website, "consists of 106 members, including domestic beef, dairy and veal producers, as well as importers of beef and beef products".

The checkoff is a producer-funded marketing and research program designed to increase domestic and/or international demand for beef. This can be done through promotion, research and new product development, and a variety of other marketing tools. The Cattlemen's Beef Board and USDA [US Department of Agriculture] oversee the collection and spending of checkoff funds.

And what about the "$5m in research funding" that Mitloehner has received since 2002? As is right and proper, Mitloehner freely publishes all the details on his website as a pdf document. Here we learn that, over this period, he has received $40,000 from the National Pork Board, as well as sizeable grants from the US Department of Agriculture and something called the Agriculture Air Research Council (AARC), which, according to the Pork Checkoff website, is "an independent, non-profit organisation … formed to oversee and manage the air emissions research. The AARC board of directors has two representatives from each participating livestock sector, including one member from the National Pork Board and one from the National Pork Producers Council."

In other words, Mitloehner's research over the past eight years has been significantly funded by representatives of the US livestock industry and the government department charged with overseeing this multi-billion dollar industry.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I'm not saying that Mitloehner is a bought-off scientist in the pocket of Big Beef. As I said earlier, I actually think his claims are worthy of further investigation and I'm pleased this now appears to be taking place. It's not like he's trying to hide this information – it's just a click away on his website. My beef is that this funding information has not been deemed worthy of inclusion in the reports and blogs that have been so quick to leap on Mitloehner's findings as, in their eyes, further proof that environmentalists are just a bunch of unscientific cranks.

Spin it on its head for one moment: remember how climate sceptics were punching the air over the revelation that the so-called "HimalayaGate" error in the IPPC's fourth assessment report had resulted from a WWF document? For some sceptics, this fact alone immediately invalidated the whole report.

I think everyone agrees that transparency is a worthy goal so maybe in the future all sides of this debate can aim to include information such as this as a basic principle? Just a thought.

By pandering to racism, Nicolas Sarkozy opened the door for the return of the Front National

Last Sunday's regional election results in France suggest that Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency is running into the ground. For all the claims, following his 2007 election, that Sarkozy represented something new, his UMP party is now confronted by a set of problems familiar to every government of the past two decades.

The electorate's disaffection from the mainstream political process, which many believed had been reversed by the high turnout in 2007, has again been reflected in a high abstention rate, with around half the electorate not voting in the regional poll. Frustration with the incumbent government, which the right's re-election in 2007 – the first administration to achieve this since 1978 – appeared to have overcome, is illustrated by the ruling UMP's paltry 26% share of the vote in the first round of the elections, and the failure of any cabinet minister to win a region, despite 20 standing.

The real story of these elections, however, is the "return" of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National (FN). The party's strong second round showing of between 12% and 22% in mostly southern and north-eastern regions has revived another long-standing feature of French political life: permanent surprise at the continued existence of an electoral challenge from the extreme right. The Front's total vote was significantly down on its 2004 score, partly due to abstention, so any talk of a resurgence needs to be measured. But the result has exploded a central illusion of the Sarkozy phenomenon: that he had isolated the FN by "capturing" its electorate. Instead, a more realistic conclusion is that Sarkozy has facilitated the Front's gradual regeneration since its poor showing in the 2007 elections.

Sarkozy came to power on a promise to break with the compromises of previous governments. One apparent measure of his determination to do so was the trenchant language used on immigration. It is this combination of authoritarianism and anti-immigrant rhetoric that has contributed to Sarkozy's undoing at the expense of the FN.

This is largely due to the demagogic nature of racism in the political arena. Since it is based on the myth that immigrants (or ethnic minorities in general, or Muslims) are to blame for unemployment, crime or other aspects of social decay, it has become a self-defeating tool for the government.

Under Sarkozy, unemployment stands at its highest level for a decade, at 10%, and France has one of the worst youth unemployment rates in Europe. Here, the link between racism and authoritarianism is important. The debate over national identity engineered by Sarkozy's UMP has seen Islamophobia reach a new pitch – at one point the party spokesperson compared the burka to a "Mickey Mouse mask".

Yet however shrill the scapegoating of Muslims, it has done nothing to obscure the government's impotence in the face of serious social and economic problems. Moreover, the realisation that Sarkozy is not an enforcer but a rather insecure figure in thrall to wealth and celebrity, has strengthened the claims of Le Pen to be the real authority figure in French politics.

Le Pen has therefore been able to pick up support from those disenchanted by Sarkozy, his credentials as an authoritarian alternative bolstered by the government's legitimisation of the racism that dominated the FN campaign. At a time of economic crisis, with Islamophobia on the rise across Europe, the government has had to learn, like all its predecessors, that the far-right is strengthened, not isolated, when mainstream politicians pander to racism. Sarkozy has been playing with fire – and has now got his fingers burned.

In my last post on adultery, I avoided discussing the ethics of cheating. Well, I tried to, at least; it's hard to discuss a topic like that without lapsing into the morality of it, so here goes. (For those of you that read my post on the ethics of procrastination, some of the discussion of moral philosophy will sound familiar.)

At the risk of spoiling the ending, let me reassure you that we'll find that adultery is wrong—most of the time. (Maybe that's not such a reassurance.) It's almost never justified just because you really really want to get together with that hottie in your office or at your club (sorry). But it might be justified in extraordinary circumstances, which to some people, unfortunately, might be rather ordinary.

This post also makes a general point about ethics and moral philosophy, that they're really good for coming up with general rules and prohibitions which apply in most cases, but there are always exceptions to those "do shall nots." Ethical systems are great for helping you frame moral issues (which is how ethics is normally taught in the classroom), but in the end, judgment is essential for arriving at a final answer. And you can't teach judgment—you develop it over time.

Let's say Christine tells her best friend Sally that she's thinking of cheating on her husband. What would Sally say? Well, she might ask her friend why she's thinking of cheating. Did her husband cheat? Is he mean, cold, or distant to her? Has the romance left their marriage? All of these may—or may not—seem like relevant questions, even if in the end Sally says that cheating is wrong.

What would philosophers have to offer on the subject of cheating? I mean, listen to Sally—cheating is just plain wrong, isn't it? And our intuitions are definitely that cheating is wrong. Well, so is lying, but we can all think of situations in which we would lie, and we would justify it if asked. Even taking a life can be justified if done in self-defense, or to save another life. In philosophical theories of morality, there are few absolutes, which means no easy answers—but we do get to ask lots of good questions!

So what supports our intuitions that cheating is wrong? There are three obvious answers, which conveniently correspond to the three ethical schools we'll look at to answer the question.

Answer 1: Because it hurts your spouse

How would you feel if your spouse cheated on you? Some of you may know this from experience, but I think we can all imagine it—it hurts! You've been betrayed and lied to, and you feel angry, depressed, unworthy, second-rate, unwanted. You want to lash out at the same time you want to crawl inside yourself and hide. Your spouse chose to seek out intimacy of one sort or another with another person-not you. That defines "sucks."

Sorry if I hit a nerve—believe me, that wasn't my intention. But I wanted to make the point that infidelity is very hurtful, and does real psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage to one's partner. And to philosophers who teach an ethical system known as utilitarianism, hurting people is wrong, period.

Utilitarians maintain that the morality of an action depends on the amount of utility it creates, which can be thought of (as seminal utilitarian Jeremy Bentham did) in terms of pleasure and pain (among other concepts). One action is morally better than another if it leads to a greater amount of pleasure (or lesser amount of pain), and the right action is the one that leads to the greatest amount of pleasure (compared to pain). Utilitarianism is based on a lot of common sense, but can be absurdly demanding as well—for instance, if the poor would benefit more from a dollar than you, extreme utilitarians (such as Peter Singer) may demand that you give all of your money away to the poor until you are equally poor. But more moderate utilitarians would say that, given a choice among reasonable options, you must simply choose the one that, as far as you can tell, benefits the most people to the greatest degree.

Well, we already established that cheating hurts your spouse—that would seem to make it wrong to a utilitarian, at least prima facie ("at first glance"). Compared to remaining faithful, cheating lessens your spouse's happiness or pleasure and increases her pain. Of course, your spouse may not be the only one affected—your children may also be hurt, either if they find out and are vicariously hurt through Mommy or Daddy being hurt, or even if they don't find out and and your spouse's pain nonetheless flows over to them. Family members, close friends, co-workers—anyone who is close to you may be affected, and utilitarianism demands that every person count equally when figuring the total good and bad caused by an action.

