Later On

Steve Benen of Political Animal:

Over the weekend, Vice President Biden made a rather bold claim about the administration’s counter-terrorism efforts: "There has never been as much emphasis and resources brought against al-Qaeda. The success rate exceeds anything that occurred in the [Bush/Cheney] administration."

Today, David Ignatius considers whether the claim is accurate.

The Karachi raid [that led to the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar] is part of a broad offensive that has sometimes been overlooked in the partisan squabbles over whether the Obama administration should be giving Miranda warnings to terrorist suspects. "The real action has been pounding the hell out of al-Qaeda and its allies around the world," the official argued.

The numbers show a sharp upsurge in operations against al-Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan since Barack Obama took office…. All told, according to U.S. officials, since the beginning of 2009, the drone attacks have killed "several hundred" named militants from al-Qaeda and its allies, more than in all previous years combined. The drones have also shattered the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban, which has been waging a terror campaign across that country. [...]

[S]urely the country can agree, looking at the evidence, that Obama has been no slouch in pursuing what he said in his inaugural address was a "war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

It’s simply astounding to hear conservative Republicans claim that President Obama has been "weak" on counter-terrorism. Short of having the president air-dropped into mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan with a knife in his teeth and an assault rifle on his back, I’m not sure how more aggressive Obama could be. More to the point, he’s far more forceful and successful on the issue than Bush — who somehow managed to cultivate a bogus reputation of "toughness" — ever was.

The AP had a similar assessment the other day, emphasizing, among other things, that Obama’s decision to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq has "freed up manpower and resources to hunt terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan." It’s an approach that "intelligence officials, lawmakers and analysts" believe is working. Obama has also made regional gains with constructive outreach to Islamic allies, which has bolstered international cooperation.

Those of us who take national security matters seriously can take comfort in the fact that congressional Republicans can’t filibuster the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism efforts. GOP obstructionism can undermine the economy, the strength of our health care system, and our national energy policy, but fortunately, Obama is the Commander in Chief.

Tom Friedman has a column today in which he takes on the denialist community. He begins:

Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.

When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore…

And what is driving this is the increasingly ominous signs of worldwide climate change, nicely summarized in this post specifically written as a illustrated reference for those who read Friedman’s column and clicked the link. In fact, the post at the link is must reading for any climate-change denier that’s willing to click a link. (Some are unwilling, so greatly do they treasure their fantasy.)

Thanks to Jack in Amsterdam for the pointer to this article by H.P. Albarelli Jr. and Jeffrey Kaye:

On Tuesday, February 10, the British High Court finally released a "seven-paragraph court document showing that MI5 officers were involved in the ill-treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed." The document is itself a summary of 42 classified CIA documents given to the British in 2002. The US government has threatened the British government that the US-British intelligence relationship could be damaged if this material were released. The revelations regarding Mohamed’s torture, which include documentation of the fact the US conducted "continuous sleep deprivation" under threats of harm, rendition, or being "disappeared," were criticized by the British court as being "at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," and in violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The Mohamed case is the most prominent of a number of cases that have come to public attention. While the timeline of Mohamed’s torture places the implementation of the Bush administration’s so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" many months prior to their questionable legal justification in the August 1, 2002, Jay Bybee memo to the CIA, the use of torture and rendition has a much earlier provenance. Over the past decade, many Americans have been shocked and disturbed about the CIA’s secret program of rendition and torture carried out in numerous secret sites (dubbed "black sites" by the CIA) around the globe. The dimensions of this program for the most part are still classified "Eyes Only" in the intelligence community, but the program’s roots can be clearly discovered in the early 1950′s with the CIA’s Artichoke Project. Perhaps the best and strangest case illustrating this can be found in the agency’s own files. This is the so-called "Lyle O. Kelly case." The facts of this case are drawn from declassified government documents.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sounds interesting:

The Lost Origins of the Essay

by John D’Agata

A review by Meehan Crist

Central question: How can we read the history of the essay as a history of art?

"What word is there to describe this kind of logic that sings?" — Plutarch

Every history is a story, a marshaling of evidence to support a particular reading of the past. Of the Silk Road or Nordic myth. Of Alexandria or pirates or the atom bomb. John D’Agata’s history is of the essay, that redheaded stepchild of literature which, he laments, is often mistaken for "a genre that is merely a dispensary of data — not a true expression of one’s dreams, ideas, or fears." There is a problem, he argues, with thinking that the nonfiction tradition originates in records of fact, as in how many bushels of wheat a man once owed his neighbor. It denies the genre a tradition as art. "I think this misperception is prevalent today because we haven’t yet laid claim to an alternative tradition…. I am here in search of art. I am here to track the origins of an alternative to commerce."

