Obsidian Wings

Oh, And One More Thing...

by hilzoy

A friend of mine asked me to post the following:

"I guess Andrew Sullivan is just on a roll this week. After essentially erasing transgendered persons from existence by saying that all minorities are now protected against employment discrimination, Sullivan now has taken it upon himself to explain why it is that we transsexuals aren't really part of the LBG community, borrowing this lovely quote from someone named Rex Wockner:

I've been sitting here sort of picking my own brain and asking myself if gay and trans people do in fact have some crucial thing in common. I've read tons of opinion pieces and blog posts on the ENDA war in recent weeks, but none of them really opened my eyes. What do I have in common with a guy who wants to remove his willy, grow breasts, become a woman and get married to a man? From where did this relatively new concept of "the LGBT community" come?

This may be a mystery to gays who tend to still appear generally masculine, but to any effeminate gay man or butch lesbian, the parallels are quite real. Gender expression falls into many categories, and for anyone whose methods don't fit neatly into the male-female dichotomy, they can expect a lot of social intolerance. Of course, all gays face varying degrees of intolerance, but transgendered persons and non-gender normative gays face very similar issues, and both will still face employment discrimination if the current version of ENDA is passed into law.

It would be nice to think that, since both the GLB and TG communities face a great deal of intolerance from society, we might do a better job of understanding one another. But prejudice is a strong force, and just because you've been subjected to it doesn't mean you can't apply it just as well. Transwomen like me get to deal with issues like not being eligible for treatment at some rape crisis centers because we're not 'real women.' Gays like Andrew and Rex think we're just weirdoes who want to get our genitals snipped. And plenty of heterosexuals think we're just trying to find a way to sneak into the ladies room.

Maybe I don't have much in common with the Andrew Sullivans of the world. I certainly can't speak to what his experiences may have been. But I can't help but wonder if the kind of hell that I have gone through wondering what is wrong with me because I never felt like a man despite my body isn't in many ways similar to the struggles gays go through as they wonder why they don't feel attracted to the opposite sex. And I think it's a shame Sullivan has never even considered that possibility."

***

OK, this is hilzoy again. Following Sullivan's link to the clueless Rex Wockner, I find this quote:

"In the end, Barney and I and HRC and NGLTF and Lambda Legal and the rest don't really have a lot of power to make sure more congressmen and women become more familiar with transgender people. It is up to transgender people themselves."

Is it really? Why? Most of us who are not transgendered are, after all, adults and free citizens. We presumably do not need to wait for other people to educate us. We can do that for ourselves, and we should. Especially in this case. As I said earlier, transgendered people have enough on their plate as it is. We can take up the slack, and we should. If that requires actually trying to understand why someone might want to undergo gender reassignment, then making that effort would be worth it.

Likewise, why does John Aravosis write things like this?

"I support transgendered rights. But I'm not naive. If there are still lingering questions in the gay community about gender identity 10 years after our leaders embraced the T -- and there are -- then imagine how conflicted straight members of Congress are when asked to pass a civil rights bill for a woman who used to be a man. We're not talking right and wrong here, we're talking political reality."

If, as he claims, Aravosis does support transgender rights, then why just describe this political reality with regret, rather than trying to change it? Why not use his very public platform to try to inform his readers? Why not exercise some actual leadership?

***

* Note: the fact that both of the people I cited are openly gay does not mean that I think gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have a special obligation to do this educating. I don't think anything of the kind -- I'm straight, and I'm trying to do my bit. It's just that Aravosis and Wockner, like Sulivan, are people whose posts have made me think: why all this public bafflement, rather than an attempt to inform and persuade, or to fix the problem they're bemoaning? I imagine it's no accident that all three are members of the LGBT community; or that most straight bloggers haven't written on this at all. I'm not too happy about that one either.

Also: for what it's worth, there are still a couple of unclaimed copies of She's Not There, which I described here. Send me your address (which I will not use for any other purpose), and I'll send you one.

Andrew Sullivan: drop me a line. One copy has your name on it. :)

The FCC Won't Let Cable Be

by publius

As the NYT reports, big things afoot at the FCC. In particular, Chairman Martin seems poised to pass a number of regulations aimed at cable companies to increase video competition. The new regulations would, among other things, cap the size of cable companies, increase competitors’ access to programming, and require providers to offer channels on an a la carte basis.

Sounds great, but before we celebrate, it’s worth asking – “Why is Martin – a deregulatory Republican – pushing this hard?” As you might expect, there are some cynical explanations.

But first, some credit where credit’s due. Martin is a fierce partisan, and a skilled DC political infighter. But, he does seem genuinely concerned about anti-competitive markets. It was Martin, after all, who sided with the Dems to get the (perhaps fleeting) open access provisions in the 700 MHz spectrum auction.