However, guess who else counts in that "everyone"? You. And therein lies one reason utilitarians might allow for cheating in some circumstances, particularly cases in which there is good reason to believe that you will benefit from the affair more than others will suffer. Let's say the romance in your marriage has completely disappeared; you and your spouse no longer speak, touch, or connect in any way. You begin to look elsewhere for the affection and intimacy you crave, whether sexual, romantic, or both. Maybe you don't think your spouse would even care—he doesn't want to be with you anymore, so why should he care if someone else does? It might lift you out of your misery to have someone in your life that cares, that wants you around, that you mean something to, and vice versa.

In such a case, and assuming that no one else (children, friends, etc.) would be significantly affected, a utilitarian would probably say "go ahead, do it!" Utilitarianism allows for some people to get hurt, as long as some other people are benefited by a greater amount (which is a frequent criticism of utilitarianism). Of course, you could be wrong about your spouse's feelings, or even about how much you stand to gain from an affair (maybe your guilt would overwhelm any positive feelings). But if to the best of your knowledge (and without rationalizing it to yourself), you believe that cheating on your spouse would increase your happiness more than it would lower your spouse's (and that of anyone connected to you), then the utilitarian would have to allow it.

To make matters more ambiguous, there is another person who stands to gain from the affair—your paramour. She's a person, and her well-being must be included in your pleasure/pain calculations. So that's another "positive" to add to your own, possibly able to offset the harm to your spouse (and others). If the person you plan to cheat with is in a similar situation to yours—you're both abjectly miserable in your separate relationships—that would make the case for cheating even stronger. But then again, what about your paramour's significant other? That's probably a negative... oh, my head hurts! There's a lot to consider when making utilitarian decisions, and that leads to the criticism that utilitarianism puts too much of a burden on decision-makers.

Some people justify their affairs by saying "it's for the good of the marriage," or "it will make our marriage stronger." In other words, I may be hurting my spouse now, but in the long run, we'll both be happier. While this may actually be a rationalization when people say it, it does have some philosophical validity. Utilitarians don't simply compare the pleasure and pain that an action causes right now, but also the effects it creates in the future. Utilitarians use this thinking to defend or criticize policies on such things as governmental budget deficits or environmental impact that will affect not only people presently living, but their children and grandchildren as well.

But one problem with this way of thinking is that it is very, very hard to predict the future. Economists disagree about the impact of budget deficits, scientists disagree about environmental effects, and reasonable people will disagree about the effects of infidelity on a marriage, even (or especially) if the people are in the situation themselves. How do you how your spouse is going to handle your infidelity? You may think you know him pretty well—he was your soul mate, at least for some time—but unless you did this to him before, you have no way to know how he's going to react. (And if you did do it to him, I think anyone can guess how he's going to react!) Once again, utilitarianism is very demanding regarding the information you need to make the best decision.

To conclude, utilitarians do make allowances for cheating in especially desperate cases, in which the consequences of cheating may be overall positive, but on the whole, they would agree that cheating is usually wrong. And we didn't even get into rule utilitarianism, which recommends rules that result in the right action most of the time. One example is "do not lie"—even though lies can occasionally do good overall, they usually don't, and following a rule of not lying will result in more good things than bad. The same thing would go for "do not cheat"—such a rule may prevent some "good" affairs, but it would prevent many more bad ones.

Answer 2: Because it involves breaking a vow or promise

You might be saying to yourself (or to your computer), "cheating isn't wrong because it causes more harm than good—it's wrong because it means you're breaking your promise to be faithful, or violating your wedding vows." In other words, you would be saying that cheating is wrong regardless of the consequences, no matter if it makes you and your paramour happier than it makes others unhappy. If so, you may be a deontologist. (Congratulations—you've made your mother and me very proud.)

Deontology is somewhat hard to define, but often it's contrasted with ethical theories like utilitarianism, that base ethical judgment on outcomes or consequences. (Generally, such ethical theories are called consequentialist; utilitarianism is one type of consequentialism that focuses on utility as the consequence of choice.) Instead, deontologists make ethical decisions based on duties, rights, or principles that are not based on outcomes or consequences. For instance, a deontologist might regard lying as wrong because it violates a duty of truth-telling, or the right to be told the truth, or respect for other people, but not because it leads to bad outcomes.

A deontologist would be likely to say that cheating is wrong because it involves violating a duty of fidelity contained in the wedding vows, or breaking the promise you made to your spouse at your wedding, of failing to respect your spouse. A deontologist does not consider the good or bad consequences of any particular instance of cheating—cheating itself is wrong, because you should not break promises, violate your duty of fidelity, etc.

So cheating's wrong, period. That should do it for deontology, right? Not so fast. As we said before, few ethical systems endorse ironclad restrictions, even though deontologists (like Immanuel Kant) are often thought to. For instance, while deontologists may decide that cheating is wrong in general, they may make exceptions for certain circumstances, such cheating in the face of spousal neglect or abandonment. (I'm not saying that all deontologists would make these exceptions, but just that some may.) There are various ways to do this:

1) Some use the terms prima facie or pro tanto duties to describe duties that hold true in general, as long as there are no mitigating factors to speak against them. For instance, there is a prima facie duty not to kill, unless your own life is threatened. Likewise, cheating would normally be wrong, unless the person feels neglected by his spouse (for example). The mitigating factors may also include other duties that conflict with the duty of fidelity—for instance, the duty to look after your own emotional well-being.

2) Others would say cheating in general is wrong, but more elaborate descriptions of cheating, such as "cheating-when-neglected," would be OK. Again, think of killing in self-defense; while killing is generally wrong, killing-in-self-defense usually isn't, because the logic that forbids killing in general may not forbid killing in self-defense. In the same way, cheating may generally be wrong, but cheating-when-neglected may not be, depending on how the duties are formulated (for instance, by using the categorical imperative in Kant's ethics).

There's an importance distinction to make here: while many deontologists would allow exceptions to the general wrongness of cheating, they would be based on the circumstances surrounding the person cheating, not on the particular consequences of cheating. In other words, anyone in the circumstance of being neglected by her spouse may be justified in cheating, whether or not it leads to good overall consequences. On the other hand, even good consequences will not justify cheating if you don't fall under one of the circumstances that allow cheating.

In conclusion, deontology tells us pretty much the same thing that utilitarianism did: cheating is usually wrong, except in extreme cases. But while those cases are very hard to identify according to utilitarianism, which requires that you accurately predict the effects of your cheating on every relevant person, deontology makes its exceptions according to personal circumstances that are much easier to know. For instance, you know if you are neglected by your spouse, but you can only guess how cheating will affect you, your spouse, or anyone else.

Answer 3: Because it makes you a bad person

One more thing your friend may say when you tell her you're considering cheating is: "that's not the kind of person you are," or "what would you think of yourself if you did that?" Your friend would not be focusing on the consequences of cheating, or the morality of the act itself, but rather what cheating would say about you: your moral character, the person you think you are, and the person you aspire to be. And this is the domain of virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics focuses on those qualities of a person—the virtues, naturally—that make her a good person, or that contribute to leading a good life. As opposed to utilitarianism and deontology, virtue ethicists don't provide formulas or rules for determining which qualities count as virtues and which as vices; most of them are pretty common-sense. Honesty, obviously, is a virtue, as are kindness and trustworthiness. Fidelity would be another—we normally think of faithful people as good. Likewise, if you want to be a good person, and you think that fidelity is a virtue that contribute to a person being good, than you should aspire toward being faithful.

Well, that was even simpler than deontology, butdon't  click to another post just yet—remember what we said about no ethical system being absolute? Virtue ethicists (especially those who draw their inspiration from Aristotle) also emphasize moderation in all things, especially when defining virtues. For instance, it is possible to be too honest, if you end up saying this that hurt people unnecessarily ("you know, Jim, you really are putting on weight"), or too kind, if you give away all of your money and end up needing financial help yourself. Virtues can be considered the "mean" between two extremes, which implies that any good quality can be taken to the extreme.

Likewise, fidelity can be taken too far. Imagine a woman in a broken marriage, whose husband neglects her and wantonly cheats on her, and who is miserable and maybe even suicidal. She knows a man at work who would be more than happy to take her out to lunch, get to know her better, maybe go to a movie (or more). It's not hard to imagine that a perfect devotion to the virtue of fidelity would be excessive in her case; it would not contribute to a good life in her case, and seeing her co-worker would hardly make her a bad person, especially given her circumstances (the same circumstances that would probably justify her behavior in deontological terms as well).

