Jimmy Carter says Hamas agreed to accept Israel as a state.

Hamas says they didn't.

Not sure who I'm to believe here.

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

In my first post about the renegade Mormon ranch in Texas I wrote that I'd been avoiding the story up to that point because it just plain "creeps me out." I didn't go into more detail because I wasn't quite sure why I felt that way and, more importantly, I thought I ought to be careful about letting my feelings rule my logic, especially because it's a hot button topic for many people who object to the "destruction of a religion."

But, like a loose tooth, I had to keep worrying at it until my brain caught up with my heart. This will be my last post on the topic--at least until something more explosive happens like Janet Reno hooking up with the 4th ID and blazing a trail across Texas--but we need to have a talk about what's so objectionable about the whole idea of polygamist ranches.

First, the most obvious question here is of bigamy and polygamy. Yes, I object to marriages between more than two people, but not because they are intrinsically wrong. After all, it is perfectly legal, though not always socially acceptable, for a man to have children by many different women and to financially support them all...so long as he doesn't try to formalize the arrangement by marriage. Rather, the consequences of "plural marriage" are harmful to the individuals involved, their families, and to society. The particular type of polygamy practiced at the renegade Mormon ranch only exacerbates these consequences.

And that's where the creep factor kicks in. By default, I support the decisions of consenting adults to contract or otherwise engage in whatever behaviors they choose, so long as the harm to others is minimal. But polygamy at these insular ranches is not between consenting adults and the harm is not isolated to the individuals involved. Women--girls, really--who are conditioned from birth to comply with the wishes of the authoritarian leaders of the ranch do not have the opportunity to exercise a meaningful choice about life's most important decisions. Stat rape is illegal for a reason.

In fact, the women and men in these groups cannot make meaningful choices about decisions large or small. Everything from the clothes they wear to the places they live is determined by a revered authoritarian "elder" or supervisor. Needless to say, reproductive choice isn't a consideration. The women and men claim that they have the opportunity to refuse the decisions of the leaders, but it is hard to believe that people who are raised to comply or face exile (or damnation) have the opportunity to choose. To the extent we say they have a constitutional right of religion to isolate their followers in such a manner, we are supporting the notion of constitutionally protected coercion.

Second, we can't pretend that the ranch setting is pro-family. I was excoriated in the comments earlier for saying that wife-swapping was going on at the ranch. But it's worse than that. Child-swapping is common, too, and each wife and child is instructed to refer to and defer to the "father of the household." Attachment to the child's biological father is discouraged. Such family-swaps happen when the ranch leaders determine that a man is no longer worthy of keeping his wife and kids. The men, women, and children are not given any more meaningful choice about these swaps than any other decision. (On a purely pedantic level, I must confess that I'm pathetically curious to know what their tax filings look like.)

It's not hard to see the collision of ideals. On the one hand, we want to protect their freedom to practice religion. On the other, their religious practices come perilously close to making a mockery of many other rights we hold dear. Worse, when the state tries to curtail illegal religious practices, folks come out of the woodwork to protest on behalf of freedom of religion. I don't envy law enforcement in any of the communities near to these polygamist ranches.

Third, a few emails objected to my use of the term "throwback" to refer to the ranch. I agree that was unkind, but it wasn't inaccurate. These folks embrace outdated Mormon teachings and a mid-century lifestyle. It is fair to wonder what other old behaviors lurk inside their private enclaves. And before anyone accuses me of being the Thought Police, I am talking about behaviors, not just beliefs.

My point is, these polygamist ranches would be objectionable even if polygamy were legal. But let's not pretend that this is an attack on a religion. Rather, the polygamist ranch is in trouble because of particular religious practices that are illegal. More than that, the illegal behavior has opened the door for the state to determine whether the children are being abused. That's not an argument that the ranch is likely to win. The underlying principle behind all of family law is that the judge must rule in the best interests of the child. As long as they polygamists persist in their illegal practices, the run the risk of losing their children.

