Writing for Newsweek, Aaron David Miller suggests that if Obama wants to solve anything with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he needs to hold both sides accountable for prolonging the conflict.
If Obama is serious about peacemaking he’ll have to adjust that balance in two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are many, including terror, violence and incitement), he’ll also have to deal with Israel’s behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.
Then there’s the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America’s credibility.
No arguments here. The settlements issue is truly serious and no peace process can succeed unless Israel quits expanding settlements into Palestinian territory.
Connecticut’s Catholic Church is charged with racketeering in a suit that claims church officials covered up alleged sex abuse by priests, documents say.
The suit, brought by a New London, Conn., attorney, cites the leadership of the Norwich, Conn., Diocese with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — more commonly known as RICO — for allegedly conspiring to keep reported child sex abuse by priests quiet, The Hartford Courant reported Wednesday.
The suit names former Bishop Daniel Reilly and its current vicar general, the Rev. Thomas McBride, as culpable under RICO for alleged child sex abuse committed by the late the Rev. Thomas Shea, who was accused of sexually abusing at least 16 girls in the 11 parishes within the Norwich Diocese.
Given what we know so far about the hierarchy’s covering up of priests who committed sexual assault, I can’t say that this comes as a surprise. Without seeing the complaint, it’s tough to guess how this will turn out, though.
In his ongoing debate over gay marriage with Conor Friedersdorf, Joe Carter repeats this common canard among opponents of same sex marriage:
Homosexuality, of course, was not invented in the past few decades; it has been an orientation and behavior that has existed as long as man has been on this earth. So why is it that no society or culture has never sanctioned gay marriage? Could it be that all societies and cultures on earth have, until the past few years, been populated with people who are misguided or are —to use the term that has been directed at me for my position —“bigots”?
Nope. The answer is that many different cultures have permitted gay marriage, as I explained awhile back:
Second, it is not even true that marriage between homosexuals is a new concept. Marriage between gay couples have been recorded in Egypt as early as 3,000 B.C. Some Ancient Greek states had legally recognized gay relationships–indeed, the special forces of the Theban army, the “Sacred Band of Thebes,” was comprised solely of homosexual couples.
You can see my original article for more, including the hash I make of this idea that somehow heterosexual, monogamous marriage as we know it today has been around for 5,000 years. It hasn’t been. Polygamy has been accepted in many societies. Extramarital relations have been not only winked at, but sometimes had their status (concubines, mistresses, etc.) enshrined into law. There is not “thousands of years of tradition” behind American conservatives’ definition of marriage–there’s a couple of centuries at best.
Will Pike, a 28-year-old Englishman, was badly injured in the tragic Mumbai terror attacks — shattering his body in a failed escape attempt. He has since returned to the U.K. and a spinal unit in a London hospital, hoping to walk again.
During Pike’s ongoing recovery, he and his girlfriend missed their eagerly awaited night out to see British comic Eddie Izzard. Pike’s father wrote Izzard, asking if the comic could send along a note to ease Pike’s disappointment and depression.
Izzard refused. Instead, the star of The Riches and Valkyrie showed up at the hospital and performed his entire 90 minute stand-up set at Pike’s bedside.
It’s New Years, which means that the Sci-Fi Channel is doing it’s annual Twilight Zone marathon. I’m currently watching “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street”, which is really one of the best episodes of any TV show ever. Not to mention a textbook portrayal of mob paranoia (and its usual triumph over reason.)
One thing that never fails to interest me is that the Twilight Zone has been revived a couple of times, and definitely copied on numerous occasions, but nothing come close to the original.
Business Week has a short blurb on the comparison between Madoff’s investment scandal and Social Security. While it acknowledges that Social Security has the general structure of a Ponzi scheme, paying off the oldest investors with the funds that the new investors put in, Michael Mandel still tries to salvage some dignity for the Social Security System.