Conclusion

Is cheating wrong? We surveyed the three major ethical theories—utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics—each of them essentially different, but all of them arriving at basically the same conclusion: cheating is usually wrong, but can be justified in certain, possibly rare, instances. The fact that all three of these moral systems agree makes for a pretty strong argument, and it would seem like a fairly common-sense one at that. Sure, some people may adhere to a strict code of "no cheating," no matter what, as typified by certain religious systems of ethics; and others will say "do whatever feels good," such as hedonists or ethical egoists. But these are the extreme ends of the spectrum (which itself is not an argument against them), and most people fall somewhere in the middle, as our description above endorses.

So if you're faced with a situation in which you, your spouse or partner, or someone else that you know is considering cheating (or is actually cheating), it is natural to condemn it out of hand. But remember that most moral philosophies allow for some justifications for cheating: some consider the consequences of the affair, others the circumstances around the affair, and yet others the character of the people involved. Whichever school of ethics sounds right to you, try to apply its lessons to your particular situation. If nothing else, it gives you one more way to look at things, and an additional viewpoint is always a good thing—no exceptions!

Coming soon: I consider some insightful reader comments, and make the ethical analysis of adultery more specific to real-world circumstances, complexities, and context.

Suggestions for further reading

Utilitarianism is usually traced back to Jeremy Bentham (1738-1832) and his 1781 book The Principles of Morals and Legislation, and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his 1863 book Utilitarianism. For prominent modern utilitarians, see Peter Singer and Richard Brandt.

The chief proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), whose seminal work in ethics is his 1785 book Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Another prominent deontologist was W.D. Ross (1877-1971), whose most important work was his 1930 book The Right and the Good. Modern deontologists (chiefly Kantians) include Thomas E. Hill, Jr., Christine Korsgaard, and Marcia Baron.

For arguments between utilitarians and deontologists, see J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams' 1973 book Utilitarianism: For and Against and Samuel Scheffler's 1988 edited collection Consequentialism and Its Critics. Any ethics textbook or reader should also provide an excellent account of the contrast between these two important ethical theories.

Finally, virtue ethics goes back to the days of the ancient philosophers Plato (429-347 BCE), whose primary ethical work (written as dialogues) includes his Republic, and Aristotle (384-322 BCE), whose main ethical work is The Nicomachean Ethics (publication dates for the ancient works are unknown). Modern virtue ethicists include Philippa Foot, Michael Slote, and Julia Annas.

For some recent work specifically on adultery, along the lines of these three major ethical theories, you can look for these academic journal articles in your local college library:

• Richard Wasserstrom, "Is Adultery Moral?", Philosophical Forum, vol. 5, pp. 513-528, Summer 1974.
• Michael J. Wreen, "What's Really Wrong with Adultery," International Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 3, pp. 45-49, Fall 1986.
• Mike W. Martin, "Adultery and Fidelity," Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 76-91, Winter 1994.
• Raja Fouad Halwani, "Virtue Ethics and Adultery," Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 5-18, Winter 1998.

Shamefully late, as usual, some feedback on my March 16 "exceptionalism" piece.

(1)  There's a contrarian point of view for everything, especially for notions so commonly held we repeat them without much thought. So it is with the "dethroning" business: Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble, etc. having removed humanity from the center of things in some way.

In the matter of Copernicus, a friend directs me to Chapter 15 of Rémi Brague's The Legend of the Middle Ages. You can sample it for yourself here, though with several pages "not part of this book preview." From what I could read there, I don't see that Brague has really demolished the "dethronement" notion. He seems to be confusing centrality with supremacy. However low a creature we may have been in the medieval imagination, the universe was still about us. Perhaps it's unfair to judge without reading the whole book though.

(2)  A different reader:

Hi Derb. Enjoying your article on exceptionalism and when I read this:  "I now gaze across the pond glumly at a 'nation' in which the national flag is shunned as 'racist' …," I couldn't help but think of the news today that our President has said that our troops must not fly our flag in Haiti while helping out there because we don't want to be thought of as an occupying power. I think you and Conrad [Black] are on to something.

(3)  I got a multitude of e-mails on how very little guidance (according to me) the Abrahamic scriptures -- OT, NT, Koran -- give us on the right treatment of animals.

Most of these e-mails missed the point, quoting the innumerable OT and distinctly more numerable NT verses (no e-mails from Koranic scholars here -- where's Robert Spencer when you need him?) on rules for eating various kinds of meat. As guidance on, say, the right way to treat dogs, telling us not to eat them doesn't really go very far. Confucius did better than that (§202).

From Judaism, this website is pretty comprehensive, though the injunctions against cruelty to animals seem to be Talmudic rather than Biblical, and not really firmly declarative even then. Which is what you'd expect: The Abrahamic religions are essentially and necessarily human-centered, all about us and our standing with God. The animal-centric view fundamental to "animal rights" activism is a very modern sort of thing; people in Antiquity just didn't think in those categories. Even those non-Abrahamic religions that posited reincarnation in animal form, presented the matter in terms of human essences . . . so far as I understand them, which I'll admit is not very far.

Could the Jewish Vegetarian Society really do any better than Isaiah 11:9? Several readers pointed me to Proverbs 12:10: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast . . . ," but that doesn't really seem to meet the case.

I wonder in fact where the JVS is coming from. Seeing the OT as a vegetarian tract is one heck of a stretch, it seems to me. A reader in Kazakhstan (no kidding) gives a long list of counterexamples, including:

Abraham prepared lamb for his angelic visitors. . . . Isaac asked specifically for wild game from Esau before giving his blessing. . . . The instructions for the first Passover meal explicitly included roasted lamb.

Similarly with the NT:

In the Acts of the Apostles the story of Peter's vision of a feast being prepared is told, and Peter is give the command by Christ to "kill and eat" of the game [Acts 10.xiii]. Of all the passages used, this one is probably the closest in relevance as it is presumed by Christians that Jesus would not command someone to do that which is wrong.

And then of course there is that whole tricky business in John 6:51 et seq. where Jesus urges the disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood . . . But while hardly a call to vegetarianism, that's even further from the topic of human-animal relations.

Bible-wise, about the best you can do is point out that the Garden of Eden was apparently organized on vegetarian principles, suggesting that in the ideal, sinless state that we ought to aspire to, we wouldn't kill animals. That's not the state we're in, of course.

(4)  On an unrelated matter: In a Corner post at about the same time, I posted a map showing state deficits, by state. Several readers chid me for not having posted this one, which shows per capita state deficits. They are of course right; but my point about the upper midwest looking good still stands. (Though I guess Montana and Wyoming are not so much upper midwest as upper west.)

---

Ellen Willis' cultural libertarianism allowed her to navigate the feminist sex wars of the 1980s with a grace and good sense that still stands up.

With a few important exceptions, I most closely identify my political philosophy with libertarianism. In those areas where I depart from mainstream libertarian thought (most notably foreign policy), a heavy Objectivist influence can be detected. Given that my three principle intellectual influences are Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and John Locke; it should come as no [...]

I have long decried our irrational support of Nouri al-Maliki, who is a sectarian leading a sectarian party.  His sectarianism may be part of the reason that Allawi, a Sunni, is virtually tied in the vote count with him.  He allowed – and as Prime Minister, is accountable for – the dissociation of religious and [...]

As the latest phase of the epic showdown between China and Google headed into its third day, it became increasingly clear that neither party is planning to back down -- and in fact, it now looks like Beijing is looking to punish the search company for its insouciance.

For its part, Google seems committed to standing on principle. James Fallows has a good interview with David Drummond, the Google vice president whose been out front on the company's move of its search portal from mainland China to Hong Kong. And he manages to clear up a mystery: What's the connection between the hack attack and Google's decision not to censor search results any more?

This attack, which was from China ... was almost singularly focused on getting into Gmail accounts specifically of human rights activists, inside China or outside. They tried to do that through Google systems that thwarted them. On top of that, there were separate attacks, many of them, on individual Gmail users who were political activists inside and outside China. There were political aspects to this hacking attacks that were quite unusual.

?That was distasteful to us. It seemed to us that this was all part of an overall system bent on suppressing expression, whether it was by controlling internet search results or trying to surveil activists. It is all part of the same repressive program, from our point of view. We felt that we were being part of that. 

That was the direct connection with the hacking incident. It wasn't in isolation. Since the Beijing Olympics, our experience in China has gotten worse. Although we have gained market share, it has become more and more difficult for us to operate there. Particularly when it comes to censorship. We have had to censor more. More and more pressure has been put on us. It has gotten appreciably worse -- and not just for us, for other internet companies too.

