Chait on Torture

Jonathan Chait has a fine short essay up on TNR's site about the political battle lines that have been drawn over the Bush Administration's torture policies. Maybe you already agree with everything he says, but he puts it very well.

Here's how it begins:

Remember the Rule of Law? In the late 1990s, it was all the rage in conservative circles. Having maneuvered Bill Clinton into a position where he could either lie under oath or suffer massive personal and political embarrassment, conservatives reasoned that Clinton must be held accountable for perjury or the basic underpinnings of democracy would be shattered. The Republican sensibility was best reflected by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which not only crusaded for impeachment but demanded, in 2001, that Bill Clinton be indicted even after leaving office. The Journal rejected the logic of promoting healing and insisted that a post-presidency indictment would uphold "the principle that even Presidents and ex-Presidents are not above the law."

Over the last decade, though, the right's thinking on this question has evolved. Today, the administration malfeasance consists of illegal torture, a crime I'd argue is no less serious than lying under oath about fellatio. Yet Republicans now believe that the Rule of Law is not only consistent with letting administration crimes go unpunished but actually requires it. To prosecute the departed administration would make us (to use their new catchphrase) a "banana republic"--the premise being that banana republics are defined not by their use of torture but by their overly zealous enforcement of anti-torture laws.

The GOP line is once again reflected by the Journal editorial page, which now thunders against "a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements." The editorial notably fails to even address the question of whether the previous administration complied with the law, which is apparently no longer an important element of the Rule of Law.

The right's newfound outrage is a more hysterical manifestation of the mainstream sentiment that it would be an unseemly form of vengeance or "looking backward" to hold the previous administration legally accountable for torture. It's a bizarre sentiment. The prosecution of any crime is inherently backward-looking. We prosecute law-breakers to keep them or others from breaking the law.

There's also a brief video at the same link that's worth watching. I'd have embedded it here, but TNR does not seem to allow that.

Hat tip for the link to pampl, who said after recommending it:

I found it to be pretty incisive. I was a little skeptical towards prosecution before but I've become convinced that, in principle, it'd be the right thing to do.

Heather's Got the Vapors Again

Heather Mac Donald, often held up as an intellectual force on the right (got a job at the Manhattan Institute, a pointless space in her last name, and everything!), is still Very Very Concerned About Those Black People She Knows So Well. After spouting a bunch of statistics about the Negros and their love for killin', she then gets to her point:

If the black illegitimacy rate were not nearly three times the rate of whites’, I would have few qualms about gay marriage.

Yes, she actually typed that. Why it required an introduction filled with murder statistics I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Continuing ...

Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry. But no one can make that guarantee.

Therefore, since you can not satisfy her impossible made-up request, she is fully justified in another aspect of her bigotry.

Why might it further depress the black marriage rate? There is a logical reason and a visceral reason. First, it sends the signal that marriage is simply about numbers: it is an institution that binds two (for the moment) people who are in love.

Because everyone knows Teh Ghey no likee the long-term commitment. Why else are They always going in the bushes at Griffith Park, amirite?

Or wait .. maybe "(for the moment)" is dog-whistle to people who are convinced that letting the same-sex couples get married inevitably leads to polygamy. Okay, whatever. What's next?

It erases completely the significance that marriage is THE context in which the children of biological parents should be raised.

Yes, when two men or two women get married (and we won't even address the horror of ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION OR THEM ADOPTING CHILDREN), the guaranteed consequence is that straight couples will forget why they ever had the urge to get married.

And there are undoubtedly many other subtle meanings and effects of gay marriage that we cannot even imagine at the moment—which institutional shift is something that conservatives should be most attuned to.

We cannot imagine them, but we know they are scary!

As for the visceral reason: ...

It's the ick factor, isn't it, Heather? Oh, no? More psuedo-intellectualizin'? Please, continue.

It is no secret that resistance to homosexuality is highest among the black population (though probably other ethnic minorities are close contenders).

And never mind the population of, say, white evangelical Christians. Wouldn't want to slice the population in any way except as it allows Heather to portray blacks as the worst, right?

I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals. Is the availability of homosexual marriage a valid reason to shun the institution? No, but that doesn’t make the reaction any less likely.

Shorter: straight black men won't marry women because they're afraid if they do, everyone will think they're fags.

In her defense, she eventually gets around to ...

What are the chances that gay marriage would further doom marriage among blacks? I don’t know.

... though this does raise the question of why she started writing this lunacy in the first place.