This search soars across centuries, continents, and literary forms, from an ancient text by Ziusudra of Sumer to The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon to the prose poems of Baudelaire to a "performative essay" on Bob Marley by Kamau Braithwaite to a stunning meditation on love, lust, and the lyric by Lisa Robertson. Along the way, D’Agata carves out a story about the art of nonfiction that is plausible, and possibly even true.
Faced with the fabulous diversity of the pieces collected here, a reader may begin to wonder: What is an essay? Blake’s "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"? (Surely the poets claim this one.) Borges’s "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"? (Didn’t I just see that in Ficciones?) Artuad’s "Eighteen Seconds"? (Is there a genre for impossible theater?) To complicate matters, some of these "essays" are excerpts from longer works, and others are new translations prepared specifically for this anthology. The skeptic may suspect the editor is tampering with historical evidence. And yet, if you follow D’Agata’s reasoning in the brief introductions that frame each text, you cannot help but see the family resemblance across "a form that’s not propelled by information, but instead by individual expression — by inquiry, by opinion, by wonder, by doubt… a mind’s inquisitive ramble through a place wiped clean of answers." Thought happens; imagination happens; the actions of the mind are events as real as the passing of wheat from one hand to another.

"The word for it is recent, but what it does is ancient." — Bacon

Asking what an essay is leaves us groping for an answer to the wrong question. Perhaps we should be asking …

Continue reading.

Nancy Youssef in McClatchy:

Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was nearing the end of a 25-minute question and answer session with troops serving here when he raised a topic of his own: "No one’s asked me about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’" he said.

As it turned out, none of the two dozen or so men or women who met with Mullen at Marine House in the Jordanian capital Tuesday had any questions on the 17-year-old policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military — or Mullen’s public advocacy of its repeal.

Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Darryl E. Robinson, who’s the operations coordinator for defense attaché’s office at the U.S. Embassy here, explained why after the session. "The U.S. military was always at the forefront of social change," he said. "We didn’t wait for laws to change."

Some Republicans in Congress have expressed outrage at repealing the ban in wartime and the Pentagon has embarked on a year-long study on what impact the repeal might have.

At a Senate hearing earlier this month, Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., urged Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind."

Yet those gathered at Marine House made it clear they’ve already accepted the idea of gays and lesbians serving among them.

Of far more interest to them were other areas, they told Mullen, such as allowing women to serve in infantry units. They also asked about relations between the military and the State Department and, more narrowly, when a key Defense Department official would be assigned to Amman permanently.

Indeed, since Mullen appeared on Capitol Hill earlier this month and told a stunned Congress that in his personal view, gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve, the response among members of the military has been little more than a shrug.

After Tuesday’s question-and-answer session, Mullen told McClatchy that although he’s held three town hall sessions with troops since his testimony, not a single service member has asked him about the issue.

At Tuesday’s session, …

Continue reading. It’s all over. The bigots lost, but are still fighting even when they have to renege on their previous promises—e.g., John McCain said that when the heads of service said it was time, he would support it. Instead, he’s fighting it. I guess being a maverick means you can’t be trusted.

Bill Lindelof in the Sacramento Bee:

The signs of autism are not present at at 6 months but show up gradually later in an infant’s first year, a UC Davis study reveals.

Contrary to what autism experts once thought, signs of the disorder appear later in an infant’s first year of life. Most babies are born apparently normal before a gradual decline begins between 6 and 12 months of age, the study done at the UC Davis MIND Institute and UCLA shows.

A lack of eye contact, smiling or babbling are signs of autism, and researchers focused on those developmental markers during examinations in a five-year period. They concluded that autism’s symptoms are not evident in children under 6 months.

The study showed that by one year, social and communication behavior of autistic children had dramatically deteriorated.

"This study provides an answer to when the first behavioral signs of autism become evident," said Sally Ozonoff, study author and professor at the MIND Institute.

Researchers say the study is noteworthy because of the accuracy and precision of observation during lab visits.

"Until now, research has relied on asking parents when their child reached developmental milestones," said Ozonoff. "But that can be really difficult to recall."

In addition, parents who make video recordings of their children often turn off the camera when behavior is poor, exactly when autistic symptoms may appear, a MIND Institute news release states…

Continue reading.

The brush is my French Plisson High Mountain White 12 with horn handle, and the soap is, as you see, Pré de Provence. I got an extremely good lather, and the razor, a UK Gillette model (Rocket? Ambassador Junior? I’m not sure) with a newish Astra Keramik blade did a fine job: three passes and a little polishing to perfect smoothness. And of course Geo. F. Trumper Spanish Leather is a favorite aftershave.

Take a look.

I just made (and devoured most of) a batch of Pickapeppa Chicken. It’s insanely good and quite easy, as you see.

I marinated the chicken thighs for two days. Since he used indirect heat, I just roasted the thighs on a rack in a 400º F oven. As recommended, I cooked the thighs skin side down for 20 minutes, then turned them. I checked them after 30 minutes on the second side, and they were more than done. Next time I’ll check at 25 minutes. (I imagine that his timing on the grill just reflects that the grill is not so well insulated as my oven.)

If you think cooking on the grill adds a smoky taste that you like, a small dash of liquid smoke in the marinade is the simple solution (liquid smoke itself being a simple solution of smoke in water): completely authentic smoky flavor.

I think this would be a great recipe to make with chicken wings.

This one is definitely a keeper. I particularly like that the marinade is so easy to put together.