Rebecca MacKinnon corroborates that  account in comments originally intended as congressional testimony. Money quote:

China is pioneering a new kind of Internet-age authoritarianism. It is demonstrating how a non-democratic government can stay in power while simultaneously expanding domestic Internet and mobile phone use. 

On the business front, the New York Times reports that Google's partners are swiftly moving to distance themselves from this move (the paper also quotes a number of pro-China scholars who profess confusion at the company's stance, though another Times story shows more balance).

China's leaders may think Google is emerging the loser here, and the company's stock has stagnated over the last few months as investors pondered the impact. "From an industry standpoint, however, Google's exit will leave more room for international and domestic competitors to tap into the potential of a market with the largest online population," one China Daily article today reads. "Without Google access to pornographic and subversive content, China's cyber space will continue to grow in a cleaner and more peaceful environment." Uh-huh.

Ultimately, this incident could end up hurting China far more than it does Google -- exposing the country's claims of increased openness as hollow, scaring away potential investors, and taking away a valuable source of innovation and healthy competition.

But it's not just China that could end up damaged. We're definitely seeing a tipping point here in the United States, with U.S.-China relations heading into dangerous territory. When you've got Paul Krugman calling for retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods, something is definitely afoot.

A new report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute claims that China's currency policies sucked away 2.4 million U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2008. That strikes me as highly dubious, but many in Washington will seize upon the figure as pressure on the Obama administration to label China a "currency manipulator" mounts. And I think the Google fracas plays into that.

The scary thing is, we all lose if a trade war breaks out. The price of Chinese imports will go up around the world. U.S. consumers will pay more for their iPhones. And China might retaliate, making everyone poorer.

I'm sure Obama's economic team -- committed free traders like White House advisor Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner --  knows all this, and is counseling calm. But sometimes the political guys win.

Kathy Freston Talks Conscious Eating This week’s Prevention Not Prescriptions blogger is health and wellness expert and best-selling author Kathy Freston. When I tell people that I'm a vegan, the most popular question, by far, inevitably follows: "But, how do you get enough protein?" There it is again, I think, the meat industry's most potent weapon against vegetarianism -- the protein myth. And it is just that -- a myth. In fact, humans need only 10 percent of the calories we consume to be from protein. Athletes and pregnant women need a little more, but if you're eating enough calories...

Welcome back to Prevention Not Prescriptions Tuesday. This is a weekly forum where we’re coming together to inform and inspire each other to healthier living. Tuesdays are our chance to take our health into our own hands and say “hell no” to more pills and the pharmaceutical industry’s endless search for profits. Getting past the "protein myth" Kathy Freston talks conscious eating When I tell people that I'm a vegan, the most popular question, by far, inevitably follows: "But, how do you get enough protein?" There it is again, I think, the meat industry's most potent weapon against vegetarianism --...

It was a beautiful day, but I mostly was on my couch, watching C-SPAN, and posting commentary on www.twitter.com/healthaccess. The Huffington Post condensed the full floor debate into ten minutes. Below is the video, and some of the quotes from the day, particularly from California Representatives.




* CA Rep Judy Chu talked about Eric, a young member of her staff... Getting chemo, he reached 24 and lost coverage under his parents' plan. He then was denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions. He only had coverage because of the job with the Congresswoman, but this plan would help him, and others like him.
* CA Rep Doris Matsui described her constituents Tim's + Elizabeth's problem with the health system: "If it's not working for them, it's not working for me."
* CA Rep Dennis Cardoza: "My wife has been a doctor for 30 yrs. She tells me every night of stories of patients who get sick, but denied coverage. My wife has to fight with insurers "to let her practice medicine the way she was trained at UC-Davis Med School." "My brother, who owns a small business, saw his premiums are going up 75%.""I am going to vote for this bill, and I am going to vote for it proudly.. "It is desperately needed, desperately long overdue."
* CA Rep Henry Waxman: Health reform "builds on what works today.. and it reforms what doesn't. It fundamentally reforms the practices of insurers."
* MI Rep John Dingell, after being introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman: "Today is a day that is going to rank with the day we passed the Civil Rights bill of 1964... and Social Security..."
* CA Rep Eshoo: I am priviledged to be part of a Congress that votes for this "life affirming" health reform, which will "perfect the union."
* CA Rep Mary Bono Mack's descriptions: "secret deals" "shell game" "does nothing"... She gave the impression she was opposed...
* CA Rep Lois Capps highlighted prevention: after this bill, "no more co-pays for preventative screenings."
* GA Rep John Lewis: "The American people need health care, and they need it now.. Answer the call of history, and pass health care."
* CA Rep Mike Thompson: "I've worked for quality, affordable health care for all for years, since my first campaign." "In my district, 63,000 uninsured residents will have access to coverage"
* CA Rep Devin Nunes: Health reform brings back "ghost of communism," and it "continues failed Soviet socialist experiment".. we should "say no to totalitarianism."
* Vice Chair & CA Rep Xavier Becerra: "Today is a day of history. Today we accomplish what 100 years of Congresses could not."
* MD Rep Van Hollen: "The day after this leg is signed by President Obama, Americans will see the world is not coming to an end."
* CA Rep Lynn Woolsey: "The whole nation needs health reform but no one needs it more than women..." "..being a woman is a pre-existing condition"

Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived to a standing ovation, to give a speech that journalist Marc Ambinder called "the best speech I've seen her give." She started by stating that we are honoring the vow of our founding fathers, from the Declaration of Independence, for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This reform will provide healthier lives, and more liberty to pursue happiness. "This is an American proposal..." she emphasized. Citing the linkage with student aid legislation, she said that health reform and education were two issues that were ultimately about opportunity for the American people. "One word: opportunity."

Speaker Pelosi made the link to the economy. "Imagine an economy where people can change jobs or start a business without worrying that they would lose their health coverage." She continued, "The best action to reduce deficit, to improve economy, to create jobs.. ...is to pass health reform." She praised the health reform for emphasizing prevention, wellness, and innovation.. It "will create 4 million jobs.. will save $1.3 trillion from the deficit."

Speaker Pelosi references her predecessor who said "all politics is local," by stating that in fact, especially with health reform, "politics is personal." She recounts, "I saw a grown man cry" when he couldn't pay his medical bills...

She refers to over 350 groups support of health reform: AARP, AMA, Catholic Health Assn, United Methodist Church, Voices for American's Children, and many others. She also pointed out that the bill includes over 200 Republican amendments, and after over a year of debate, it's time to pass it.

Referencing the late Senator Kennedy, Pelosi calls health reform the "great unfinished business" of our society and says the reform will establish health care "is a right and not a privilege."

And after that, the vote tally went up. Like a New Year's Eve countdown, but utterly more rare and consequential, the bill slowly but surely had over 216 votes.

The term "historic" can be used in wild excess, but it fits the House's dramatic approval late Sunday of health care reform.

True, many details must be worked out, particularly on containing ever-spiraling health costs. The plan will be immensely complicated to implement, as it always is when trying to harness the free market to achieve a social good. There will be short-term pain as some pay higher taxes, and while some of the most important benefits kick in this year, others won't start until 2014.

But the sweeping legislation promises to make America a healthier and more just society. Its significance is on par with Social Security and the Civil Rights Act. It will extend coverage to 32 million Americans without insurance – more than 5 million of them in California – whose ranks are growing every year and many of whom are one illness away from the poorhouse.

It will prevent insurers from writing off those with pre-existing conditions, pulling coverage when someone gets sick and needs it most and from using other unfair practices to pad their profits. And it will loosen the chain between employment and insurance, protecting those who get laid off and helping would-be entrepreneurs who, in the absence of affordable health care, might be reluctant to chase their dreams.

The Senate should quickly pass the companion "fix-it" bill before the special interests and protectors of the status quo try to muck up the deal.

President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill today, and when he does, he will have delivered the change he promised on the campaign trail. The tide turned a month ago when he finally laid out in specific terms the health reform he wanted, and then went back on the stump to sell it to voters. He will soon be able to move on to clean energy, financial regulation and immigration reform, and most importantly refocus on jobs. His victory on health care augurs well for progress on those fronts.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought together a fractious and diverse Democratic caucus and cemented her standing with an achievement that eluded legislative legends like Tip O'Neill and Sam Rayburn.

Moderate and conservative Democrats in swing districts showed immense political courage. It is entirely possible that the health care vote will cost some of them their seats in November. If that happens, they will have left a legacy to be proud of.

