Henry Farrell links to Ken MacLeod on various factions and the war.#

The stage,

The pro-war left is smaller and more isolated than it has been in some recent wars, but it exists. What follows is an argument with a (literally) synthetic pro-war left position. No one person puts forward all these points. There are dangers in this, of posing strawman arguments, but I've included enough links for my sceptical readers (most, I hope) to check out for themselves.

The first argument of the pro-ware left is that of the variety, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and while you may not like Bush or Blair, you probably dislike them a lot less than you dislike Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. Ken encourages these liberals to look deeper and have more reasonable priorities. And the past problems of justification are now irrelevant,

There are no torture chambers operating in Iraq today (though, I would interject, there are still political prisoners; and torture, albeit much less barbaric, goes on). There are independent political parties, trade unions, and a vastly freer press. Beside the enormous reality of this liberation, all the lies and half-truths brought forward by governments to justify the war - imminent threat, WMD, etc - fade into irrelevance. Bringing freedom and democracy or - at a minimum - regime change to Iraq is, and all along should have been, the justification of the war.

Similar to this is another example of closing your eyes, ears, and minds to past when referring to the US's past sponsorship of tyrants:

Yes, they'll freely admit, back then, during the Cold War, the US and UK ruling classes had anobjective material interest in supporting any dictator or insurgent, any tyrant or terrorist no matter how vile, who supported capitalism against Communism or who - if a Communist - supported the Western alliance against the Soviet bloc, or could be used by the former to weaken the latter, no matter what the cost to the populations concerned. But now, things have changed. Imperialism - yes, comrades, we're still calling it that, if it makes you happy - has anobjective material interest in ending tyrannies like Iraq and anarchies like Afghanistan, because bitter experience if nothing else has taught even the thickest right-wingers that tyrannies and anarchies are sponsors of, or havens for, terrorists who can bring the world down about our ears. And democracies, you know, generally speaking, are not.

Another argument and explanation he indicates is that Iraq is only about American supremacy and nothing more.

As some intransigiently anti-Baathist and anti-Islamic leftists from the region point out:

The US war is not about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction as supporters claim, nor is it for the sake of the liberation of the Iraqi people from the yoke of a despotic regime or to establish freedom and justice in Iraq as defenders claim. Nor is it primarily about oil, as some 'anti-American' protesters repeat. Instead it displays the need and greed of the far-right Bush administration to impose, by military means, US supremacy on the world and to make US military intervention everywhere into the "norm" of future international relations. It is a sharp warning to Europe, Japan, Russia and China that after the Cold War the US will no longer allow a bi-polar or multi-polar world order. It will have the last word. Other powers, whether or not they have been "convinced" in the UN Security Council, have to be subordinate to the US as the lone super-power for the years or even decades ahead.

The strengthening of imperialism, of the New World Order, is no small thing. It is to enhance the moral authority and material power of a force that has been, and will be, used against far more hopeful and progressive uprisings, movement and states than those it is now deployed to crush. In even the opposition to it in Europe and Russia, we can see the heat lightning of worse storms to come; of, in the words of Gabriel Kolko, another century of war.

This thought is extended to talk about how era of the Cold War with the US being on top of the pile of Western states is what is trying to be recreated and continued with the New World Order and the assurance of US hegemony.

The final words...

This is why no argument so far presented could convince me to take the position of the pro-war left. I admit to being one of those boring old ex-Trots whose thinking on war and peace was shaped, not only by the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, but by the oft-invoked historical memory of the 4th of August 1914, when the War to End All Wars began, and a world ended. As my oldest surviving uncle once said: 'I haven't believed in God since the First World War.' Most of the left, Marxist and liberal and anarchist, backed one side or another in that war too.

'And the flood came, and destroyed them all.'