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan | pic. source | cross-posted)

Remember the Maine!

From the HuffPo:

Maine Governor John Baldacci signed Wednesday into law a bill legalizing gay marriage in the state. The move makes Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage.

From the press release at the same link:

"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Governor Baldacci said. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

I salute your open-mindedness and willingness to learn, Governor. And shoutouts, too, to the Maine legislature and everyone who worked to make this happen.

__________

[Added] In case you're curious: Before the bill came to the governor, it passed the Maine Senate by a vote of 21-13 and it passed the House, 89-57, according to Maine's Times Record (via).

What Comes After Schadenfreude?

Can't beat Thoreau's take:

People’s Front Against Kenya vs. the Anti-Kenyan People’s Front

By Thoreau

The “birther” folks have decided to stop asking the courts to de-certify the election of Obama, and are instead suing each other. Best part: One of the leaders of a faction in this dispute is actually named Orly. I am getting some 2006 flashbacks, and I need some owls to satiate these flashbacks. Anyway, I guess that since the birth certificate has been found they have nothing left to do other than fight each other.

I love it. This is as hilarious as watching the fallouts among the PUMAs last year.

P.S. Do not miss clicking on the "has been found" link.

---

Inside jokes explained, if they puzzled you: owl reference | People's Front

Probably You Already Knew This, But ...

... note to self: immanent is not a misspelling of imminent. They are two different words. Immanent means "naturally part of something" or "spread throughout something." Imminent means "about to happen."

In my own defense, I did know the second one before just now. And no, I didn't just make fun of someone on the Internet for not knowing how to spell. Wasn't even close.

Who is this Ditchkins of Whom You Speak?

PZ begins:

The Eagleton Delusion

The other day, I read this fawning review by Andrew O'Hehir of Terry Eagleton's new book, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate, and was a little surprised. I've read a smattering of Eagleton before, and the words "brisk, funny and challenging" or "witty" never came to mind, and the review actually gave no evidence that these adjectives were applicable in this case. I felt like ripping into O'Hehir, but was held up by one awkward lack: I hadn't read Eagleton's book. Who knows? Maybe he had found some grain of sense and some literary imperative to write cleanly and plainly.

So I was in New York the other day, and was offered a copy of Eagleton's book, and took the first step in my imminent doom by accepting it. Then I tried to fly home on Saturday, one of those flights that was plagued with mechanical errors that caused delays and long stretches locked in a tin can, and also flights that were packed tightly with travelers…so crammed with people that they actually took my computer and book bag away from me to pack in the cargo hold, and I had to quickly snatch something to read before the baggage handlers took it away. I grabbed the Eagleton book. Thus was my fate sealed.

I was trapped in a plane for 8 hours with nothing to read but Eagleton and the Sky Mall catalog.

This is an account of my day of misery.

The rest.

One of the finest takedowns you'll ever read.

(cross-posted)

Line of the Day: 2009-05-06

A world without nuance is probably much easy[ier] to cover, but it is not our world.
-- Roger Pielke Jr., to Andrew Freedman

Unless you're one of the Fighting 21%, there's a myriad of ways that statement applies. In this case, it comes at the end of a post by Freedman, in which he contemplates one of the most difficult aspects for reporters on his beat: how much or how little do you attribute a given extreme weather event to the overall problem of climate change?

This isn't a thumbsucker or a woe-is-me piece. It's worth a read. To maybe give you some sense of where Freedman is coming from, I came across his blog via John Cole,* who listed Freedman as one of George Will's WaPo colleagues who has taken Will to task for global warming denialism.

---

* John's piece is about Republican lying in general, and as is true for anything on Balloon Juice, it bears a look. It's not really related to the main point of this post, though.

Big Helping of Eye Candy

NASA is celebrating the tenth anniversary of their Earth Observatory by featuring the "Top 10 Images of the Day," as selected by their viewers. Have a look.

If you want more, visit the Image of the Day home page. You can also sign up for a weekly email digest, subscribe to their RSS feed, and download widgets, all on the Earth Observatory home page.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the favorite image of all was one taken from farthest away. It's all about the framing, isn't it?

(enlarge image)
(really enlarge top image)

(h/t: Andrew Freedman)

Ayn O, Huh?

In news to me that most definitely did not come as a shock, I have learned the first name of Ron Paul's son.

Rand.

No doubt where that came from, right?

