Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Framing Science

by tristero

There’s been a fascinating debate in the science blogosphere over the ideas of Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney, who, put simplistically, advocate reframing important science that, at present the public is little inclined to support. Nisbet/Mooney are not advocating simply better science writing for the public. No one disagrees that that would be a good thing because even though there are many superb writers who can communicate science well to us laypeople, we need more such people. Furthermore, the average writing ability of young scientists is, as it is among most undergraduates and graduates, pathetic. Of course, it needs to be improved. And it can be.

Nisbet and Mooney, however, urge that scientists learn to speak about science through a different frame, a la Lakoff. They urge science writers to make science more “personally meaningful,” stating that this will “activate public support much more effectively than blinding people with science,” ie, overwhelming the lay public with facts piled upon facts.

I strongly disagree. In fact, I can’t imagine a worse tactic than the one Nisbet and Mooney advocate. Briefly, there is no essential problem with the “frame” through which scientists explain their work which, after all, consists of reporting data and drawing inferences and proposing theories and is simply the way science gets done. Rather, they should be proactively encouraged to do what they are already doing to inform the public (just do more of it and do it better).* They don’t need a frame makeover. It is the public’s perception of what science is that needs to be changed. In my lay explorations of sciences like geology, evolution, experimental psych, and others, I’ve noticed that often great science cannot be shoehorned into a “personally meaningful” frame. Not only is it pointless to try when that is the case, it is counterproductive as it comes off as phony pandering and a waste of time (“The Higgs Boson: What’s In It For Me?”). It is far better to try to get the public to better understand what science is, that it is an extensive inquiry into the properties of the natural world. There is wonder and joy aplenty, for sure, and there are many useful things that come from science. But science is, first and foremost a process of deep inquiry, not a process to attain Nirvana.

And that is inherently A Very Good Thing. Consider the alternative. At present, inquiry, skepticism, logic, data, and empirical procedures for increasing knowledge have been under a relentless assault from the far right. Instead of inquiry, they prize a government acting in secret, rather than skepticism they urge us to trust in faith. Logic is replaced by Cheney’s 1 percent doctrine, data on reproductive healthcare is ignored and suppressed. As for empiricism, well… it matters little to a government that places people as mentally disordered as Eric Keroack and Jerry Boykin in positions of power (and apparently, Boykin’s still there ).

Anyway, PZ Myers has written well about the problems with changing the frame of science. Here’s his latest. He also linked to Greg Laden who also has excellent objections and what follows are some comments on Greg’s post, which propose an alternative strategy to Nisbet and Mooney’s suggestions. I’d like to make clear, however, that Nisbet and Mooney are people I respectfully disagree with. I find them genuinely thoughtful people, not ideologues. I think they are very wrong, but they are hardly creationists or even apologists to creationists. They understand full well what the dangers are from theocrats. Anyway…

1. As Greg says, Richard Dawkins is doing a great job explaining science. In fact, the world could use more Dawkins’es “right now,” not less. As for Dawkins’ attitude towards religious belief, his view desperately needs to be heard. Often he is contemptuous where I am less so, and on some things, he’s flat out wrong. But the last thing anyone should urge is to stop paying attention to him. Better would be to understand books like The God Delusion as PZ Myers does, as a way of focusing the argument against religion and religious belief. PZ has made it clear that his beef is not so much with what he characterizes, following Einstein, as “Spinoza’s God” but rather with a supernatural White-Bearded Guy In The Sky who knows all, can never be wrong, and created everything. Which brings up point number

2. The agitation for “Intelligent Design” creationism is coming from a small handful of political extremists who’ve cloaked themselves in the trappings of religion (there are also religious fanatics, but mostly, these are political operatives). They’ve managed to convince a lot of people, including the press, to – dare I say it – frame the issue as one of science versus religion. As disturbing as America’s scientific illteracy surely is, I strongly believe that the public’s attitude towards religion and science is far more complicated than the poll numbers suggest. The number of people who actually agree with christianists when they learn what they are actually advocating is, I suspect, not that large, or that permanent. I’m suggesting that, at the very least, we need more in-depth polling of the public’s knowledge and attitudes. While there sure are many believers in the White Beard, it’s unclear whether that necessarily makes them allies of christianists (on this, I part company with PZ and Dawkins, who believe White Beardism can only imply christianism, albeit often disguised. I’m not so sure people are that consistent about it all).