Unlike much of the modern institutional GOP, Martin’s position is pro-market, not necessarily pro-big business. There are important differences. When I worked in DC (having come of age in the Gingrich/Bush era), I remember asking an experienced telecom hand why on earth Reagan’s DOJ would have ever broken up AT&T.; The response was simply that, at least back then, some Republicans actually believed in making markets work. It was about more than simply subsidizing industry donors.

Ok, now for the cynical explanations. First, regulations against cable help the Bell phone companies (AT&T;, Verizon). Martin has long been accused of being a Verizon hack. And while that’s unfair, it’s not altogether wrong either. Phone and cable companies are competing for phone and broadband users, with video service just around the bend. These new regulations – along with the franchise reform Martin pushed earlier – will inevitably strengthen the phone companies’ positions.

Second, as the NYT hints, Martin is planning to jump back in the media consolidation fray – a political minefield. Taking strong stands against consolidation in the cable industry gives him some cover on that front.

Finally, it’s widely rumored that Martin will return to North Carolina and run for Congress or for Governor. Coincidentally, he takes strong ostentatious stands on issues near and dear to religious conservative voters' hearts (e.g., obscenity). The a la carte system (which allows you to pick and choose your channels) falls into this category. Religious groups support such a system because they want to keep smut out of the house.

Ah, DC – the city where nothing is what it seems. I love it.

The Difference Between The Two Parties In A Nutshell

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The House today narrowly approved a $73.8 billion measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax and offer new tax breaks for middle-income homeowners and poor parents, financed by tax increases that would land primarily on Wall Street titans.

The 216 to 193 vote came after a fiery debate that divided Democrats and energized Republicans, who blasted tax increases that Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) called "an assault on free enterprise." Democrats angrily countered that all they were doing was closing tax loopholes on super-rich private equity and hedge fund managers to live by their pledge of fiscal responsibility. (...)

For several years, Republican-led Congresses have passed temporary "patches" to stave off the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to ensure that 155 super-wealthy families pay some income taxes. Because the law did not ensure that the AMT's income threshold would rise with inflation, the tax now hits 4 million families, and without congressional intervention, it will touch 23 million more this year, mainly with upper-middle incomes.

This year, Democrats added additional measures to offer a mortgage interest deduction to families taking the standard income tax deduction and to expand tax rebates to working parents too poor to pay the income tax. And they opted to offset the cost largely by plugging a tax loophole that has been deftly exploited by the burgeoning private equity and edge fund industries. (...)

Private-equity fund managers earn much of their compensation by taking a cut of earnings of the limited partners that invest in their funds. It is pay for work, said N. Gregory Mankiw, a former chief economist for President Bush, but it is taxed as capital gains, at 15 percent instead of the 35 percent income tax rate that they would otherwise pay.

"I can understand why many in my industry want to preserve this special tax advantage. Clearly, it has served us and me well. The tax subsidy each year to private equity fund, hedge fund and venture capital fund managers is in the billions of dollars," William D. Stanfill, founding partner of Trailhead Ventures L.P. in Denver, told the Senate Finance Committee this summer. "But I think this special tax break is neither fair nor equitable."

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) said fewer than 50,000 households would claim this so-called carried interest, and those households collectively earn $936 billion -- an average household income of $18.7 million."

So, in brief: if Congress does not do something, the AMT is going to hit 23 million families with higher taxes this year. The House has passed a bill preventing this from happening. Since, to their credit, they passed PAYGO rules that require that any tax cut or spending increase be paid for, they had to find some way to raise taxes. They found a loophole that allows various fund managers, who earn millions of dollars a year, to count those millions as capital gains, and thus to pay much lower taxes than the rest of us, and they closed it.

For this, they are being excoriated by Republicans. David Dreier thinks that PAYGO rules shouldn't apply to "mistakes":

"But anti-tax Republicans said the AMT was a mistake and thus offsets were unneeded. ''What absolute lunacy,'' said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., ''paying for a tax that was never intended.''"

What a fascinating principle: you don't have to pay for costs you incur by mistake. I wonder if our creditors will go for that? And why not extend it to other things as well? The Iraq war, for instance, was never expected to last this long: why should we bother to come up with the billions and billions of dollars we are still paying for it? If it comes to that, why not just throw fiscal responsibility out the window? As far as I can tell, David Dreier thinks that that's the only non-lunatic thing to do.

Similarly:

"Rep. Jim McCrery (La.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, argued that such "a fiscal straitjacket" should not even apply to the alternative minimum tax, reasoning that all Congress is trying to do is keep the taxes of 23 million families from going up. Since that is not really a tax cut, he said, its $52 billion cost to the Treasury should not be paid for."

