Fuck you, he explained.

Sharyl Atkisson on Boston and Benghazi, with commentary.

The Passing of Google Reader

is duly lamented here:

Faith

I support your right not to believe in G-d. I support every person's right to make their own decisions about religion: to believe in one God, or many, or none at all. To practice religion as a traditionalist, or as a liberal, or a reformer or a heretic or an apostate or an unbeliever. To embrace revelation or to reject it. To pray facing Jerusalem, or Calvary, or Mecca, or not to pray at all. To follow a single, absolute, fixed line of belief, or to change your mind a hundred times a day about what you believe and why you believe it (the latter is closer to my own faith). And I expect that you respect every other person's rights. A faith coerced is no faith at all; and a faith that justifies evil is an evil faith.

As a believer, I stand with the unbelievers.

Nick Cohen: Case Against Saddam Still Stands

Nick Cohen:

It's 10 years since the overthrow of Saddam and 25 since he ordered the Kurdish genocide. I can guarantee that you will not hear much about Saddam's atrocities in the coming weeks. As Bayan Rahman, the Kurdish ambassador to London, said to me: "Everyone wants to remember Fallujah and no one wants to remember Halabja." Nor, I think, will you hear about the least explored legacy of the war, which continues to exert a malign influence on "liberal" foreign policy.

Iraq shocked liberals into the notion that they should stay out of the affairs of others. Of itself, this need not have been such a momentous step. A little England or isolationist policy can be justified on many occasions. There are strong arguments against spilling blood and spending treasure in other people's conflicts. The best is that you may not understand the country you send troops to – as the Nato governments who sent troops to Iraq did not. But unless you are careful you are going to have difficulties supporting the victims of oppressive regimes if you devote your energies to find reasons to keep their oppressors in power. Go too far in a defence of the status quo and the idea soon occurs to you that an oppressive regime may not be so oppressive after all. ...

Peretz on New New Republic: 'I Don't Recognize Magazine I Used to Own. We Were Liberal But Not Narrowly Partisan' | NewsBusters

Peretz on New New Republic: 'I Don't Recognize Magazine I Used to Own. We Were Liberal But Not Narrowly Partisan' | NewsBusters

One does not simply walk into Fordow.

Sabotage! Key Iranian nuclear facility hit?

Geoffrey R. Stone: What Is a Liberal?

Geoffrey R. Stone: What Is a Liberal?

Shoot the NRA!

Via PowerLine, John Cobarruvias tweets: "Can we now shoot the NRA and everyone who defends them?"

Well, let's see. May you? Certainly, you have my permission. Can you? Well, you can certainly try.

Now let's think about this. The National Rifle Association and its supporters are, by definition, gun nuts. They are avid firearms enthusiasts who own and knowledgeably operate a wide variety of firearms.

So the plan is to shoot all of these people; using, presumably, guns. But what if the NRA do not agree to be shot? What if - heaven forfend - they shoot back? And that, alas, is the fatal flaw in the plan.

The Drain

Eric Allen Bell: The Drain

... The drain says that a killer and a rapist was the final prophet of "god". But that which is Infinite needs no such final spokesman. That which is Infinite, it thinks you, it breathes you. It needs no special vows, chants or hymns, as all of creation sings its praises. It is nameless and all names. You can hear it in every word and in the silences between each word. You can hear it in the sound of the breeze. You can find it looking out through your eyes.

The dark drain in the dry desert sucks in only those who seek to avoid knowing who and what they truly are. But if we remove the drain, if we were to blast it from the sky - would we remove also the condition in man which caused it to be built? To see the drain is to be free of it.

Republican Lesbians Come Out

New York Times:

In 1996, Kathryn Lehman was a soon-to-be married lawyer working for Republicans in the House of Representatives. One of her major accomplishments: helping to write the law that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Today, Ms. Lehman, 53, no longer has a husband, and no longer identifies as straight. And she is a lobbyist for Freedom to Marry, which is devoted to overturning the very law she helped write, the Defense of Marriage Act.

But Ms. Lehman is still a fervent Republican.

“I’m trying to break the stereotype that all gays and lesbians, especially lesbians, are Democrats,” she said.

Although the Republican Party has long drawn gay men who believe in the party’s message of small government and a strong military, Republican lesbians are a rare political breed.

“Oh, we’re like unicorns,” said Erin Simpson, 51, who cites “personal liberty” as a fundamental value and teaches firearms safety in Tucson. ...

GOP and Demographics

D. G. Myers at Commentary:

If the Republicans are going to be the party of married churchgoers, though, they need to change their tune on two key issues. They must drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, and they must quit obsessing over illegal immigrants. These two issues alone are almost entirely responsible for the Republicans’ image and reputation as the party of old white men.

What conservatives do not seem to grasp is that same-sex marriage is not an issue for gays only, but also for the young, who support it overwhelmingly, without question. And if the GOP really is the party of marriage, shouldn’t it be in favor of extending the goods of marriage to as many as possible? If marriage is everything we conservatives say it is, why should we want to deny its moral benefits to gays? The point is to stand for marriage, for an institution that promotes human freedom, and not to barricade ourselves behind the status quo ante. That’s how the party of freedom becomes the party of reaction.

I'm old enough to remember when Commentary, under Norman Podhoretz, published some viciously homophobic stuff. Commentary changed for the better, because it needed to change. The Republican Party needs to change too.

Saudi Arabia: Keeping Women In Their Place

Radical Islam: Tracking system monitors Saudi women.

A new tracking device monitors the movements of Saudi women. Any cross-border move prompts an SMS message sent to the cell phone of the women’s “guardian.” That means that any Saudi woman who tries to leave the country will be immediately found out by the man assigned to “monitor” her.

The “service” was intended to be elective for the guardian, but a recent incident showed that all men are being alerted through the new e-passport system, even if a man’s wife is travelling by his side.

The new system was publicized on Twitter by Manal al-Sharif, a well-known women's right campaigner and political activist, who received a message from a couple as they were leaving Saudi Arabia at the Riyadh international airport and the husband received a text message saying that his wife was leaving the country. ...