Advocacy groups, especially those in the grass roots, kept up the pressure on Washington, a textbook demonstration of how representative democracy is supposed to work.

On the other side, Republicans and their allies in the tea party movement and elsewhere gave in to their worst instincts. Instead of making their case on legitimate policy differences, far too many of them resorted to shouting epithets and slogans and inciting hate and fear. When Republican lawmakers couldn't win through reasoned argument, they fell back on using terms like "socialism" and "totalitarianism" to describe a health care proposal that resembles systems in place in Germany and Switzerland.

It remains to be seen if voters will judge them harshly. History certainly will.

Read the whole thing The Tea Party is a challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. state. When Tea Party participants charge the current administration with various forms of totalitarianism, they are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy. Many GOP elected officials offered nearly secessionist rhetoric from the floor [...]

Some have argued that the vitriolic nature of the opposition to health care reform among the political right comes not from a concern about money per se, but a concern that the money of good, hard-working, white Americans will be transferred to the not-so-good, lazy, non-white Americans. That is, that this is isn’t about money, it’s about color. The fact that conservative anti-health care reform activists hurled the n-word at Black lawmakers on Saturday adds heft to that argument, as does the justification of the use of that word by Representative Devin Dunes (Republican – California) as understandable given Leftist “totalitarianism”: Via Matthew Yglesias. (View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Have you noticed how many -tarian's there are these days? Lacto-ovo vegetarian, Lacto vegetarian, Ovo vegetarian, Su Vegetarian, Flexitarian, Pescetarian, Pollotarianism, or my favorite- the Semi-Vegetarian. Me? I'm a truth-etarian.

[Editor’s Note: The following is adapted from a book event at First Things on March 19, 2010.]

I hope you guys all know that it’s a bit daunting having this much expert firepower trained on my little book–kind of like having the National Symphony Orchestra sit in on a first grader’s piano recital. I can only hope that if in the course of the book, or this talk, I commit any literary sins of the theological variety, all the eminent religious leader here will just do the obvious Christian thing—and keep quiet about them. Remember, it’s Lent.

The Loser Letters is a pro-religious satire of atheism, told from the point of view of a worldly and troubled twenty-something girl. It’s an unusual book by most standards, I guess. It’s also my first published fiction. Some of you might know some of my nonfiction work over the years from here at First Things—or from Commentary or the Weekly Standard or other tools of the great right-wing conspiracy. Of course certain people who disagree with that work will say that actually, I’ve just been writing fiction all these years anyway—so The Loser Letters in that sense isn’t anything new. So I guess to clarify matters, given the theologians among us, we should call this my first book of intentionally committed fiction.

So why write a book of intentionally committed fiction these days? In literary circles lately, it’s become common to compare the United States today with ancient Rome. So it seems apt tonight to go with that flow, and take as our starting point the ancient writer Juvenal. In times like these, he wrote just before the fall of Roman civilization, it is difficult not to write satire.

And that wisecrack actually explains how this effort got started—because faced with certain facts about the new atheism, it felt difficult not to make at least some fun of it. That movement itself, and its leading lights, needs no introduction, having introduced and promoted itself with enviable efficiency during the last few years. In the course of its long-running media extravaganza, this new atheism has also attracted much criticism, including by many learned and sophisticated people. Yet the one thing it did not attract was the one thing that provoked me to write The Loser Letters—and that is the fact that the new atheism is also so very easy to make fun of.

After all, just look at the big fat target it presents. This genre has made celebrities of a number of writers breathlessly proclaiming a series of thoughts about which nothing truly new has been said since, say, Friedrich Nietzsche. As A.F. Christian herself points out in the book’s Foreword, the new atheists have actually performed something of a miracle. They’ve made a lot of something, including money, out of what’s ostensibly a big fat nothing, i.e. God. (God, by the way, is known in the book as Loser, as you’ll hear shortly during the reading.) Their movement has repeatedly assailed religious people as self-righteous, ignorant of history, and humorless—all the while remaining self-righteous, ignorant of history, and humorless itself to quite a remarkable degree, as a pile of quotes dug up by A.F. Christian go to show.

Now, Ignatius Press has kindly played up the fact that the book draws from certain details of Dante’s Divine Comedy and CS Lewis’s Screwtape Letters, and so it does. But it has some darker and weirder influences, too, ranging from Mad TV’s Stuart Larkin and the characters on the TV show House to Manolo Blahnik shoes, cheetah leather mini-skirts, and other pop-cultural preoccupations of A.F.’s, among other ingredients. Like the rock-star atmospherics of the new atheism, the media culture that surrounds her makes this character a recognizable creature of her times.

So that is one way in which The Loser Letters can and should be read—as a volume poking some overdue holes in one more tremendously successful celebrity enterprise that’s gotten very big, and very full of itself.

On a second level which is also obvious, The Loser Letters operates like any other piece of fiction. It tells the story of a set of characters which begins somewhat mysteriously, and ends with that original mystery explained. We have a protagonist, this twenty-something girl A.F. Christian. Little by little, we learn the sometimes bizarre details of her life. She’s writing excited, star-struck fan letters to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Daniel C. Dennett and Sam Harris and all the rest of the new atheists, promising and ultimately delivering her own life story to them. As that story unfolds, we begin to wonder about this character. Why is she doing this? Where is she, anyway, in this place that she keeps calling rehab, where the only thing she has access to is her e-mail? Why are certain people giving her Rosetta Stone German to study? Who is this person she calls the Director, also known as the midget in the red cape? And what really happened with A.F.’s ex-boyfriend Lobo back in Portland?

Certain surreal details of the plot aside, A.F. Christian as a character is very much an Everygirl for our time—a stand-in for so many young women today who share the common experience of growing up with one set of moral teachings, abandoning those teachings when they arrive at college, and then spending years, often the rest of their lives, in what some experience as an existential wilderness. Tom Wolfe’s Charlotte Simmons is the most memorable such character in recent literature. A.F. is a little like Charlotte, a few years after college and certain unfortunate personal choices later. Both characters apprehend clearly enough, to invoke one of Nietzsche’s most arresting images, that someone has indeed taken out a sponge and wiped away the horizon; but they don’t know what to do about it. It’s in A.F.’s burning need to do something that the drama of the book begins.

Like any other fictitious character, there is much that readers don’t know about A.F. As C.S. Lewis observes in the Narnian chronicles, we aren’t all given every detail of everyone else’s whole story, whether in real life or in fiction. On the other hand, by the end of The Loser Letters, readers will know everything that is most important about her, or so I hope.

So just as any reader, religious or secular, can read the book as a satire of the new atheism, so too can anybody grasp it as fiction is meant to be grasped—as the personal story of a set of characters, some of them mysterious at first, whose purposes become clear in the course of the story.

There’s also a third dimension to this text that I would like to emphasize here tonight to the Christian apologetics, and in addition the personal story of our heroine. That is what might be called the extra-religious leitmotif of the story. In A.F.’s testing of the new atheists, there emerges a thumbnail defense of Western Civ itself—and more particularly, of the absolutely indispensible role of Judeo-Christian religion in that same civilization.

It’s not our protagonist’s fault that she doesn’t know that history as well as she should—though she does manage to catch up. The Great Disruption of the 1960s, the abdication of so many standards and responsibilities by those in intellectual and moral authority, has made autodidacts of everyone who has gone to school since then—and A.F. is no exception. That is why her interior life is such an unholy mix of things that really don’t belong together—the history of totalitarianism, Facebook, texting, Biblical references, recreational drugs, popular music, Renaissance sculpture, and the Bravo channel all wrapped up in one. No one ever taught her—as most of us who went to universities post-1960 have also not been taught—to distinguish the high from the low, the passing from the permanent, even the ugly from the beautiful.

And so, in her obsessive pursuit of the books and articles and appearances of the new atheists, which she undertakes in an effort to make sense of herself, A.F. inadvertently embarks on something else—a sad, quick, but important journey through the shards of a once-coherent civilization, what T.S. Eliot called these “fragments I have shored against my ruins.”

