Catching up on various Sully posts:
Novak on Bloch "...Bloch, who has seven children, is in Opus Dei, or close to Novak's own Opus Dei guru..." Since I've been working on the 'gay marriage' issue recently, I've come to wonder how it is that some, like gay-marriage pessimist Blankenhorn (I suspect he is Catholic, but not sure), worry so much about 'biological orphans'; but, after seven+ children, one wonders how much time the parents really have for the kids anyway.
Here is one for that wandering Wilcox guy, that probably didn't make it into his book or into his "Principles" (I reproduce it here, just in case "competing goods" is something that's not sauce for the gander to Blankenhorn):
Problem is, these two goals—more kids and better-prepared kids—are at odds. If we really care about kids' welfare and accomplishment, the United States should scrap policies that encourage parents to have lots of children. As my recent research shows, having more than two children is tantamount to handicapping their chances for academic, and thus economic, success.
also, I've been thinking a lot more about the misuse of sociological studies, but here is a study that at least has some M.D.'s involved:
Children living with many siblings or with adults in addition to their parents visit the doctor less often and use fewer prescriptions than children in more typical families, according to a new analysis.
Tagging Clinton (tag clouds from the debate): OMG, Joe Biden is the bottom three in word count. I ... I ... speechless.
Maggie Gallagher Has Balls: I've read the article that I think was the basis for Maggie's book. One thing that I intend to take notice of in a piece that I've written about George's recent NRO article is how many times the defenders of marriage get to change the definition of what marriage is really, really about (George does it at least twice in his piece). In spite of her repetition of Catholic doctrine, Maggie has a more earthy-crunchy view of what marriage is all about. In some ways, this makes her easier to engage, since "perfective", for instance, is not the kind of high-headedness that frequently makes it into her rhetoric.
Sex Is Tough when your husband is in jail.: But prisoners are allowed to marry and to have children. As many as they want. It's not that this, in itself, is a reason for gay marriage. It is just another of the 1,000 "little injustices" ....
In Defense of Masculinity: AS, can you come up with a cross-section by age cohort? I have this suspicion that those most mistrustful of the concept of "positive 'male' energy" (apart from certain feminists) are in the generation and the one just following that most emphasized 'rigid' gender roles, that author Robert Bly's demographic was largely the over 50 crowd.
Why Do Atheists Believe In Religion? : It's not just, "I believe!", it's that a large number are Atheistic Fundamentalists.
Yingling and the Generals : There is SO much to say here. For one, his thoughts have broad implications for how you choose to measure your 'military strength' and the shadow costs to peacetime careerism in the military. I mention it, because so many are talking about how much MORE we need to spend on the military. Second, there is a LOT more to an apt diagnosis than just more troops, even fundamentally, I think. Last, it is HUGELY positive that the military, like the medical profession, welcomes self-study, whatever else their faults. On the other hand, if 'changing course' implies "winners" and "losers" among the military leadership, that's another issue that probably neither Gates nor Bush are prepared to deftly manage.
And p.s., it's fine for us to examine our faults, but let's put blame where it is due (and this is far more than a 'talking point' or spin). It was (and is) rejectionism, of the old-fashioned kind in a region that has known too many sorrows because of it, that allowed al-qa'ida in Iraq to form.
Christopher Hitchens on Iraq: At least someone is talking about the benefits of helping a nation out of the chains of bondage without merely suggesting that they were intentionally or incompetently delivered into the hands of another (i.e. AQI and sectarian 'security overlords').
The 'rhetorical' exit strategy is the positive effort that was tried, even if it was entrusted to a set of people who didn't share that vision and, therefore, failed to pull it off. For instance, I write about the costs of the war, because I believe the rubber-stamp GOP Senators failed their responsibilities on that; but how many emphasize just how much treasure the U.S. has put out for non-citizens? I can't think of anything in the History of the World, frankly, that even rivals it. Even the Catholic Church, as its wartime peak, was not so quasi-altruistic.
"Outputs": a.k.a. wartime benchmarks. The worst part of Petreus' visit to Washington this week was the admission that they are just putting together the set of metrics that will define forward progress, come September. I can understand the urgency to get the plus-up going, but how in the heck did metrics not get defined *before* the mission?
In the larger picture, someone should chronicle the Congress's oversight-inability to get wartime metrics sufficient to decision making - I have a sense that it is a long trail of woe (just last month I was reading that, despite enacted changes to the law, the DoD has yet been able to provide the projections of upcoming war costs).
Buckley's Clarity: "It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month."
What 'indicators'? All the important ones are classified, yes? What is simply untrue, for the most part, is that we know much at all, systematically, about advance or retreat.
Information poverty notwithstanding, I'm not sure what 'decisive progress' amounts to exactly. If it means that AQI is gone forever, that kind of guarantee we don't even have for ourselves. People are always underestimating how quickly conditions can change on the ground, for good or for ill. Take care.
Face of the Day: "Iraqis try to comfort a weeping man ..." We see these pictures, yet it is hard to get some clerics to treat al-qa'ida as non-muslims (rhetorically, they are just "criminals"). This is the true face of al-jihad - it's not "Western conspiracy against Islam" and all the rest. THIS is the true face of al-jihad. [Just helping Andrew get his talking points right, maybe.]
Good News: "The capture of this Qaeda operative is obviously a small breakthrough": But, it's not small, just one more terrorist captured. It's an enormous psy-war victory, hopefully with some 'momentum': even the best are not "safe".
A Sea-Change? [Greenwald on the Bush Admin]: They were just being 'masculine', right? Cheney-Rumsfeld, knowing the ins-and-outs of the system, were not afraid to show Bush-Rove how it's done in Washington, so to speak. What do we call it when a small group of individuals bring the entire government to heel, not necessarily illegally, but to obviate the regular-way institutional processes and to suit their own political agenda? Well, if this muscling were done illegally, the ancient Greeks might call that 'tyranny'; but, absent that, we'll just call it 'a strong executive' bordering on 'abuse of authority'. Is this why 'masculine' has a 'bad name'?
More generally on Glen's piece, the allegorical part of his story is why extremes of sentiment are such a risk to democratic republics. They can be exploited. I'm convinced that Rumsfeld and Cheney - and probably Bill Kristol and others - saw the opportunity for political movement on the heals of post 9/11 sentiment (it's one reason I wrote impassioned letters to my Senators to make sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act). Aschroft, Tenent, Rice all complied (willingly, in my estimation). Powell was co-opted - poor thing, I don't even think he knew that he was getting flanked with the President's circa January, 2003 phone call, "Are you on board?". (Local Christie-Todd, to her credit, quit.)
But, of course, we are in an extreme sentiment position, once again, right now. Folks think it is "appropriate" that it is so. Myself, I'm almost just as worried as when the sentiment was in favor of Bush-Cheney. This has nothing to do with party affiliation. It has to do with the impact on sound decision making.