I'm reading an interview with Robert Cialdini on his study of influence and cults.#

Right up front, the way that Cialdini assembled his theory is very interesting:

I began to infiltrate as many of the training programs of these professions as I could possibly get access to, because it seemed to me that it was in those training programs that the accumulated wisdom of the people who really knew what moved individuals in their particular domains would be concentrated and would be passed on to succeeding generations of influence professionals. So, I took training in as many of these training programs as I could possibly access. I learned how to sell automobiles from a lot, I learned how to sell insurance from an office, I learned how to sell portrait photography over the phone, I was the guy from Olan Mills, I was that guy, and I didn't stop there. I infiltrated some advertising agencies. What do the advertising copywriters do that produces a successful ad that moves people. I interviewed charity organizations to see what the fund raisers did to get people to say yes. I did the same thing with a public relations firm - how do they get people to move in their direction? I even interviewed recruiters, armed service recruiters. I even interviewed cult recruiters - what do the cults do that so powerfully brings people in and holds them there?

He talks about how influence is a tool that can be used for good or bad and it is important to keep the work you do with it inside an ethical framework.

Remember the term puric victories where you throw an army at something and you win a particular battle and in doing so decimates your ranks so undercuts your resources to wage the next battle, that you lose the war. And that's what precisely what I think happens with the unethical use of these principles. They're dynamite - you can use them like explosives for good or ill. And the problem is the short term success is so seductive that they can get people to use them. These principles can invite us to use them even when they are not in the long term interests of ourselves or our clients.

In talking about how to apply some of his principles, like scarcity, Cialdini makes a gem:

First of all, we have to think about what it is that's unique, that's uncommon about what we have to offer that our clients, our customers, our vendors, our distributors, whoever it is we're trying to influence can't get if they don't move in our direction. What is it that we give them that they lose if they don't say yes to us? And the reason that I'm emphasizing this word lose is that the evidence is very clear now, people are more motivated by the idea of losing something than of gaining that very same thing.

Cialdini talks a great deal about the way you present the same information - the context. Often times people are both working towards the same goal but refuse to recognize it and do not cooperate.

Cooperation. We like those people who we cooperate with toward common goals. I just saw a research study that showed that people who have genuine cooperative interests in a situation, in fifty to sixty percent of the time, they don't recognize that they have genuinely cooperative interests in the situation, they only see the differences of opinion. And what comes to prominence under those circumstances is the conflict. What needs to be researched, understood, brought to the surface is the dimensions of commonality and cooperative mutuality. We have the same goals here, let's bring those to the surface, let's make everything occur in the context of a cooperative set of goals at the outset and, again, it changes everything. The context is different, it goes from conflict cooperation we like the people we are cooperating with and, once again, when two people like each other, they find a way to make good things happen.

In talking about how to win someone's trust whom you know nothing about Cialdini talks about letters of introduction and acknowledging problems.

We're number two, but we try harder. We're L'Oreal, we're expensive, but we're worth it. We're the Peace Corps, it's the toughest job you'll ever love. Listerine - it's the taste you hate thee times a day. I mean, you get the idea. And every one of those successful commercials, before the strongest argument, they set the context of credibility and now the barriers are down and people will believe the stronger argument. We have this tendency to want to lead with our strong segments, getting people leaning in our direction and then we slip in the negatives to be truthful about the whole package. It's human but it's wrong headed. Before the strongest argument, you have to mention a weakness if these people don't know you as trustworthy ahead of time.

The second article is specifically about cults and manipulation.#

The theme is to describe how each of the principles of influence can be exploited.

Reciprocity

the rule applies even to uninvited first favors, thereby reducing our ability to decide whom we wish to owe and putting the choice in the hands of others;

Consistency and Commitment

The key to using consistency pressures for profit is the initial commitment: after making a commitment (that is taking a stand or position), people are more willing to agree to requests that are in keeping with the prior commitment. Many compliance professionals try to induce people to take an initial position that is consistent with a behavior they will later request from these people.

Social Proof

The principle of social proof can be used to stimulate a person's compliance with a request by informing the person that many other individuals (the more, the better, the more "famous" the better) are or have been complying with it. This weapon of influence provides us with a shortcut for determining how to behave, but, as the same time, makes one who uses the shortcut vulnerable to the attacks of profiteers who lie in wait along its path (introduction seminars or guest dinners, retreats to recruit cult members--provide the models of the behavior the group wants to produce in the new recruit)

Authority

It is possible to defend ourselves against the detrimental effects of authority influence by asking two questions: Is this authority truly an expert? How truthful can we expect this expert to be here? The first question directs our attention away from symbols and toward evidence for authority status. The second advises us to consider not just the expert's knowledge in the situation but also his or her trustworthiness.