3. Contra Nisbet/Mooney, the real conflict is not science vs religion but with the far right against the rest of us – atheist, Methodist, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim and even Evangelical. The only way we will change the public discourse on evolution is by making this clear. It is extremists opposed to the wide reality-based community. I’m not advocating a frame change – which in this context rhetorically concedes competing, inflexible ideologies without truth content – so much as understanding how poorly the actual situation has been understood, even – especially – by those who are fighting the christianists.

4. For many reasons, some of which Greg mentions, making science more “religion-friendly” or me-generation friendly as a way of changing attitudes towards science is doomed to failure – How Hox Genes Make You A Better Manager just ain’t gonna cut it. If defeating creationists is the goal, it is far more effective simply to expose to the harsh glare of publicity the real agenda of the creeps responsible for hawking the snake oil of “Intelligent Design” creationism. Howard Ahmanson and his Christian Reconstructionist fellow cultists not only earn the contempt of scientists; most non-scientists who learn what the Reconstructionists really believe in and what they are really up to end up revolted.

4. There is no reason under the sun why many scientists, atheists and agnostics, can’t participate in a broad coalition with other Americans to fight the extreme right. Their worldview need not be compromised in working with Methodists on the assault on science any more than a Methodist’s worldview would be compromised by working with a Catholic or a Catholic with a Buddhist.**

5. Nevertheless, even if people like PZ and Dawkins refuse to participate in such coalitions [UPDATE: PZ Myers speaks about this in comments], they serve an essential role in the fight against the christianists. To claim that some of the most articulate writers of science are ineffective becaused they’re antagonistic to religion (which they cheerfully admit they are) flies in the face of their high sales figures. Rather we should be encouraging more of them while, at the same time, working as hard as possible to drive a wedge between the extremists trying to undermine science and the vast majority of the American public – people who would be horrified to learn what christianists really stand for.

[UPDATE: In comments, Coturnix draws our attention to a series of blogposts he wrote in support of Nisbet and Mooney. I read two of his posts. Although he thinks we disagree, I fail to see how in any meaningful way. I agree that spinning is not framing and I agree that framing is inevitable. Nor do either Coturnix or I disagree on the efficacy of the actual frame for science (even if I think that his comment gratuitous which claims pop science needs to be directed to a fifth grade mentality. I would characterize Sean Carroll’s magnificent Making of the Fittest as popular science writing. I think Coturnix would agree with me that it also is directed at an audience more sophisticated than the average fifth grader. ) And I think we both agree that science writing, at all technical levels, from the most detailed to the most popular, can be improved.

It is Nisbet and Mooney’s specific framing that I object to.They write, “People generally make up their minds by studying more subtle, less rational factors [than a ‘data dump’ of facts].” Whether or not that is true – and it very well may be – scientists have no choice but to remain rational and fact-based (or at least, aspire to be!). That doesn’t mean they have a license to bore their audience, of course, but it does mean that the kind of “personally meaningful” frames – N&M’s words – they advocate are doomed to failure. Why? Because, once again, a lot of science is not personally meaningful in that way. Far better to help us laypeople understand what science actually is, what the mechanisms are for evolution as PZ writes, than to cobble up a meaningless personal meaning.

One final point. Incredibly, Nisbet and Mooney accuse Dawkins of framing the evolution debate as science vs. religion. That is an astounding misconception on their part. Science vs. religion is the frame of the christianists – they are not opposed only to evolution but to what they call “methodological naturalism” which simply is a synonym for science! Dawkins has merely adopted the religion vs. science frame for a classic contrarian argumentation style – “you think I’m a bad boy? I’ll show you just how bad I can be.” Because this is not Dawkins’ frame but the christianists, he cannot be accused of deliberately manufacturing it.