This brings us to one final reason why some pushback against the new atheist view of the world seemed in order—because that movement aids and abets our cultural dumbing-down. On the new atheists’ telling, for example, religious history begins with some animal sacrifices among the Hebrews, fast forwards through the so-called dark ages up to say, Savanorola, takes a detour around Piux XII just long enough to slap a swastika on him, and ends somewhere with Monty Python and a Solstice party. It’s a portrait of Christianity that is beyond caricature—because actual caricature, from the Italian caricare meaning to load or charge, has to have some of the original substance in it; whereas some of what the new atheism reports about the history of religion is simply wrong. (Do other people here remember one of the most famous cartoons ever published by the New Yorker? It was by Saul Steinberg. It showed the map of the world as imagined by a Manhattanite—one in which the island filled most of the picture, with a few outposts—California, etc.—far, far out from the center of the frame. That’s the kind of historical tunnel vision we’ll have about Western civilization if we let the new atheists spoon feed their version to us.)

And so one final purpose behind writing The Loser Letters was just this—to give readers, even readers who are religiously tone-deaf or indifferent, the experience of a kind of Idiot’s guide to religion. It’s in part an attempt to say, look, here are just a few of the things you ought to know before you get to pat yourself on the back as the new atheists do for quote rejecting religion. These things range from the sublime to the ridiculous and everywhere historically between. People ought to know just what was going on in Mexico, for example, when Catholicism spread like wildfire through a civilization absolutely and unmistakably intoxicated with slavery, death, doom, and human sacrifice. They ought to ask themselves as A.F. Christian does in one especially detailed Letter why so much of the manifestly greatest art ever created—painting, sculpture, music, poetry—has been committed in the name of God or the gods. And they ought to have some rough understanding of what’s known in theology as natural law, and why some perfectly intelligent people think that certain aspects of the human condition themselves argue for theism. As A.F. Christian would be the first to say, nothing about any of this record proves anything about Loser’s existence. But it does mean that people really ought to know a lot more than many do when they sit down to decide these things.

The book’s ideal reader is someone like the image on the cover—someone with a laptop open, so that they can search Spanish Baroque or Gregorian chant or Whittaker Chambers or Renaissance sculptor Desiderio da Settignano or other details, as necessary.

In the end, then, the book is a small stab at all that, an effort to say that cultural literacy, in the phrase of E.D. Hirsch, doesn’t end at high school. It doesn’t end in college—in fact, unfortunately, it often doesn’t even begin there these days.

All of which brings us back to Juvenal, and why satire felt so appropriate—because the new atheism further feeds and encourages its own kind of intellectual and aesthetic dumbing-down. The new atheist version of history would have all of us believe that it all boils down to a few inexplicably stupid rules—as if all of Catholicism could be collapsed into the case against stem cell research, say, or all of Judaism into the mandated separation of milk and meat.

The reductionism of the new atheists is beyond belief, but it is not beyond some good clean fun—well, mostly clean fun; I’m not responsible for everything A.F. Christian decides to say and do. But fun, in the end, is the medium for the message. You don’t have to be religious to get it. Just being anti-anti-religious these days is good enough.

Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a contributing writer to First Things.

Like many of you, I was shocked and appalled by this video of a Tea Partiers at a health care rally mocking a man with Parkinson's disease. According to information from Progress Ohio [1], the man in the video was a former nuclear engineer who was diagnosed with Parkinson's 15 years ago and was able to have a $150,000 surgery to increase his quality of life because of Medicare. He came out to the rally because he was grateful for that surgery and wanted to support efforts to extend health care to more Americans. It's not just tea partiers, and it's not just conservatives. The level of discourse in this country has reached a new low, and we should be ashamed our ourselves. Last week, I wrote about a pregnant woman who was denied health care when she was in distress because of her credit history [2]. Trina Bachtel didn't have $100 in her pocket for a deposit, which she was required to pay because of a former past-due medical bill that had already been paid up. Her baby was stillborn. She died two weeks later. A commenter wrote on my post, saying that if she didn't have $100, she shouldn't have been pregnant. Normally, I am the kind of blogger that chooses to engage with whoever comments. See last month [3] where I pester a rude commenter until the wee hours. But this guy, I couldn't even write back. If you don't have compassion for a pregnant woman in distress, for a man with a debilitating, horrifying disease, who do you have compassion for? Ourselves. That seems to be the only people we can have compassion for lately. "My tax dollars," "my hard-earned money." Except when you direct compassion on yourself, it's called self-pity. A society that has compassion for the least of these is a strong society. When we choose to educate, support and encourage those who have fallen on hard times, we are choosing to educate, support and encourage ourselves as a nation. Are there people who abuse the systems - welfare, medicare, medicaid and the like? Yes. There are people who do that. But in our self pity, we are choosing to believe that we are the only ones who are doing right and working hard. That people who look like us and live in our own neighborhoods and towns are the only righteous ones, the people from whom the rest of the country freeloads. We do not strengthen our nation when we mock victims of a debilitating disease or refuse to help pregnant women when they're in labor. That's not strength. Well, at least not according to me. Some people feel differently. "Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice," said Adolph Hitler. I'm not saying the Tea Partiers are fascists, or that conservatives are either. There's value in the free market and in its emphasis on acting in your own interest. But there's a limit to that kind of thinking. And that limit comes when we refuse health care to those who need it and when we mock those who have fallen on hard times. That kind of behavior is just disgusting. As Americans, we have always balanced states rights with federalism. Market regulation with free enterprise. Free speech with protecting those who speech can harm. We can balance providing for those who need help with caring for ourselves and our families. But we have to try, and not resort to the level of discourse that should shame us as free, prosperous citizens of a great nation. My fellow Americans: let's shut our mouths and do good work. I think we'll all be surprised by how little needs to be said and how much needs to be done. [1] http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=38496&articleId=18348848&func=5&channel=News [2] http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/17/american-mothers-dying-blame-poverty-and-racism/#more-987 [3] http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/02/bunning-is-budging-but-maybe-he-should-stay-put/

Forget all that indecorous talk of animal flatulence, cow burps, vegetarianism and global warming.

Iranian influence must not be allowed to scupper the prospects of an Iraqi coalition, argues Brian Binley.

Looks like China's ramping up its aggressive posture against Google (GOOG), which has threatened to end all collaboration with the government's censorship policies, even at the cost of ending its search business in the country. And as usual, one has to read the tea leaves embedded in China's state-run media to catch glimpses of the latest salvo.

But reading them is so much fun! There's nothing quite like absorbing the idioms of a translated language tethered to an awkward defense of totalitarianism and nationalism. Let's go to work!

First up, Sing Tao Daily, where editor Han JingJin took umbrage with a Washington Post story that China's online readers would seriously suffer from Google's departure. The story, Han claimed, merely "shows the deeply embedded ideology behind the curtain," and ignored the fact that China's a pretty big player in the world today, both economically and culturally.

"All commodities come with some cultures and ideologies," Han wrote. "China definitely is influenced by the West, but the influence is mutual. People of a certain culture learn to know a different new thing, but the new thing also has to learn to suit its new customers. That's why KFC serves Chinese porridge and McDonald's provides Chinese food menus here."

And the days when China kowtowed to Westerners like Google (GOOG) are over, pal:

Google ... made some compromises to adjust to a different business environment. However, it tried to change the rules after it had gained an 'irreplaceable' position in China, i.e. demanding the Chinese government change Internet regulations at their request. Google was confident that China would make some concessions.

The current "China Threat" theory shows Western countries are actually in fear of being dominated by China one day. The same goes for Google, who is insinuating a "you can't do without me" message to China. I was wondering whether Google is waiting for China to cater to it or trying get away from it.

So Google's terrified of China's ascendancy and wants to remind the country of its place in the world, before it gets too big for its britches. Fun stuff!

Next up: China Daily, which published an editorial warning Google that China's no stooge anymore:

Despite the colonial era when a foreign company such as the British East India Company could assume an overriding power over a sovereign state, in modern times an individual foreign company never gains the upper hand when it's in trouble with a country's laws. With the United States throwing its weight behind it under the pretext of Internet freedom, Google thinks it may have a chance to press the Chinese government into giving its search engine no restriction at all across the border. Business is business. But when it involves political tricks, business will come to an end soon.

Finally, here's the Xinhua News Agency, where writers Meng Na, Li Yunlu, and Yan Hao warned Google not to "politicalize" itself. "

Regrettably, Google's recent behaviors show that the company not just aims at expanding business in China, but is playing an active role in exporting culture, value and ideas," they wrote. "It is unfair for Google to impose its own value and yardsticks on Internet regulation to China, which has its own time-honored tradition, culture and value. ... Whether it leaves or not, the Chinese government will keep its Internet regulation principles unchanged. One company's ambition to change China's Internet rules and legal system will only prove to be ridiculous.

What's behind all the saber-rattling? It might have something to do with this Wall Street Journal story, which claims that Google could announce it's shutting down its Chinese search engine as early as this week.