Scarcity

In addition to its effect on the valuation of commodities, the scarcity principle also applies to the way that information is evaluated. Research indicates that the act of limiting access to a message causes individuals to want to receive it more and to become more favorable to it. The latter of these findings--that limited information is more persuasive--seems the more interesting. In the case of censorship, this effect occurs even when the message has not been received. When a message has been received, it is more effective if it is perceived as consisting of exclusive information. ("We" have the truth....we have special knowledge)

Richard linked to an interview with Samantha Power in which she talks about Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe.#

Who is Samantha Power?

Combining that passion and work ethic with a deft analytical mind, Power has chosen to focus her thinking primarily on war and genocide. "I find myself most drawn to places where the stakes seem really high in terms of human life," she says, "toward places where there are the largest numbers of preventable deaths." In 2002, Power's book, A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, explored America's tragic inaction in several instances of preventable death, and won her a Pulitzer Prize. The book in part grew out of Power's September 2001 Atlantic article,"Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwanda Tragedy Happen," which won a National Magazine Award for public interest.

Her comments about the difficulty of being a foreign journalist in a country where they are banned and the press is not free are interesting. Essentially, it is easy to get in but difficult to get the information out of people.

I wanted to see the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai (pronounced chang-er-rai), so even though I knew that his house would be watched, going there was a risk worth taking. There were enough foreigners and enough Caucasians in the country that I could have been an NGO worker, a lawyer, a local white—there were a lot of things I could have been. But what never got easy was actually getting people to trust that they would be secure in talking to me. I could get people to talk to me at length about their frustration and suffering, but when it came to taking names and so on, there was still a real fear that there would be accountability issues.

Power talks about how Mugabe obviously didn't set out to destroy his country, but because of they way he chose to maintain his power with many forces coming at him from all angles it let to a snowball effect that ruined the country and let him to worse and worse decisions.

Something that I always find interesting is people's solutions to a countries problems like these. Often times they propose a solution that is essentially, "We can't trust that guy, but we can trust THIS one." And that's completely believable. Power notes this with regards to the opposition party, the MDC.

Everyone you meet who isn't in the ruling party wants a change in Zimbabwe, so they're all invested in the MDC. The MDC has positioned itself as a "come one, come all" kind of umbrella coalition—and that's what's scary. Teachers, farm laborers, shopkeepers, Ndebele speakers, Shona speakers, white farmers... it's huge. Too huge, of course, to be a governing body. If the MDC was tasked with governance, the divisions among its constituents would make themselves apparent, and many would feel betrayed. So I guess one of my fears is that all civil society groups have been completely absorbed by the MDC. If the MDC does finally defeat Mugabe and come to power but appoints all the civil-society leaders in government, then who's there to keep Tsvangirai honest? The fear is that again, the society will invest all its hopes in one man. It's dangerous. One of the ways to inoculate Tsvangirai from Mugabe-style tendencies would be for civil-society organizations to be developing independent of the political party. And right now, that's not happening.

I think this about the patience of the people is amazing:

Maybe the patience comes from the belief that this can't continue. The whole country is frozen in this moment of expectancy. No one believes it can get worse. How can you get worse than 80 percent unemployment? How can you get worse than 500 percent inflation, and rising every day? How can you get worse than having your highest bank note so devalued that it doesn't even buy you a loaf of bread? They've never experienced anything like this before, so they just assume it can change. It's got to change!

Power talks about the effectiveness of American diplomacy.