And one final, final point. The public CAN be expected to separate Dawkins’ evolution from his atheism. We’re not all fifth graders out here. ]

*Scientists around the country have started “Science Cafes,” giving informal talks at local eateries on, say, the first wednesday of every month. A great idea. Here in my neighborhood, it’s standing roon only at the local brasserie when the Columbia scientists speak.

**To those who think there’s a far wider ideological gap between all religions and atheism which precludes coalitions, I’d like to remind you of the long history of violent conflict over religious doctrine. And there is also a decent amount of (admittedly more recent) history of accommodation and tolerance religious differences. See, America, Constitution of.

The Big Con

by digby

Hey, everyone. Bring out the welcome wagon for my pal, the great writer Rick Perlstein, and his new blog for the Campaign For America’s Future.

Rick has been working on his latest book, “Nixonland” for the last couple of years, some excerpts of which I’ve been privileged to host here on this humble little site. Now that it’s finished, among other things, he’s going to be delighting us daily with his sparkling prose and keen insight.

There is just nobody around who knows more about what makes the conservative movement tick and how they influence our culture and politics than Perlstein. Now that the ground is shifting a bit, we need his unique knowledge of their sneaky ways (as well as his passionate progressive politics.) Old conservatives never die you know, they just crawl in their coffins and wait for sundown.

Go read this great post about the “E Coli Conservatives” (a keeper, if I ever heard one) — and say hello.

.

Teaching Moments

by digby

Papa Bear’s on a tear:

CALLER: You know, about this word “racist.” It’s the single most effective weapon ever devised by the far left and anti-Americans. It immediately — it’s more effective than nuclear arsenals. It immediately puts us on the defensive, no matter what the subject. The Muslim jihadists use it against us, the Mexican invasion is enabled by it. Even our gangs. We can shut down the gangs with the National Guard and a big police presence.

O’REILLY: Oh, you could easily shut the gangs down. You’re absolutely right. But, you know, but the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] would be right on your butt saying, “Oh, you’re racist. You’re profiling. You’re doing this, that, and the other thing.” I understand what you’re saying, [caller], and it’s absolutely true. But enough’s enough. You know, I’m throwing down the gauntlet on these people. And anybody that uses this weapon, you’re gonna get a visit from me.

I just watched Lou Dobbs barely holding back his patented righteous indignation when he found out that you can’t just lock up people for thought crimes in this country. He was shocked to find out that authorities don’t have the right to force people to get psychiatric help when they haven’t done anything illegal.

I’m beginning to think that there is an undocumented side effect of Viagra — uncontrolled tantrums when self-important gasbags realize that they cannot control every little thing in life. They should put a warning label on the TV set.

Update: Sweet Jesus, these people have issues.
.

Tainted Love

by digby

Steve Benen notes that the Bush administration’s attempts to confront the congress are not having the positive effect they thought it would:

When Bill Clinton was president, White House aides had a policy: when there was political trouble, and public support was on the wane, put the boss in front of people. Schedule a speech in front of a large audience; arrange for some high-profile television interviews, put together some kind of major White House event, etc. Clinton aides knew that the solution to most problems was letting Clinton talk to Americans.

Invariably, the strategy worked. As it turns out, the Bush White House has embraced the exact same approach. Unfortunately for the Bush gang, it’s not nearly as effective.

He goes on to discuss all the polls that show Bush’s strategy is a big flop so far.

The president is on the wrong side of the country on this and so his challenge is much larger than it was for Clinton. But we should not forget that Bill Clinton was a master communicator who could make an intelligent, incisive and persuasive argument in language that anyone in the country could understand. It’s a mistake to underestimate those gifts in our modern world of 24/7 mass communication. The Republicans thought you could dress up a ventriloquist dummy or a trained dog with some fancy packaging and nobody would know the difference and they’ve been proven fools in no uncertain terms. The ability to communicate and persuade are more important than ever and it’s not something you can create out of whole cloth. It’s a skill that any first rate modern politician needs to have.

People gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 (and the media anointed him the next Winston Churchill for reasons that are still unclear to me) but his terrible public awkwardness helped destroy his presidency after Katrina. Someday someone will put together his press conferences in the first months after 9/11 and future generations will be shocked that a majority of this country agreed to follow this man into war — they were stunningly inept. (That first major evening press conference scared the living hell out of me as I realized how over his head he was.) It was only the extreme deference of the press and the nation’s deep need to believe that we were in competent hands that allowed him to get away with it.

He did fine in his well-written prepared speeches. Any person could. But his mind and speech were so slow and thick in his unscripted moments that all he really had was a sort of cliched TV cowboy attitude, which seemed to be enough for people for a little while:

Q Do you want bin Laden dead?

THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There’s an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, “Wanted: Dead or Alive.”

There he was, “healing us” with his manly leadership.

A president must be more than just articulate, of course. But he or she is at a serious disadvantage if he cannot communicate across all the lines in a way that gives people faith that he knows what he’s doing. I think this has been one of the reasons Bush fell so far. They had to sustain a very difficult illusion for a very long time — you can be believe me or you can believe your eyes. It couldn’t carry them forever.

When they send Bush out today and he speaks in his halting, unconvincing manner — aggressive, slightly hostile and often incoherent — it has the opposite effect they need it to have. Every time they see him now people are reminded that they were sold a bill of goods and they resent him and reject what he’s saying.

If they want the nation’s support for their policies, the last person they should use as their salesman is the guy who makes half the people cringe in embarrassment for their own past bad judgment and the other half intensely frustrated that he is in office in the first place. But there are so few Republicans with any credibility at this point, I honestly don’t know who they can trot out to do it. The party’s lockstep, slavering sycophancy to Bush’s inept governance has left them without anyone people can trust.

I suspect this is why they are all so hot for Fred Thompson. He can at least act like he knows what he’s doing. (Worked for Reagan.) Finding a Republican who actually knows what he’s doing may be an impossible task.

.

Inappropriate

by digby

I’m can hardly wait to read Peggy Noonan’s column scolding Nikki Giovanni and the students and teachers at Virginia Tech for being classless with their spirited “Hokie” shouts at the convocation. I’m sure that the university’s opposing teams were shocked and dismayed that these people would hold a “pep rally” at such a somber time. Just because it gave the mourners a needed feeling of solidarity and purpose is no excuse for such thoughtless behavior.

Update: Oh I see, they just haven’t gotten to the memorial service scolding yet because they are too busy scolding the students for not throwing themselves in the line of fire just like they do it on the TeeVee.

(Man, if it had been me, I wudda judo chopped him and then and then I wudda stomped him hard and taken away his guns and saved all the pretty girls too! I would, too’uv!)

.

A Moment

by digby

Suzanne Malveaux of CNN just compared President Bush’s appearance today at Virginia Tech to his famous “bullhorn moment” where he allegedly brought the country together after 9/11.

John, you may recall that what was called the “bull horn moment” when the president shortly after 9/11 stood on that pile of rubble and called out and really united the country at that moment, firefighters and others who recognized that that was a very significant moment for the country. This is again one of those moments Don, where a lot of people are looking at this wondering, you know this could have been my son or daughter…

Ugh. The bullhorn scene was not a “healing moment” in tragedy. It was a war cry, a far different thing. It did not bring the country together — virtually the entire world was united after 9/11. Within months Bush’s policies, especially the preposterous invasion of Iraq, began to tear the country apart and made us loathed throughout much of the world. God, I hope this isn’t one of “those moments” because his track record is just terrible.

I think it’s appropriate for the president to appear there today, it’s in nearby Virginia, and it’s a national tragedy. But the only slightly political dimension you can find in this is guns, which have been taken off the table as a political issue, (although gun owners have achieved their agenda so thoroughly that they now seem to be lobbying to actually require people to be armed at all times and shoot first and ask questions later.) I suppose that there will undoubtedly be some immigrant bashing too.