 

(Originally posted on Open Salon.)

Benjamin Franklin famously warned that "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But over the last decade, Americans — and others all over the world — have been willing to trade many of their freedoms for the promise of security. John Kampfner's new book, Freedom For Sale: Why the World is Trading Democracy for Security, examines the roots of this trend, and considers what citizens can do to counter it. In the exchange below, Kampfner talks to Jameel Jaffer, the director of the ACLU National Security Project. With the author's permission, some of the questions have been edited for clarity.

JJ: Your book notes the willingness of people all over the world to sacrifice civil liberties for the promise — and often the false promise — of security. Why do you think people are willing to make that trade?

JK: People make the trade not just for the prospect of security, but for material benefits too. This has been the pact since the advent of globalization and of a unipolar world following the collapse of communism in 1989. Rather than reinforcing a desire for greater liberty and democracy, the comforts enjoyed by an increasing number of people around the world have increased a yearning for security — for cocooning, for keeping what one has acquired. Public freedoms are the ones most easily given away — free expression, free association and the freedom to take an active role in the public/political realm. What matters more to people are their private freedoms — that is the freedom to lead one's life unimpeded. This could be freedom of travel, lifestyle and sexual choices, and most cherished of all, the freedom to make and spend money.

JJ: But surely there are limits to the public freedoms that people are willing to surrender in return for private freedoms, material comfort and even physical security. Your book examines the experience of, among other countries, China and Russia. Those are countries in which individual rights are very limited and the asserted needs of the state are routinely invoked to justify new restrictions on individual freedom. What can Americans learn from the experiences of people who live under totalitarian or authoritarian regimes?

JK: One of the less palatable conclusions I draw is that we are closer than we would like to admit. The peoples in semi-authoritarian states and those in established democracies appear to converge in their prioritization of freedoms (as I pointed out in the answer above). Many Russians I came to know during the late 1980s quickly associated the political plurality of the Yeltsin era with chaos. A similar mindset applied to many Chinese after Tiananmen Square. Both the Chinese Communist party and the Kremlin of Vladimir Putin made a different offer to their peoples — you keep out of trouble, and we will give you specific and circumscribed freedoms, along with strong economic growth. Compared to the lot of previous generations this appeared a good deal. And yet, in the West, how many people really want more? What proportion of the population of the United States, or the U.K. for that matter, comprises "trouble makers" — people who would be prepared to sacrifice their well-being for making a difference in the public realm?

JJ: When you say that "we are closer than we would like to admit," do you mean that there's a real danger that countries like the United States will degenerate into authoritarianism or totalitarianism?

JK: I resisted the temptation to compare countries, to give them scorecards for the state of their public freedoms. Of course, neither the United States nor Western European countries are likely to turn into authoritarian states (let alone totalitarian ones). One of the paradoxes of the post-1989 world is that while the number of democracies has increased (according to data from organizations such as Freedom House), the quality of these democracies has markedly deteriorated. This can be gauged variously, from a reduction in civil liberties, to an erosion of the independence of the judiciary, to the waning scope of investigative journalism, to a decline in electoral turnout. Indeed, I can think of no major Western democracy whose credentials have emerged unscathed in recent years. And the more flawed those democracies, the more peoples in different societies lose faith in democracy as their political destination of choice.

JJ: You also examine the experience of democracies like Britain and India. In what ways has the reaction of the United States to the threat of terrorism differed from that of Britain and India? Do you think the United States has been more or less successful than those countries have been at responding to the threat of terrorism in a way that is both effective and consistent with democratic values?

JK: The United States, unlike the U.K., had precious little experience of terrorism prior to the events of 9/11. The extent of the trauma suffered by the American people is often underestimated by foreigners. That trauma led to a collective wish for the authorities to do whatever it took to provide greater safety. A security clampdown was understandable in the circumstances. More curious was the self-censorship that took place. The writer Michael Kinsley described it as listening to his "inner Ashcroft." Four years later, Britain's response to the [2005] bombings on the London subway and buses, was similarly irate. Tony Blair declared "the rules of the game have changed." In India, after the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, a large demonstration called for the state to get a grip on the terrorist threat. One can see therefore the common threads. Where the United States, in my view, emerges more creditably, is the existence of its written constitution. Even after eight years of a Bush clampdown, the in-built checks and balances ensured the exercise of arbitrary power had its limits.

JJ: I wonder if these "in-built checks and balances" actually worked the way they were meant to work. It's true that the U.S. Supreme Court drew some important lines — ruling, for example, that the first iteration of the military commissions was unlawful, and that prisoners held at Guantánamo have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. But outside the very narrow context of detention and prosecution at Guantánamo Bay, the courts have been very deferential to the executive on issues relating to national security.  And Congress was complicit in many of the human rights abuses of the last decade — endorsing the military commissions, for example, and endorsing — and even expanding! —  the warrantless wiretapping program. It's not just that Congress didn't stop the abuses; it participated in them. If it's true that the system is working better in the U.S. than it is elsewhere, things elsewhere must be pretty bad.

But let me ask you about the transition from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. As you know, the Obama administration has endorsed many of the Bush administration's national security policies — a surprising number of them, in my view — but it has reversed or changed some of policies as well. It has disavowed torture, for example, and released — in response to ACLU litigation — the Bush administration's "torture memos."  It has also promised to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay.  Do you see these changes as cosmetic, fundamental or something in between?

JK: It is too early to make a definitive judgment call on Barack Obama. Just by not being George Bush and his neo-Conservatives, the new administration was bound to strike a different chord. Some of the measures of the Bush era have been reversed. Others, like the closing of Guantánamo, have proven to be more intractable than Obama predicted. As with other liberal administrations, he is trying to make a difference without also alienating conservative voters. The problem with this approach, if taken too far, is that you end up trimming so much you make little difference in the end. That is his challenge. Civil liberties groups should cut him a little slack, but not too much. They must maintain the pressure for a radical, but sensible, rebalancing of liberty and security.

JJ:  To me, it seems that many of the principled and intelligent decisions that the Obama administration made early on are now being reconsidered for purely political reasons. In fact, as we're having this conversation, the Obama administration is reportedly reconsidering one of its signature national security decisions: the decision to try the 9/11 defendants in civilian courts rather than military commissions. If the reports are true, it's a truly remarkable thing.  And if the Obama administration reverses course on this issue, it will be difficult to see much light at all between the national security policies of the second-term Bush administration and those of the first-term Obama administration.

But one point you make in your book is that the federal government isn't the only actor that matters on issues relating to civil liberties and human rights. And you argue that civil liberties advocates often make the mistake of focusing too intensely on the shortcomings of federal government, when the atmosphere of fear that allows and encourages the curtailment of rights is often cultivated at a local level. How would you recommend that civil liberties advocates counter this atmosphere of fear?

JK: This is a fascinating area to explore. Often the most pernicious and draconian pressures are the ones applied locally and more informally. In the United States this problem seems particularly prevalent — the doctor or teacher ostracized for expressing views that are seen as not representing "mainstream" opinion. In many ways, the U.S. experience has over the years been the reverse of other countries, with the federal authorities looked upon as the guarantor of liberties that would be more easily sacrificed by powerful forces in communities and corporations. In order to counter this phenomenon, civil liberties groups must continue to find partners to work with at the most grassroots levels.

JJ: In your concluding chapter, you wonder whether "perhaps people require less freedom than they would like to believe;" and whether perhaps people are satisfied if the government "keeps them safe, and allows them to lead their personal lives as they wish."  Is that your ultimate assessment — that in the end we don't care as much about liberty as we say that we do?

A: That is my assessment of the current situation, but I hope it is an aberration. Yet, I must admit, the events of the past year or so have not filled me with optimism. I was one of many hoping that the collapse of the financial system might lead to a groundswell of pressure for a deeper reassessment of political, economic and social priorities. If so much of public life had been subjugated to the altar of consumerism, perhaps something was going to change when the bottom fell out of the market? Alas, the feeling now is that, as and when the major economies emerge from recession, it will be largely a return to business as usual.

JJ: Well I hope you're wrong about that, even if I fear that you're not. 

You end the book by pointing out that it was "we the people," the common citizens, who "allowed democracy to mutate into something it should never have become." As a writer, you have at your disposal a uniquely effective means of affecting change, but what action can ordinary people take to defend their liberties, and their democratic society, against a government that says it wants only to protect them?