Anyways, I'm obviously still chewing on this issue. Your thoughts on it will be appreciated.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:46 AM | Comments (251)
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.

I thought the idea was kind of stupid and hack but the execution is pretty swell. I got three smiles and a chuckle out of it.

I have to offer one of the most minor of all Content Warnings ever, for a single mild off-color reference to a those sexually-charged James Bond heroine names.

Thanks to dri.

Rideless James Bond? Serendipitously enough, AliceH just send me this as I was posting that item.

A stunt driver accidentally lost control of James Bond's new Aston Martin on the way to delivering it to the shoot and crashed it into a lake.

They fished it out. It's the only car they had for the shoot.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

As Allah snarked earlier, How come Bush's TANG records weren't similarly "tangential' as the left now claims of every character issue involving Barack Obama?

This may be obvious but it has to be said, and perhaps said repeatedly, until the left acknowledges it.

Either terrorism is a grave moral sin and unforgivable legal crime or it is not, guys. You cannot continue differentiating between "good terrorism" and "bad terrorism."

Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol. (Though the last person who should object is Hillary Clinton, whose husband pardoned two Weather Underground members.)

Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. HeÂ’s appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.

It’s not as though Ayers and Dohrn have denied or repudiated their crimes. After emerging from years in hiding, they escaped federal prosecution because of government misconduct in gathering evidence, but they don’t pretend they were innocent. In 2001, Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” …

ItÂ’s hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. ObamaÂ’s conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) havenÂ’t planted any bombs lately.

You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it.

The left continues to insist that prior terrorism against the United States and her citizens, if part of a leftwing "movement," is all just a "youthful indiscretion" easily forgiven and better forgotten.

I don't agree, and neither do most Americans.

Posted by: Ace at 08:32 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

Kaus has an interesting take on Obama's "Vulgar Marxism:"

Help! I'm A Snob Like Obama! Greg Mitchell ridicules Bill Kristol for insinuating that Barack Obama was a Marxist for saying that residents of economically depressed small towns "cling to guns or religion ... as a way to explain their [economic] frustrations." But of course it was a Marxist thing to say, wasn't it? If Democrats had delivered on the economy, Obama suggests, all those GOP cultural "wedge" issues would lose traction. This idea--that the economy trumps culture--isn't new. It's "materialism." The economic "base," Marxists would argue, determines the cultural "superstructure." If the economy changes (i.e. if small town Pennsylvanians get well-paying jobs) then the superstructure will change (Pennsylvanians will feel less intensely about their religion).

Actually this isn't simply Marxism--it's what, when I was in college at least, was called Vulgar Marxism. More sophisticated Marxists hypothesized various ways the cultural "superstructure" could interact with the economy or take on a life of its own. Less supple Marxists (Engels, if I remember) hew to the crude base/superstructure idea--with feudalism you get feudal beliefs, which give way to bourgeois beliefs once capitalism takes over.

I've sniped at Obama for the condescension implicit in his argument that Pennsylvanians will stop their 'clinging' once Democrats like him start delivering jobs from Washington. But this condescension is inherent in any Vulgar Marxist explanation, isn't it?

Kaus goes on to worry that he too is however a snob or a Vulgar Marxist as he does believe that economic progress and achievement displaces a faith in God. more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:10 AM | Comments (52)
Post contains 1854 words, total size 11 kb.

O RLY???

Newsweek reports:

The Obama campaign is planning to expand its research and rapid-response team in order to repel attacks it anticipates over his ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, indicted developer Antoin Rezko and other figures from his past.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, tells NEWSWEEK that the Illinois senator won’t let himself be “Swift Boated” like John Kerry in 2004. “He’s not going to sit there and sing ‘Kumbaya’ as the missiles are raining in,” Axelrod said. “I don’t think people should mistake civility for a willingness to deal with the challenges to come.”

Civility?

Since when is comparing a fellow Senator to a terrorist, or publicly accusing your own grandmother of racism, considered civil?