But from what we know now, we seem to be dealing with a crazy man and there’s nothing the president can say about that or do about that other than speak for the people as its leader and express our sorrow. For Malveaux to evoke Bush’s famous bullhorn moment is fluffing of the highest order. (She seems to have developed some sort of Stockholm Syndrome lately, so it’s not surprising.) But it would behoove the White House to keep a low profile on this and not encourage such talk. The country has had quite enough of the Bush administration trying to raise its approval rating on the backs of dead people.

Update: Apparently this is a common theme among the DC press corps.

.

Guess What Caused Virginia Tech?

by tristero

That’s right:

We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals–and humans–arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as “cheap.”

I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution.

Of course he isn’t. Anyone who’d conclude he was is just twisting his words. He’s just having one of those theological discussions, like Falwell and Robertson had after 9/11.

Time to hear from Dinesh D’Souza who’ll tell us that if Pelosi hadn’t gone to Syria, none of this would have happened. It’s liberals’ lack of respect for authority that caused the slaughter.

That and, of course, the fact that the entire campus wasn’t packing. That would have solved everything.

Oh, Idiot Wind. It’s a wonder they still know how to breathe.

Vic-To-Ree

by digby

Glenn Greenwald wrote a good piece today about the surge protectors among the neocon think tank crowd. He discusses this article in the Washington Post by a retired marine general who turned down the job of “war czar” because he wasn’t clear on what they meant by victory.

The fact is that victory in Iraq has never been seen as an actual event — a surrender of the enemy, for instance. It’s a PR strategy that was used by the Bush Administration to try to keep the country on board with the occupation until Bush could hand it off. Long time readers of this blog will remember this article, which I have discussed more than once:

When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness. But the president’s full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week’s prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission.

The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation’s top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president’s speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.

“There’s going to be an appetite by some to relitigate past decisions,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. But the studies consulted by the White House show that in the long run public support for war is “mostly linked to whether you think you can prevail,” he added, which is one reason it is important for Bush to explain “why he thinks it’s working and why he thinks it’ll win.”

I’m not sure how much this is driving the train in the White House these days considering that two years later support for the war is scraping around somewhere in the mid-20’s. But it’s still operative in certain right wing circles (and with John McCain and Huckleberry Graham) because it validates one of their central theories of “what goes wrong,” when the nation fails to properly heed their bloodthirsty calls for endless war.

In fact, it may be the central tenet of neocon thinking, as perfectly illustrated by this seminal work of the godfather himself, Norman Podhoretz, called “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win” a piece that needs to be read again in light of recent events and appreciated for its almost perfect wrongness. Many others have noted the similarities between their argument then and now, but this passage reflects specifically how the neocons saw the folly of Vietnam (and telegraphs today how they are attempting to set up the failure of the Iraq occupation):

Contrary to legend, our military intervention into Vietnam under John F. Kennedy in the early 1960’s had been backed by every sector of mainstream opinion, with the elite media and the professoriate leading the cheers. At the beginning, indeed, the only criticism from the mainstream concerned tactical issues. Toward the middle, however, and with Lyndon B. Johnson having succeeded Kennedy in the White House, doubts began to arise concerning the political wisdom of the intervention, and by the time Nixon had replaced Johnson, the moral character of the United States was being indicted and besmirched. Large numbers of Americans, including even many of the people who had led the intervention in the Kennedy years, were now joining the tiny minority on the Left who at the time had denounced them for stupidity and immorality, and were now saying that going into Vietnam had progressed from a folly into a crime.

To this new political reality the Nixon Doctrine was a reluctant accommodation. As getting into Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson had worked to undermine support for the old strategy of containment, Nixon—along with his chief adviser in foreign affairs, Henry Kissinger—thought that our way of getting out of Vietnam could conversely work to create the new strategy that had become necessary.