JK: Complacency is the greatest enemy. In my chapter on Singapore, the city-state that provides the model in my analysis of the trade-off, I use the phrase: "consumerism is the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain." The internet has been, on one level, a great leveller, a means of empowering individuals. Yet much of that empowerment remains atomized — people commenting and agitating in blissful isolation. What is needed is a quest by individuals to see their role as citizens, as participants in the public realm, as having an effect on the quality of their communities. Sadly, over the last 20 years, democracy has mutated into a single purpose — a vehicle for delivering material consumption.

I love the GOP's new "Fire Pelosi" [1] web site, in which Nancy Pelosi is pictured as a wizardess who can start deadly fires with her mind. [2] The toxic flames of expanded health-care coverage are burning my web browser! Sorry, Republicans: You may be able to launch dumb-ass web sites and use Pelosi-anxiety to raise money from your base -- i.e., the charming folks who believe stethoscopes are a tool of socialist oppression and who, once they're riled up, can't refrain from calling black people "niggers" and gay people "faggots" [3] -- but the fact of the matter is Nancy Pelosi just totally fucking kicked all of your asses. What are you gonna do now? Try to get the health-care bill rejected on constitutional grounds? [4] Great plan. Does that happen before or after you smoke another pound of crack out of a unicorn's bunghole? Did you see that video of John Boehner crying and gasping [5] like a baby that's been locked in a tanning bed with the windows rolled up? That's a man who's realized he's just had his own ass completely and totally handed to him by Nancy Pelosi. Republicans decided to engage in the health-care reform process by whipping their followers into a frenzy about death panels and socialism and totalitarianism and Obamahitlerarianism and let's-see-who-can-make-the-stupidest-sign-for-our-stupid-ass-tea-party-rally; they may have "won the news cycle" and impressed Politico-snorting shitheads who think politics is just a big stupid game . . . meanwhile Nancy Pelosi was in "Git-R-Done" mode, whipping her caucus into shape to successfully pass a huge, honking, historic piece of legislation that Republicans will just have to learn to live with, along with the fact that they got their fucking asses completely kicked. [1] http://gop.com/firepelosi/ [2] http://trueslant.com/davidrees/files/2010/03/firepelosi-cropped-proto-custom_8.jpg [3] http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/tea-partiers-call-lewis-nr-frank-ft-at-capitol-hill-protest.php [4] http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/03/constitutional-objections-to-health-reform.php [5] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/21/boehner_hell_no_you_havent_read_the_bill.html

Post-election coalition politics in Iraq may be complicated, but the country's democratic process has exceeded expectations

As post-election events unfold in Iraq, the usual prejudicial arguments will also make their way back into the wider debate on Iraq's democratic process: it is a failure, sectarianism dominates and Iraq will self-destruct (see Fawaz Gerges's article on Cif, Iraq's delayed democracy ). But this is the template argument that has plagued Iraq as much as violence and terror attacks have, and it is often disconnected from the reality on the ground.

Iraq has left the darker times that followed 2003. Foreign jihadists, the principal perpetrators of the atrocities of those days have more or less been eliminated in the country, owing greatly to the exceptional efforts of the United States and the United Kingdom special forces (see Mark Urban's Task Force Black for a riveting insight).

Nor should we expect the Sunnis to revert back to insurgency mode. The contest is now being fought at the ballot poll and not on the battlefield and, looking at the strong showing of Ayad Allawi's Iraqi National Movement (INM) – who will either win or come second by a marginal number of seats – it seems to be paying dividends too; for the Sunnis now have some form of a viable representative and have proven themselves to be able to coalesce around a coalition or candidate.

Allawi's strong showing, falling either just behind or just ahead of Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law (SoL) coalition means that the eventual winner will have only a marginal lead. Such is the level of competition between the two that in the end it might make little difference who wins; what therefore really matters is who can garner a coalition that puts them into power.

Democratically, it reads as a success. Politically, however, it could present problems as the coalition-building process picks up speed. The constitution provides that the largest bloc should form a government, though it is not clear whether the bloc referred to in the constitution has to be a pre-election or post-election bloc, an ambiguity that might be a sticking point over the next few weeks.

Assuming it is the latter, the simple scenario would involve some form of a Maliki-led coalition that includes the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Sadrist dominated Iraqi National Alliance (INA), along with the Kurds, which, in essence, marginalises the INM. Chances of a Maliki and Allawi partnership are almost impossible; both seek the premiership, have personal differences, and will not be content with playing second-fiddle to the other.

But like most things in Iraqi politics, nothing is simple. Sidelining as significant a coalition like the INM would prove controversial and in essence seem like a marginalisation of the Sunni community. What, therefore, comes into question is whether the Kurds and the INA prefer a Maliki government or an Allawi one.

The INA currently spells the Sadrists who, with at least 40 seats to their name should, like the Kurds, emerge as kingmakers. The Sadrists are known to dislike Maliki, will be against another Maliki premiership and have submitted their own choice for the position. Having said this, there is nothing to suggest that they would not support an SoL coalition minus Maliki as its head which, in the event it turns into a significant issue, could provoke internal tensions within SoL and its leading party, the Islamic Dawa Party.

The Sadrists and Allawi, however, also have a distasteful and violent past. As a result, it may all come down to concessions over power and what Maliki and Allawi can offer the Sadrists and, indeed, the Kurds. The Kurds, along with the Sadrists and ISCI, could very well amalgamate and seek to oust Maliki from office (and the ISCI, along with the INA, have in the past come close to forming an alliance with Allawi).

Disintegration within the INM could make things easier for Allawi, since his bloc contains characters unsavoury for the Kurds and Shias, but this could also weaken him since he may be left with little to bargain with. Disintegration of the INM (and there are reports of internal problems) means that you could also have an acceptable Maliki-led coalition that does not include Allawi but other various, representative elements from his coalition.

Current projections suggest that both Maliki and Allawi, with around 91 or 92 seats, could form a government with the support of just one other major bloc (like the Kurds, who have more than 40 seats), along with the support of the other smaller groups and any splinter groups from the INA. In any case, until it becomes clearer how many seats individual elements within the various blocs have gained, it will prove difficult to properly predict the forthcoming government.

Granted the whole thing is messy and at times complicated. And it is, for Iraqis, disappointingly the case that there is no one party – either Shia or Sunni, secular or sectarian – that has a significant cross-sectarian appeal. However, let us not ask too much from Iraqis just yet. What is important is that there is progress in Iraqi democracy and politics. You now have both splits in the Shia, Kurdish and Sunni votes, as well as an open-list system that has punished underperforming officials, like those from the interior and defence ministries.

Combined together, they set Iraq's democratic process miles ahead of its neighbours and exceed the honest expectations of the international community. Iraq does not have the perfect democracy, but it has a functioning and genuine democracy.

Darian Worden discusses the left-libertarian umbrella over libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalis

Mitt Romney's post kicking off a "campaign" -- one of many being launched today, no doubt -- has a great, simple takeaway:

What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”

For Americans, it's just the start for both Obamacare and the campaigns to stop it. In Britain, the NHS has a budget that's tripled just since 1997 (imagine Obamacare at $3 trillion), and all that money has bought is more horror stories.  

One would think this would give the Tories, approaching an election, a great opportunity to revisit a bad idea and roll it bloody well back, mate. But no such luck. Cameron Conservatives are somewhere to the left of Lincoln Chafee and, not surprisingly, appear increasingly unlikely to defeat the somnambulant Gordon Brown. The consequence: untreatable, chronic melancholy has crippled the Tories.

At The Fortnightly Review, British philosopher Anthony O'Hear gives as good a rationale as you can get for not letting Obamacare get to the "roll-back" stage.

It is very hard to know who to vote for in the forthcoming election, or indeed whether to vote at all. There is no voice offering an alternative to the soft totalitarianism we have become so used to, or proposing any dismantling of the great leviathan bearing down on individual souls. That leviathan gained ground because people believed that it could remedy weaknesses inherent in the human condition, which in another age might have been seen as the inevitable outcome of original sin.

Original sin! That Obamacare: some apple; some core.

---

Volunteer program: UnScrabble fundraiser, Portage County Literacy Council Volunteer highlight: What do 19th century British politics and gall bladder surgeries have in common? Not much, except for their terms, antidisestablishmentarianism and hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies respectively, will not fit on a Scrabble board.

more images more images MUMBAI - Bollywood actor Shahid Kapoor has lent support to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to promote vegetarianism in India. Shahid shot for an advertisement of PETA here on Sunday in which he urged people to switch over to vegetarianism. As for appearing in .... Read the original article  : here.