Honestly, diplomatic intervention on human rights is pretty hard to do these days because the Bush Administration has so little credibility. Because of our hostility to international institutions, human-rights treaties, and multilateralism, it's really difficult for the U.S. to speak out on behalf of human rights. We have to understand that we're not always the best lead actor when it comes to advancing these principles—and that's something that American diplomats have a very difficult time understanding. We have the tradition of not ranking human rights and the welfare of foreign citizens high enough in our set of priorities, or on the occasion that we do rank human rights high, we're like a bull in a china shop, not understanding the ways in which our decisions in other policy areas really affect and undermine our ability to get what we want in the human-rights arena. We need something between the extreme of condescension and know-it-allness on the one hand, and outright indifference on the other.

Al Wayztravelin (hah, I just realized why that's funny) from Simply Live Anywere sent me a sample of Dr. Otto Weizman's book about simplifying life and travel.#

I can't post excerpts because of the copyright but it was very interesting. He talks about little things that you might want to bring on airplane rides, real simple tips that I can see how much of a difference they would make on feel good at the end.

I'm not sure if I'll get the book right away but it looks like one of the gems you need someone to tell you about because you won't stumble across it in the book store.

Via Feminste is "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose by Joyce Arthur.#

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

[...]

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

[...]

"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven't given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does." (Physician, Washington State)

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally."

[...]

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".

Hope points to North Korea's answer to Britney Spears.#

Allison Brown writes about becoming a Libertarian.#

There are many things I have always supported without knowing I was an unwitting Libertarian. For example, the legalization of most drugs seems to me to be an obvious improvement over the current situation. However, I do fear that legalizing the most heinous drugs, such as heroin, could make society infinitely worse off than it is now. Does this mean it shouldn't be done? I don't have an answer, except to say that I acknowledge making exceptions is what will keep us on the slippery slope of government intervention where it doesn't belong.

[...]

The topic that still gives me the most trouble is gun control. I have always feared guns, and was an avid gun control advocate. But as part of this learning process I've admitted to myself that I need to fully support the entire Constitution, including the second amendment, and not just those parts of it that may coincide with my personal preferences. I have trouble moving away from the idea that I want someone to protect me from guns, but I also have now understood that it's not guns I fear, but what the wrong people can do with guns. And that if I want protection, I need to be prepared to protect myself. Fear is rooted in ignorance, and while I'm ignorant about guns I would like to change that and plan to do so (although I still have to say I picture myself as more of a Barney Fife than a Dirty Harry — keeping an unloaded gun and a single bullet in my pocket should I ever actually need one).

Chris Clark is the master of his toilet.#

Reach instinctively for the command—z keys and then realize that you're sitting in front of a toilet cistern. Those wacky three—dimensional, interactive, non—computer—based objects we deal with in everyday life just don't have undo. What else could be wrong with this pipe? The thread is clean, the plumbers' tape should be giving us a nice tight seal, the o—rings are uh… the o—rings are… absent. Disintegrated. In dire need of replacement. Hop in your car, go and buy a little pack of o—rings from the hardware store. Replace o—rings. Re—tape threads (just to be doubly sure). Reconnect pipe. No leaks.

God damnit you're good. You should be a plumber.

Ben Adida writes about leaving policy decisions to chance and the successes or failures of threats.#

The question is thus clear: should a successful terrorist attack cause us to react more strongly than a failed one? Consider that both had the same intentions, similar tools and, in the end, somewhat similar chances of success. The difference lies probably in the specific details of the attack and a large dose of chance.

Yes, we are a society that punishes successful crimes far more harshly than attempted-but-failed crimes, but we must admit that on a larger, more strategic scale, they are equivalent.

When I'm told we live in particularly dangerous times and we must thus take particularly strong measures, forgoing certain rights we have in "normal times," I can't help but think we're having delusions of historical grandeur. A singular failure of our intelligence apparatus does not indicate a grave danger to our nation. Things have always been dangerous, for one reason or another.

Our long-standing principles and our rights as citizens of a free nation should not be diminished because of our historical amnesia. "May you live in interesting times," says the supposed Chinese proverb. Sure, but let's stop coming up with "interesting" policies because we're fascinated by how "interesting" our era has supposedly become. Policy should be decided calmly, based on principle, not chance.