First, American forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam gradually, while the South Vietnamese built up enough power to assume responsibility for the defense of their own country. The American role would then be limited to providing arms and equipment. The same policy, suitably modified according to local circumstances, would be applied to the rest of the world as well. In every major region, the United States would now depend on local surrogates rather than on its own military to deter or contain any Soviet-sponsored aggression, or any other potentially destabilizing occurrence. We would supply arms and other forms of assistance, but henceforth the deterring and the fighting would be left to others.

On every point, the new Bush Doctrine contrasted sharply with the old Nixon Doctrine. Instead of withdrawal and fallback, Bush proposed a highly ambitious forward strategy of intervention. Instead of relying on local surrogates, Bush proposed an active deployment of our own military power. Instead of deterrence and containment, Bush proposed preemption and “taking the fight to the enemy.” And instead of worrying about the stability of the region in question, Bush proposed to destabilize it through “regime change.”

The Nixon Doctrine had obviously harmonized with the Vietnam syndrome.

This is the basis for the Iraq escalation. Bush was convinced to keep pushing by people who believe that the only problem Americans ever have in the world is a lack of resolve. Acknowledging failure or error translates into cowardice and “cutting and running” which is a sign to everyone on the planet that we are weak and vulnerable. (The failure itself can be papered over, apparently, with a lot of swaggering and tough talk about “staying the course.”) They see Vietnam as the beginning of a long road of humiliations which led inevitably to 9/11 because the US did not have the cojones to fight on and keep killing in order to save face.

Let’s check in and see where they think we are right now. As it happens in this month’s Commentary we have an update by Arthur Herman called “How to Win in Iraq—and How to Lose”.

To the student of counterinsurgency warfare, the war in Iraq has reached a critical but dismally familiar stage.

On the one hand, events in that country have taken a more hopeful direction in recent months. Operations in the city of Najaf in January presaged a more effective burden-sharing between American and Iraqi troops than in the past. The opening moves of the so-called “surge” in Baghdad, involving increased American patrols and the steady addition of more than 21,000 ground troops, have begun to sweep Shiite militias from the streets, while their leader, Moqtada al Sadr, has gone to ground. Above all, the appointment of Lieutenant General David Petraeus, the author of the U.S. Army’s latest counterinsurgency field manual, as commander of American ground forces in Iraq bespeaks the Pentagon’s conviction that what we need to confront the Iraq insurgency is not more high-tech firepower but the time-tested methods of unconventional or “fourth-generation” warfare.1

In Washington, on the other hand, among the nation’s political class, the growing consensus is that the war in Iraq is not only not winnable but as good as lost—Congressman Henry Waxman of California, for one, has proclaimed that the war is lost. Politicians who initially backed the effort, like Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden, and Republican Congressmen Walter Jones and Tom Davis, have been busily backing away or out, insisting that Iraq has descended into civil war and that Americans are helpless to shape events militarily. A growing number, like Congressman John Murtha, even suggest that the American presence is making matters worse. The Democratic party has devoted much internal discussion to whether and how to restrict the President’s ability to carry out even the present counterinsurgency effort.

In short, if the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis still continues and is showing signs of improvement, the battle for the hearts and minds of Congress, or at least of the Democratic majority, seems to be all but over. In the meantime, still more adamant on the subject are many of our best-known pundits and media commentators. According to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who speaks for many, Iraq “is so broken it can’t even have a proper civil war,” and America is therefore now left with but a single option: “how we might disengage with the least damage possible.” To the left of Friedman and his ilk are the strident and often openly anti-American voices of organizations like moveon.org.

It is indeed striking that war critics like Senators Harry Reid and Joseph Biden, who in 2005 were calling on the Pentagon to mount a proper counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, and to send enough troops to make it happen, should now be seeking ways to revoke legislative authority for that very operation. Exactly why they should have changed their minds on the issue is not obvious, although they and their colleagues do claim to be expressing not only their own judgment but the opinions and sentiments of the American people at large. If recent polls are to be trusted, however, these politicians may well turn out be wrong about popular sentiment.2 And if past history and our current experience in Iraq are any guide, they are certainly wrong about the war on the ground.