[Social Security is] very similar to the structure of a Ponzi scheme, where new investors pay off the original investors. As long as enough new ‘victims’ are brought into the scheme, it keeps growing and growing. But when the new investors runs out, the Ponzi collapses. Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances.
But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times.
…
But here’s the rub. Ultimately our ability to make good on the “Ponzi-like” nature of Social Security depends on the continued march of technological progress—and in particular, innovation which boosts output and living standards. If we leave the younger generation a good legacy—a sound scientific and technological base, combined with an innovative and flexible economy and an educated workforce—then Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The economy grows, and there’s more than enough resources for everyone.
But if instead we—the current generation—invest in homes, flat-screen televisions and SUVs, then we don’t leave the next generation with the technological “seed corn” they need. If the technological progress slows, then Social Security does turn out to be Ponzi-like—with unfortunate consequences for everyone.
So Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme if it fails and it’s not if it succeeds? That’s not how it works. A Ponzi Scheme is a Ponzi Scheme regardless of whether or not it’s successful. Mandel could be right that unbounded exponential growth in economic output would make the scheme viable. But that doesn’t make it not a Ponzi Scheme.
The flaw in the reasoning here is that all Ponzi schemes must fail. While it’s highly likely, and I believe it will happen in the case of Social Security, these schemes don’t fail because they’re Ponzi Schemes. The fail because there are rarely enough resources to keep providing for new investors. Mandel is right to point out that there is a series of events that will result in social security not failing. He is wrong to conclude that this makes social security not a Ponzi Scheme.
Last week, for example, Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes did a breathless segment on Saudi Arabian oil exploration that would have done credit to a nine-year-old. She went out to Shaybah, a drilling project that’s been three decades in the making, and spent ten minutes gushing over the almost impossible odds the Saudis overcame to get the project up and running. 135 degrees in the shade! Hundreds of miles from nowhere! One hundred million cubic feet of sand! 400 miles of pipeline! Oil that didn’t want to flow! Storage tanks with roofs that move!
But she never asked the one question she should have: if Saudi Arabia really has as much easily extractable oil as they say they do, why are they building projects like Shaybah? Why not just sink a few holes into the easy stuff instead?
Almost certain answer: because there isn’t any easy stuff left. It’s either Shaybah or nothing. And that’s pretty much the story in the rest of the world too. There just aren’t any easy sources of oil left. It’s almost all in desolate wildernesses, deep underwater, in polar regions, or locked up in tar sands. And just to make it worse, projects to extract this stuff are risky too. At least half will come up dry after tens of billions of dollars worth of test drilling.
This is why the chant “Drill, Baby Drill” is such absolute nonsense. How about a carbon tax, an end to oil subsidies and tax breaks, and streamlining processes to develop non-oil and carbon based energies, please?
I was an officer that ran interrogator teams in the Marine Corps from 2001-2004.
Reuel Marc Gerecht uses the biggest fallacy in all of the torture debate–the ticking time-bomb fallacy. He assumes that an ideologically driven terrorist like KSM or Abu Zubaydah would answer the questions truthfully even under torture when all he had to do was withstand for 4 days to let 9/11 happen. This is absurd.
They would withstand because they are so close to the “finish line.”
Even more likely though, assuming that KSM was captured on 7 September, would be to give us thousands of leads (which he did anyways when he was captured) with a little truth at the core and we would go ragged chasing them all down while the terrorists boarded the planes without a problem.
Bottom line, the ticking time-bomb scenario is just not a justification for torture of an ideologically motivated person who has immense incentive to withstand and disseminate false information. Finally, there are other methods that could “break” KSM in the above scenario like the shock of capture and some thoughtful, sophisticated tricks that are certainly not torture and in the Army manual.
I’ve been saying this for years, but it’s worth repeating: moral behavior is practical behavior. The debate over torture isn’t just this idea about “liberty vs. safety”–it’s also centered on the idea that the practice of torture isn’t even practical. By and large, torture isn’t just barbarously immoral–it’s also a lousy intelligence gathering tool.