The New York Times anonymously writes about Terrorism and Liberty.#

After four years of work, a federal commission on terrorism issued its final report last week. The report was unremarkable except for one recommendation that shone brightly through the usual thicket of bureaucratic prose. Aggressive antiterrorism policies, the report suggested, when combined with increasingly sophisticated surveillance technologies, could have a "chilling effect" on the right to privacy and other fundamental civil liberties. To prevent that from happening, the commission recommended that the White House establish a bipartisan panel to review how constitutional guarantees would be affected by all new laws and regulations aimed at enhancing national security.

Valeko on Kuro5hin writes about winter holidays in Russia and particularly about their present giving ceremonies.#

Presents are generally a thing intended to be shrouded in mystery and surprise. In America, it is not uncommon to simply request what you want from family or friends and to receive it without ceremony. This is unthinkable in our tradition. It is a vital element of the present that it is picked out by the person giving it, that it is sincere and comes from the heart. It is also important to be surprised; advance knowledge of your present defeats the entire purpose. Presents are generally things of quality but modest in quantity; it would be considered extremely poor form to have a "wish list" or a "Christmas list" or something so pretentious. Likewise, giving money would be regarded as very blunt, offensive and unrefined. Simply giving someone the means to buy themselves a present is contrary to the entire purpose.

This is not to say that the giver of the present should ignore the apparent wishes of the receiver and get him something totally random. On the contrary, the point is to get someone you love what they want. If you are a parent, perhaps you overheard your son or daughter talking once about something they wish they had. You should keep this in mind for a present. The point is for this to happen by implied understanding, and not by explicit request. It should be a surprise, and should be given based on an earnest desire to please.

Chris Bertram writes about what it means to have free will and determination, and how we should judge those who are "like us" but in different environments.#

"Like the rest of us" is such a weasel phrase here: on the one hand appearing to stretch out the hand of a common humanity but with a wave of that same hand dismissing the very different conditions under which that human life gets lived. I wish I had a view about responsiblity, agency, choice, blame and so on that I was satisfied with. I don't. But that view would have to satisfy at least two conditions: first, it would have to treat our fellow humans has having the capacity for free choice and second it would have to take a realistic view about the obstacles to their actualizing, developing, and exercising that capacity. If I lived (as I do) under conditions that are relatively propitious for that actualization, development and exercise, then I would hesitate before using phrases such as "like the rest of us" about those who have grown up under dictatorships and in much tougher material circumstances than I have.

He then quotes three great sources in support of acknowledging differences while praising similarities.

Ryan Overbey points a Very Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant.#

"Pageant" is a deadpan musical biography of the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. As conceived and directed by Mr. Timbers, with text and music by Mr. Jarrow, this production does indeed have the authentically home-brewed flavor of the holiday religious pageants that sprout in church basements and school gyms. The set, with its cheerful crayon-colored backdrop and columns of balloons, brings to mind an elementary school art project, while the angel-robe costumes summon images of sewing machines in suburban rec rooms. (Jennifer Rogien is the production designer.)

[...]

While L. Ron (portrayed by Jordan Wolfe) is challenged by sour skeptics — who question his church's finances and some of its means of, er, holding onto its members — he eventually overcomes all adversaries. His victory is presented amid perky anthems of uplift and optimism, performed with affecting ungainliness by the young cast. (Sample lyrics: "Now the sun will shine,/Now we'll be just fine./We have got the science of the mind.")

Jessica writes about supporting a particular candidate while trying to report.#

Political digression: I've got Wesley Clark supporters all excited because of my coverage of one of his New Hampshire events this weekend. They think I'm supporting him. Now, I've got a Howard Dean supporter claiming I'm a Dean supporter and giving me something that looks like an electronic kiss or whistle (I'm not good at interpretting punctuation faces). hee hee hee

Do you know who I'm really supporting? Are you sure? See, that's my point. I'm not going to say it on this blog. If I make a decision and tell you about it, you'll think that everything that I've written is biased in one way or another, consciously or subconsciously. I lose credibility as a reporter of the political events I attended and reported in the past and anything I write in the future will also lack credibility. Why do I want to jeopardize that?