In fact, the historical record is clear. The roots of failure in fighting insurgencies like the one in Iraq are not military. To the contrary, Western militaries have shown remarkable skill in learning and relearning the crucial lessons of how to prevail against unconventional foes, and tremendous bravery in fighting difficult and unfamiliar battles. If Iraq fails, the cause will have to be sought elsewhere.

Well, that’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. But that’s really not the point. They are rationalizing this failure the same way they rationalize all their failures, by blaming them on the cowardice of their countrymen. It’s worked very well for hawks and neocons of all stripes for decades now. They think up some hare-brained scheme that inevitably goes awry and they blame the people when they refuse to allow blood and treasure to be spilled indefinitely just to prove their misbegotten theory.

In this case they tried to make a comparison with the cold war in the length and commitment required, but refused to accept its rather restrictive parameters, containment, which they always loathed. They wanted an ongoing hot war for inscrutable reasons and that is something that is never going to fly among reasonable modern people who have a choice in the matter. These strangely primitive intellectuals insist the nation must commit to “victory” which they fail to define as anything more concrete than “happily ever after.”

This is why Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Sheehan, whom Greenwald discusses above, refused the position:

We cannot “shorthand” this issue with concepts such as the “democratization of the region” or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to “win,” even as “victory” is not defined or is frequently redefined.

And with that, in Herman’s eyes, he has taken his “place in another ‘long line,’ joining the shameful company of those who compelled the French to leave Algeria in disgrace and to stand by as the victorious FLN conducted a hideous bloodbath, and of those who compelled America to leave Vietnam under similar circumstances and to similar effect.”

The hawks and neocons see the writing on the wall and they know that the US is unwilling to “stay the course” on their word alone. So they are pivoting from their position as joyous flag waving patriots to making their usual sour excuses: blaming Americans first.

I suspect they will have a harder time selling that than they have before. This war was an amateur job, run by second raters, urged on by fools and everyone knows it. It’s going to be very hard to lead the charge against the “anti-war” movement when it consists of everyone from Dennis Kucinich to General Sheehan to Jean Kirkpatrick. When your only allies are the editorial boards of Commentary and the Weekly Standard your argument clearly has some holes in it.

But they’ll try. In that sense, they do practice what they preach. When it comes to being wrong about everything, they never give up.

.

Photo Shopping Armageddon

by digby

Does this seem like a good idea to you?

As the JTA news service reports today, “Christians United For Israel, a pro-Israel evangelical group, features on its website a photo of Jerusalem with the city’s holiest mosques wiped out.” The JTA story actually misses the nub of the controversy ; the Dome of The Rock, considered the 3rd holiest Islamic site in the world, has been removed from the image of the Wailing Wall and environs featured in CUFI’s website logo. The symbolism inherent in the logo casts a disturbing light on the tactical alliance between American Jews and CUFI founder John Hagee’s new political lobbying group. The possibly incendiary nature of such symbolism to the Islamic world raises the question of why American Jewish groups and leading American politicians have associated with a leader such as John Hagee whose political views would be considered within Israeli society to be out on the extremist or even violent political fringe.

As a possibly intentional provocation, the elimination of the Dome Of The Rock from CUFI’s website logo is consonant with John Hagee’s repeated vilification of Islam. But is it consonant with US foreign policy or the foreign policy positions American Jews would choose to support ? The troubling nature of CUFI’s logo raises the issue of the extent to which Hagee has been granted a place, recently, on the American national political stage and of his access to prominent US politicians. CUFI’s founder, Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, spoke before a substantial portion of the US House and Senate, as a keynote speaker at the Israel America Public Affairs Committee convention in Washington DC in February 2007, and Hagee routinely enjoys private meeting with top members of the GOP such as Senator John McCain and House GOP Minority Speaker Roy Blunt. John Hagee has also repeatedly discussed, publicly and in his writing, his belief that, because history is unfolding exactly as described in Biblical prophecy, the destruction of the Dome of The Rock and the subsequent rebuilding of a Jewish temple on the site is inevitable.