Given that Rand Paul is looking to unseat trainwreck Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) in the 2010 Senate primaries, probably this won't last, but at this moment, the top Google result for rand paul is the Wikipedia page for Peretz Rosenbaum. Well, almost.

Where The Wild Thinking Are

Usually, I cannot bear to sit through Sean Hannity for more than ten seconds, but for some reason, the level of insanity on display in this clip left me mesmerized.

Next time you meet someone who says, "I get all of my news from Fox, because they're the only ones I trust," keep this clip in mind.

(alt. video link)

Also worth remembering: Hannity reportedly makes $20 million a year for spewing out stuff like this.

Ins-hannity? (Too obvious, I guess.)

(h/t: Jim Newell/Wonkette)

Quick Sessions

Here is Rachel Maddow, with a three-minute rundown on the new top Republican on the Judiciary Committee:

(alt. video link)

(h/t: Instaputz)

Sarah Wildman has a detailed column in the Guardian with a number of supporting links, if you'd like to find out more about Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), the new point man who will lead what is certain to be opposition to whomever Obama nominates to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

Now, That's Stalking We Can Believe In!

I'm just going to accept this at face value:

Can you blame me?

I Miss the Good Old Days of "Why Can't Obama Seal The Deal?"

I don't know how much I can bear to say about what is certain to be an endless Villager circle jerk about the nomination of a replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, but for the moment, let's just note what a bang-up job Chris Matthews, Richard Cohen, and Jeffrey Rosen do in keeping the "so-called" in "the so-called liberal media."

Better you should spend your time reading Jim Newell, Adam Serwer, DougJ, digby, and Glenn Greenwald, among others.

[Added] See also Scott Lemieux, and via him, Atrios, Christopher Eisgruber, and Darren Lenard Hutchinson.

Calling Hate Radio Out For What It Is

I’m strongly against a policy of banning people based on what they say (cf.), but I like the honesty of putting Michael Savage on the same list as Fred Phelps and Stephen Donald Black.

(cross-posted on ShortsandPants | h/t: Right Wing News)

A Sign of the New World Order

I find this enormously appealing: One way Iranians have been able to get around their government's censorship of the Internet is by using a program created and distributed by Falun Gong.

YASS

Yet Another Social-networking Service: I just created a FriendFeed account? page? whatever. At the moment, it displays my Twitter tweets and (the titles of) my blog posts -- in one convenient location! -- so if you're into that sort of thing, now you know.

There's a link to my FriendFeed page over there in the sidebar, too, in case you have no interest in this now, but can imagine there's a possibility that you'd like to look later.

Is.gd!

From an article about URL shortening services:

... TinyURL.com, was started in 2002 by a unicyclist ...

Jeez, he kinda looks like ...

Click to enlarge.

(Sources: L | R | caption)

On the Way to a Ball

Just a nice pic:

(enlarge image)

(pic. source | h/t: Frank Rich)

The Things You Come Across When Trying Beta Software

Mozilla's feedback system for users of Firefox, Thunderbird, etc., is named hendrix. Why hendrix?

(In case you are irritated that the apparent link
in that image did not do what you expected when you clicked it, here.)

Ah, geek humor. Nothing finer.

Oh, about that post title. Yes, I just downloaded and installed Firefox 3.5 Beta 4. The rest of this post has some notes about which you will care only if you are thinking about trying out the beta version yourself.

Just to be clear: this is NOT a security upgrade that you must do. If you're happy with your existing version of Firefox (version 3.0.10 is the latest stable version, as of this moment) and have no urge to be a beta tester, there's no reason not to wait until Mozilla releases the stable version of 3.5.

__________

What's New?  Version 3.5 is going to be the next major -- i.e.; non-patch -- release of Firefox. Why it won't be called v3.1 may be cynically explained as "because it's taking them so long to come out with it," or more charitably as "Dude, this is a pretty major upgrade." Details of what's new can be viewed on the Release Notes page.

One of the features that's gotten the most buzz is Private Browsing, more widely known as Porn Mode. I haven't looked into that yet, for reasons I'll leave you to speculate about. Other hyped features that I know little about include integrated geolocation so Obama can track you (?), Undo Closed Window (?), and full support for HTML 5 and a bunch of other developer goodies (?).

Faster?  The thing I have been most looking forward to is Mozilla's promise that the new rendering and Javascript engines will be significantly faster. So far, the new version does feel snappier. The HuffPo's site, which for me has often mysteriously dragged Firefox to a near-stall so that even other tabs would freeze until the HuffPo page finished loading, seems not to be a problem anymore.