I highly recommend the movie Torso, a recounting of a true crime, chronologically told from the discovery of the eponymous body part through the trials, with flashbacks from time to time to illustrate what is being recounted by one of the characters.

In fact, it strikes me as a good date movie in that there is much to discuss about the ending.

Not (yet) available to watch instantly.

Take a look at the Book Depository.

These are all well worth reading:

Right to Rent: The Best Response to the Housing Crash

Obama and the ‘savvy’ bankers

The Folks Who Missed the Bubble Want Your Social Security

Fascinating conversation between Lawrence Lessig and Ezra Klein. Do watch it.

Take a look. And I need to cook some duck—the one with duck fat sounded really delicious.

Interesting note by Melissa Healy in the LA Times:

People with Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism, dramatically improve their social learning skills and spend more time gazing at pictures of faces after inhaling the social-bonding hormone oxytocin, researchers have found.

The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is the first to demonstrate the effects of oxytocin — a hormone that promotes mother-infant bonding, socialization, trust and cooperation — in people diagnosed with Asperger’s.

It led some experts to speculate that supplementing the normally low oxytocin levels in people with autism disorders may help their social interactions.

In the study, 13 subjects with Asperger’s syndrome and a control group were quizzed about photos of human faces. Such images normally prompt Asperger’s subjects to avert their gaze, especially avoiding the eyes. For 90 minutes after inhaling oxytocin, those subjects were more willing to study faces, including the eyes.

They were also better able to tell whether they were being ignored in a computerized ball-tossing game. People with Asperger’s would usually not pick up on such differential treatment.

Coauthor Angela Sirigu of the University of Lyon’s Center of Cognitive Neuroscience said oxytocin’s effect in the second test was especially important as it prompted subjects to interact with others and "learn from others’ feedback."

By Dean Baker:

We are looking at a prolonged period of high unemployment because economists with degrees from places like Harvard and M.I.T. could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble. The economics reporters who work for outlets like the New York Times, National Public Radio, and the Wall Street Journal all lacked the ability to think independently and largely accepted at face value the assertions from the well-respected economists that there was no problem in the housing market. And the politicians — well that’s not worth mentioning.

So, what does David Brooks tell us in his column?

"This recession has exposed America’s social weak spots. For decades, men have adapted poorly to the shifting demands of the service economy. Now they are paying the price. For decades, the working-class social fabric has been fraying. Now the working class is in danger of descending into underclass-style dysfunction."

Of course Brooks is right. Working class men are ill-prepared to deal with the effects of incredible economic mismanagement that has made them its primary victims. It has been conscious policy of David Brooks and his peers to weaken welfare state supports, making income and well-being almost entirely dependent on employment. Now, because David Brooks’ highly-educated peers are incompetent economic managers, millions of working class people (disproportionately men) are facing extended periods of unemployment. And, naturally Brooks sees their difficulty in dealing with this crisis as a failure of working class culture.

Actually, pretty cool. Take a look and take it out for a spin.

Take a look.

Steve Benen (again):

It’s been apparent for a while now that when it comes to the debate over health care reform, opponents have trouble taking "yes" for an answer. Yesterday, Chris Bowers highlighted a classic of the genre.

On Sunday, Feb. 7, President Obama announced his plan to host a bipartisan summit on health care reform. Exactly one day later, on Feb. 8, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote to the White House with a reasonable question.

"If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?"

Four days later, the White House announced that it would, in fact, present a legislative proposal at this discussion, and would make it available to members of Congress and the American people in advance.

Boehner, true to form, was outraged that the president’s team would do exactly as Boehner asked, insisting that there be no legislative proposal at all at this discussion.

As Chris explained, it’s "one from the ‘negotiating in good faith’ files."

The GOP really is a marvel. Steve Benen:

It’s been surprisingly easy of late to chronicle the many instances in which congressional Republicans have announced their opposition to ideas they support. From a deficit commission to PAYGO, cap-and-trade to a financial industry bailout, civilian trials for terrorist suspects to stimulus aid for their districts, it’s become routine for Republicans to embrace and reject the same proposals, almost at the same time.

On an individual mandate as part of health care reform, Karen Tumulty noted this morning that Republicans "oppose their own idea." She referenced this piece from NPR’s Julie Rovner.

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats’ health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch’s opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

If we could expect consistency and intellectual seriousness from GOP lawmakers, it would be almost bewildering.

Over the summer, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Fox News, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates…. There isn’t anything wrong with it." A few months later, he used individual mandates as an excuse to oppose reform, and voted for a resolution characterizing mandates as unconstitutional.

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) all declared their opposition to an individual mandate in December. All five of them are on record co-sponsoring a reform measure that included an individual mandate.

The point here is not just to highlight the bizarre inconsistencies of Republican opponents of health care reform. This is also important in realizing why bipartisanship on health care has been quite literally impossible — Republicans are willing to reject measures they’ve already embraced, and ideas they themselves came up with.

All the Democratic outreach and compromise options in the world can’t overcome the fundamental lack of seriousness that comes with a party that opposes and supports the same ideas at the same time.