You know, there are kooks and weirdos in all aspects of politics. Up until recently the really cracked ones were kept away from any real influence. Something changed in our politics during the conservative era. In the liberal years, Democratic politicians weren’t pandering to revolutionaries like the Weather Underground or the SLA and they sure as hell weren’t holding private meetings and making common cause with them.

These crazy people (and I don’t care if they do it in the name of religion, they are still crazy) really believe that all-out war is a positive thing and they are doing what they can to bring that about, including meeting with important American politicians. I believe in free speech, even for nuts. But for AIPAC, John McCain and Roy Blunt to pander to and fete people who are going out of their way to provoke a religious war for their own reasons by pulling ridiculous stunts like that really should be beyond the pale. And politicians of both parties should give their AIPAC pals some friendly advice about what their allies are doing — literally helping terrorists:

Pastor Hagee’s, and CUFI’s, political positions have no counterpart within Israel mainstream society. Rather, such views are held, in Israel, by groups considered to be on the extreme political fringe. A veteran Israeli journalist consulted for this story stated that, in mainstream Israeli political sentiment, actions, conspiracies, or even thoughts concerning the destruction of the Dome Of The Rock are considered “abhorrent” and repeatedly stressed the extremely marginal nature of such beliefs within Israeli society.

The Democrats would gain a lot of credibility around the world, I think, if they did a Sistah Soljah on this (rather than taking another tired whack at Hollywood or the dirty hippies.) This is actually important and might prepare the ground for a more reasonable foreign policy if the Dems take over in 2009. Nobody says that we should repudiate Israel. But we damned sure can repudiate the marginal Israeli fringe and the marginal American fringe that supports them for their own purposes. This stuff should be way out of bounds and somebody should speak out against it.

Update: And then there’s this fool.

Update II: It has come to my attention that this photo might not have been photoshopped. If so, I take back the criticism of the photo, but the criticism of their nutty stated positions and their influence on American politics stands.

.

Missouri House Passes The “Respect The Stupid When They Waste Everyone’s Time” Act

by tristero

Words truly fail me:

The Missouri House of Representatives has passed a bill that would impose new rules on state colleges to “protect diversity” that includes this most interesting clause:

(1) The report required in this subsection shall address the specific measures taken by the institution to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom. The report may include steps taken by the institution to:

(a) Conduct a study to assess the current state of intellectual diversity on its campus, including diversity-related criteria used in admissions, scholarship awards, and hiring which shall include racial and gender diversity;

(b) Incorporate intellectual diversity into institution statements, grievance procedures, which may include filing a complaint directly with the governing board, and activities on diversity;

(c) Encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers and annually publish the names of panelists and speakers;

(d) Establish clear campus policies that ensure that hecklers or threats of violence do not prevent speakers from speaking;

(e) Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution’s guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant;

(f) Include intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations;

Some background:

Last year, a student complained that she was being forced to express views that differed from her religious views, and this month an outside panel that reviewed the social work program at Missouri State found that students felt fearful of expressing views that differed from their professors, especially on spiritual and religious matters.

The bill passed by the House is called the “Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act,” in honor of the Missouri State student who raised the issue last year. (Critics of the legislation don’t defend the way Brooker was treated, but say that her case is an exception. Further, they point out that her case has been resolved, and the department involved has received considerable scrutiny and faces likely changes, without legislation.)

The Missouri House vote was praised by Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Alumni and Trustees, which drafted versions of the bill (without calling for Biblical inerrancy) that have been introduced in a number of state legislatures this year. “For years, the academic establishment has refused to take action to protect the free exchange of ideas,” Neal said. “It is no wonder that now, confronted with real problems, Missouri legislators have asked for a measure of accountability.”

“Protect the free exchange of ideas…” I guess pretending to care about core liberal values is what’s known as humor in christianist circles.