If you ask me, the “rapid response team” flubbed those. So I’m thinking, maybe it is a good idea to “expand” the team, in order to increase the possibility that their next response to substantive criticism (swift-boating), is not totally obnoxious, and an insult to our intelligence.

Also, BarryÂ’s running out of friends and relatives to throw under the bus.

As expected, the eeeevil VRWC is lying in wait, ever ready to ambush innocent liberals:

Operatives such as David Bossie, whose Citizens United group made the Willie Horton ad that helped sink Michael DukakisÂ’s 1988 presidential bid, are sharpening knives as expectations mount that Obama will be their target in the fall.

They say that like thereÂ’s something wrong with it.

Bossie says he is assembling material for TV spots about Obama’s ties with Ayers, a Chicago professor and unrepentant former member of the Weather Underground, a group that bombed several government buildings to protest the Vietnam War. The Ayers issue bounced around right-wing media for months, but it received broad exposure at last week’s debate on ABC, when Obama was asked a question about their relationship. Obama, who lives near Ayers in Chicago’s Hyde Park, attended an event at Ayers’s house when Obama ran for the state Senate in 1995—and served on the board of a nonprofit with him for several years. “Obama is aware of the acts Ayers committed when he was 8 years old and has called them ‘detestable’,” says spokesman Ben LaBolt, adding that Obama occasionally bumps into Ayers in his neighborhood “but has not seen him for months.” At a recent dinner party, according to one guest who asked not to be identified discussing a private gathering, Ayers “ridiculed” the notion that Obama shared his left-wing views: “He thought the idea that there was a political connection between them was absurd.” (Ayers declined to comment.)

So theyÂ’ve got some rock-solid evidence that Obama doesnÂ’t share any of AyersÂ’ leftist views. Phew, thatÂ’s a relief.

Good job, team!

Cross posted at Nice Deb.

Posted by: Open Blog at 09:56 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 467 words, total size 4 kb.

Like the kung-fu movies for which it is an homage there's nothing too "deep" in The Forbidden Kingdom. But that's not the point of the movie. It's fun and surprisingly diverting for all 1 hour and 45 minutes. More than that, it's gorgeous in both camera-work and choreography and even casual fans of kung-fu flicks (and even video games!) will spot some of the more recognizable signature moves. It topped this weekend's box office by making just a bit more than $20 million.

Read my spoiler free review below the fold. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:11 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

Following Dave's post from earlier, it's nice to see that the collegiality runs both ways. Obama went off-message earlier today and partially undermined the Democrats' general election strategy:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday that Republican rival John McCain would be better for the country than President Bush has been over the past eight years.

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

Democrats have been pushing the idea that a McCain White House would be the same as President Bush's. That strategy has been gaining strength as various 527s and PACs start releasing anti-McCain videos on the internet. The Obama and Clinton camps have been repeating the message for about a month now.

Realizing the oopsie, Obama's spokesman tried to roll back the comments after the speech, but it's clear that Obama doesn't much care about the truth or falsity of his claims on the stump. His inability to convincingly extemp could be useful and entertaining in the general.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:06 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

American winner Danica Patrick of Andretti Green Racing, right, poses with her trophy on the podium as second place finisher Brazil's Helio Castroneves of Team Penske shows his smaller one on the podium after the Indy Japan 300 auto racing at Twin Ring Motegi in Motegi, northeast of Tokyo Sunday, April 20, 2008.

There's a better, more relaxed (ahem) picture of the winner below the fold: more...

Posted by: LauraW at 01:21 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

I am taking a chance that open blog is still open, it looks like it is and this is just burning me up so here goes.

Today's NY Times carries an article entitled "Behind Military Analysts, the PentagonÂ’s Hidden Hand" by Davide Barstow The basic thrust of which is that the Pentagon has a vast disinformation campaign aimed at the American people utilizing network military analysts which they secretly control through a complex web of social and financial ties.

Sort of like a latter day Bildeburgers more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 09:34 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 1099 words, total size 7 kb.