Overwriting?  The good thing about this beta version is that it does not overwrite your existing Firefox installation. I'm not sure when they changed this -- IIRC, it was not always the case -- but this is the first time I've been made aware of it. The default installation will stick the program in a separate folder and (on Windows) create a separate entry in the Start → Programs menu. Therefore, you can try it out without worrying about having to reinstall the old version, and you can choose which one to use with each browsing session. To get rid of the beta version, just use the Windows Control Panel Add/Remove Programs utility.

However, the new version will pick up your settings, bookmarks, history, etc., from your existing installation, and as you use the new version, it will save whatever changes you make (new bookmarks, your most recent browsing history, changes you make in the customization, etc.) to the same place. Probably, this is what you want. If you think you might want to go wild with testing the beta version but want to be able to get back to your old settings when and if you go back to the stable version, see, for example, Mozilla's "Backing up your information" page. You might also have a look at the third-party utility MozBackup and/or the Firefox add-on FEBE (Firefox Environment Backup Extension). See the Google for more possibilities.

Add-ons?  Not all of your add-ons are guaranteed to work with the beta version. Here's the rundown on the ones that I use regularly.

• Working:  Flashblock | Java Quick Starter | McAfee SiteAdvisor | PDF Download
  
  
• Not working:  CopyCode | Get Mail | Image Zoom | MeasureIt | XPL LinkScanner Lite
  
  
• Notes:  
  1. The non-working add-ons are disabled by Firefox when you launch the beta version, so apart from not having their functionality, there aren't any other problems.
     
     
  2. Java Quick Starter is automatically installed by Sun when you install or upgrade Java on your browser (the Java Runtime Environment, to be specific). This only applies for Win2000 and WinXP. (More info on the JRE and updates.)
     
     
  3. XPL has recently been acquired by AVG. It's unclear at the moment what's going on; the download links on the Pro/Lite comparison page are currently broken and I don't see download links on AVG's site. Weirdly enough, the automatic updates for the related standalone utility seem to be continuing without drama. (Truth is, this is the only part of XPL Linkscanner Lite I regularly use; I have the browser add-on part disabled and let SiteAdvisor handle that aspect.)

Annoyances?  Haven't spent too much time fiddling around yet, but I do have a few complaints. (You were sitting down, I hope.)

1. The keyboard shortcut to toggle Porn Mode Private Browsing on and off is CTRL+Shift+P. Guess what the keyboard shortcut is, to switch between the text editor and the preview window, on Blogger? Yep. Grrr.
   
   The out of the box behavior in response to CTRL+Shift+P is for Firefox to pop up a window (complete with sound effect) asking, "Would you like to start Private Browsing?" I suppose I could tick the box that says "Don't show this window again," but for the moment I'm leaving it there just to irritate myself to remind myself to look into possible workarounds. (Maybe something in about:config?)
   
   
2. When you switch to using the stable version of Firefox after you've been using the beta version, and vice versa, you'll have to suffer through a small amount of pain, each time, while Firefox checks for updates to your add-ons, asks if you want to set Firefox to be your default browser, and takes you to a page where you are congratulated for upgrading to the latest version of Firefox. No biggie, but if you think you might be going back and forth between the two versions a lot, be aware. (There are probably ways to disable some of these start-up checks.)
   
   Obviously, this is not v3.5 annoyance, per se, and it will go away once the stable version of 3.5 is installed over the existing 3.0.x installation.
   
   
3. Out of the box, v3.5 shows the tab bar, even if you only have a single tab open. This is one setting that is not picked up from the existing installation, apparently -- I have v3.0.x set to hide the tab bar until I open multiple tabs.
   
   However, my initial worry that this option has been removed was for naught. It's still configurable. Open about:config and toggle browser.tabs.autohide to True.
   
   
4. The old Tools → Clear Private Data menu option has been changed to Clear Recent History. An important change buried within is that by default, cookies are cleared, too. Previously, this was not the case, and it may not be what you want. Click the Details button window and uncheck the relevant box to prevent cookies from being cleared. I'm not sure at the moment whether this setting is remembered across browsing sessions.

Moar?  If/as I come across more annoyances and/or acquire other possibly useful information related to this beta testing, I'll add it to this post, so check back, if you like. If I do add something, I'll (try to remember to) note this at the top of the post. If the addition seems significant enough, I'll create a new post, to ping your feed reader. All of your questions, comments, and criticisms are, as always, more than welcome.