I'm opposed to every candidate, I think they're a bunch of asshats.

Michael Feldman writes about Dean and politicians in general.#

Dr. Dean has reached the Pact-with-the-Devil stage of his political ascension, and how he handles it will go a long way toward determining the ultimate impact of his campaign, if not its objective success. But aside from the relative merits of the many forms of Doom possible for the Dean campaign, one thing struck us strongly as we watched the good doctor listlessly strut his stuff in front of the stars and stripes.

This was not a giant striding onto the political stage, by any stretch of the imagination. This was a sincere but sad and sorry little man, tilting at windmills and earnestly exhorting his classmates to vote for him like a nerdy sophomore running for student council. The unfortunate fact is that neither Dean, nor any of the other hacks and shucksters we have seen, in person or on screen, is in the least bit inspirational.

After reading DrugWarRant's Why Is Marijuana Illegal? Richard Tallent writes about how to safely legalization drugs. His essentially claim is to make the private penalties worse: more expensive insurance and harsher driving infraction punishment.#

No amount of legislation will keep people from their vices. The Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" both have proved that. But legality without consequence will just put the burden on those who have chosen a healthier lifestyle.

There is one way to legalize marijuana, keep tobacco and alcohol legal, and allow us to enjoy the foods we love: allow insurance companies to partially or fully deny coverage for health issues, auto accidents, and death found to be related to their overuse.

Cause of death or illness is obviously not a hard science, and telling someone that their heart bypass is not covered due to their obesity and cigarette habit might seem harsh. Such determinations would obviously need to involve a court of law, and insurance companies would need to be held to some reasonable standard before denying coverage. But given a government freed from the criminal prosecution and imprisonment of drug offenders, I think our courts could take on the burden of arbitration.

Later, Richard seems to think that this isn't what Libertarians want. I think it is because it is a private (insurance companies are private) solution to the problem.

Joel is getting ready to ship FogBUGZ for Unix.#

Doug Miller on what is perhaps the most important quality of America.#

It's damn frightening that the post-9/11 climate seems to have established a new norm in American society, under which debate and dissension are not permitted. This behavior is present across the political spectrum, and represents a far greater danger to the future of our Republic than any terrorist threat.

American politics is a form of social Darwinism. Far better that the Democratic candidates pass through the fire of pre-election campaigning and emerged tempered and strong before being subject to the hammer blows of the Republican political machine. Rather than being a sign of a lack of dedication to one's political party, the process of questioning debating, and dissenting with one's slate of candidates is the best, and probably only means of ensuring that the best possible candidate emerges. It's a sign of support for, and faith in one's party to do so.

Four out of five webloggers agree: Homosexual unions are good stuff. Doug Miller posts his stance.#

Damn straight. I have to admit a certain bafflement as to why this issue is an issue at all. I can't see how homosexual unions impact or "cheapen" my union with my wife in any way - or, in fact, what possible business of mine it is. What I can see is that limiting any American's civil rights lessens my own, and potentially endangers mine in the future.

Brad DeLong points out that many people don't know what "first refusal" means.#

If you give X the right of first refusal on piece of property Y, that means that before you can sell Y to Z you have to give X the chance to buy it on the same terms that Z would buy it on. In this context, it means exactly what Sullivan says he believes in--try first to do the things we want to do within the framework of the western alliance, and if that doesn't work then go outside it.

But Sullivan doesn't have the vocabulary to understand what Clark meant...

Joi Ito writes about those crazy Japanese.#

Reading Jill's comments over on misbehaving reminded me of a game that some people play in Japan. (I learned it from Eno-san.) It originated with business cards, but has moved to mobile phones. There are three people: two players and a judge. The two players pick someone from their address books and reveal them to each other simultaneously. The judge decides which one is more famous or important. The loser has to shred the business card or in the case of mobile phones, delete that entry from the address book. It's quite funny because you try to play important people to beat the other person, but if you lose, you lose a valuable phone number. The judge's perspective of what sort of person is important also comes into play in an interesting way.