"... the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years."

(enlarge image)

Can you guess?

(h/t: Steve Benen)

The New Monkey's Uncle

Attaturk points to a fascinating article in New Scientist (and don't miss the slide show) that describes the latest thinking in how single-cell creatures became multi-cellular organisms. Also discussed: the leading candidates for the mother father ancestor of all animals since.

You know how the fundies get panicked at the thought that "your grandfather was a monkey?" It's about to get a whole lot worse: it's looking increasingly likely that the combined Adam and Eve, as it were, is a sponge.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT SPONGES.

Kidding aside, the article and slide show are worth a look.

(pic. source)

Thanks, OTM

The first segment of this week's On The Media examines the media's attempt to foment panic about the Mexican Swine H1N1 flu.

Actual story starts about 30 seconds in:

(alt. audio link)

Nice to hear from the grownups, isn't it? Although I do have to say, this piece also reminds me why so few people trust "the media" anymore, and why I often think the explosion of 24-hour news channels is a net loss for society.

__________

To be clear on the latter, it's not that I am against 24-hour news channels in principle. It's just that, given how they're viewed as business models, we've ended up with a bunch of overpaid dimwits, yammering endlessly about one story, terrified not to cover what everyone else is covering, and endlessly competing to make their own telling more gripping and breathless than everyone else's. In the OTM segment embedded above, I find the reporter's attempts to wheedle an admission that "it could be the turrurists, couldn't it? We can't be absolutely sure, can we???" a disgrace. How is this even close to Informing The Public™?

Back when CNN was launched and it became clear that the number of available cable TV channels would soon be effectively unlimited, I had a fantasy that at least a couple of them would be devoted to reporting the news in a way that didn't make me want to plunge stakes into my eyes and ears. I had a vision of a channel that would be all about not covering what everyone else was covering; that would spend a good chunk of time on the details of a complex story, and wouldn't hesitate to run it in a loop if that's all they could afford to produce for that day. In my dreams, I'd hear every so often, "You know what? Nothing really significant happened today, so let's take a look back at some past stories and find out how they evolved once they stopped being THE STORY."

I know, I know. Might as well wish for ponies for everyone, too.

Fat Kid Talking Tough on Twitter

Recent tweets from the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of the RedState Trike Force, Erick W. Erickson:

"LMRM" means "Let Me Repeat Myself," John Amato (via Roger Ailes) tells me. #TCOT is the hashtag for "Top Conservatives on Twitter," and I'm guessing #RS is the hashtag for his usual place for oral farting.

If you're wondering, I just like documenting things like this because wingnuts, when they've run out of other things to howl about, frequently resort to chastising liberals for their potty mouths.

Plus, to be honest, nothing better than watching impotent fury from a self-important schlub.

Coffee mugs, bitchez.

Let the Freakout Begin!

TBogg and James Wolcott present early wingnut wig-outs to their realization that …

OMG BARACK OBAMA WILL BE APPOINTING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

And here I thought iSnort was going to be the silliest thing I saw online today.

BREAKING: LIBERAL WEBSITE CAUGHT IN A LIE!!!

*** MUST CREDIT BJKEEFE ***

How long will this post stay up??? Will they issue a retraction or just silently delete it??? THIS IS OBJECTIVELY NOT POSSIBLE:

(enlarge image)

(h/t: maru)

What The Other Fifth Of The Country Is Watching

(alt. video link)

Stolen Wealth shared from ShortsandPants.

(title: cf.)

Can't believe I'm passing along another 100 days thing, but what the hell ...

(enlarge image)

(h/t: Center for American Progress, via email. Related article.)

---

[Added] Thanks to Don in the Comments, I now know a little about the cartoonist who drew the above. Here is his personal site and here is his page at his new gig, at the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Hey, At Least It's Not A Post About Twitter

This is pretty funny: "100 days of Obama's Facebook news feed."

If it seems like a bit of an eye-roller judging by the title, I think you'll change your mind if you give it a chance. Some good work there by Chrises Beam and Wilson.

(h/t: Brenda, on the FB)

Government Involvement = Letting the Free Market Work

Paul Krugman makes the case in his column in today's NYT that making the changes necessary to address greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade system will not only not be an economic hardship, they could even be a boon. Here's how it starts:

The 2008 election ended the reign of junk science in our nation’s capital, and the chances of meaningful action on climate change, probably through a cap-and-trade system on emissions, have risen sharply.

But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.

The rest.