As I understand it, PAYGO rules do not say that when the dollar amount paid for something goes up, or the dollar amount taken in by some tax goes down, it must be paid for. They say that when the law is changed in such a way that revenues go down or spending on entitlement programs go up, it must be paid for. This is why Rep. McCrery is wrong: we are changing the law in order to keep those 23 million families' taxes from going up, and so we have to cover the costs of doing so.

Maybe Rep. McCrery thinks that it would be better if the rules were different. But he should be careful what he wishes for. When the costs of entitlement programs go up not because of changes in the law, but because of inflation, or increases in the numbers of people who benefit from them, or any of the million and one reasons why existing programs can end up spending more one year than they did the previous year, PAYGO does not require that Congress come up with the money. Conversely, it does not allow Congress to use the additional tax revenues produced by rising incomes, inflation, or increases in the number of citizens subject to tax to offset new spending. Both taxes and spending are allowed to increase in dollars as long as the laws governing them are not changed.

If Rep. McCrery wants to change the rules so that what matters is changes in dollar amounts, not changes to laws, then I assume he is prepared either to cut programs like Medicare and Medicaid dramatically, or to find tax increases large enough to pay for their annual increases. Something tells me, though, that he wouldn't be particularly interested in that, and that he isn't talking about substituting one rule for another, but having one rule for this bill and another for everything else.

This exchange makes the issues pretty clear:

"''Congress can and must stop this middle class tax hike before Thanksgiving -- without raising taxes,'' Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Friday.

But Pelosi said that ''we have an understanding with the Senate that this legislation, in order to go forward, must be paid for.''

''Raising revenues takes political courage,'' said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. ''There is no courage whatsoever in plunging our country into debt, spending and not paying.''"

And what does the White House say? Well:

"The White House and Republicans, protesting tax increases in the bill affecting mainly investment fund managers, maintained that it would never become law."

And, as a special bonus:

"The White House also said language in the bill to terminate an IRS program farming out delinquency cases to private debt collectors would subject it to a veto."

That would be one of the world's dumbest programs, in which we contract out the right to collect taxes to private firms in exchange for a cut of the proceeds, even though the IRS could collect the money more cheaply itself. As Stephen "Freakonomics" Dubner put it, this "means a lot of money — a lot of tax money, that is, collected from the people who don’t cheat — continuing to go down the drain." (Paul Krugman doesn't think much of this program either.)

Naturally, George W. Bush is prepared to veto a bill that would lower the taxes of 23 million families in order to keep this ridiculous and wasteful program alive.

Faking It At FEMA

by hilzoy

A couple of weeks ago, in one of the many stories I didn't blog about at the time, FEMA held a fake press conference in which all the questions were asked not by actual reporters, but by FEMA staff pretending to be reporters. In the aftermath, FEMA"s director for external affairs resigned, and said that it was all a mistake:

"John "Pat" Philbin, the now former director of external affairs for FEMA, told CBS News that he should have stopped the press conference that the agency held last week without any media present.

“I should have cancelled it quickly. I did not have good situational awareness of what was happening,” he told CBS News in a telephone interview.

Philbin himself was heard off-camera asking Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, his boss, a question. He now says he feels terrible about what happened adding that the FEMA press office was under considerable pressure to get information on the California fires out to the press and was working on little sleep.

“I can definitively tell you that there were no discussions or conversations about setting up a fake news conference.”

Philbin said that Adm. Johnson, the second-in-command at the agency, did not realize it was FEMA staffers and not reporters who were asking questions, despite the fact that Johnson called on members of the FEMA staff by name during the press conference.

“I am not aware that he knew what was happening and all of sudden staff were asking questions,” Philbin said. “When the staff began asking questions I should have intervened and I didn’t.”"

This sounded a bit dodgy to me at the time -- for instance, it's a bit odd for Philbin to say "When the staff began asking questions I should have intervened and I didn’t" about an occasion when he himself was one of the staff asking questions, unless he normally has to "intervene" to keep himself from doing things, the way Dr. Strangelove has to intervene to keep his own arm from strangling him. It turns out that it was. CBS got a photo of the event, and identified the people in it. Here's the photo:

And here's CBS' description of who's in it:

"At the podium on the left is Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, the second in command at FEMA. (...)

Identified in the photo are staff members that Johnson works closely with on a daily basis.

From left to right: Nathaniel Fogg, Counselor to the Director and Deputy Director; John "Pat" Philbin, former Director of External Affairs; Michael Widomski, Public Affairs Specialist; Eric Heighberger, Special Assistant, Office of the Administrator; Cindy Taylor (in tan suit), Communications Deputy Director; Dan Shulman (red tie), Director of Legislative Affairs; Debbie Wing (curly blond hair), Media Response Liaison; Aaron Walker (back to camera), National Spokesman."

Unless Vice Admiral Johnson has some sort of serious cognitive defect that prevents him from knowing who he works with on a daily basis, the idea that he just didn't know what was going on doesn't hold water. Moreover, it's not as though the room was full of reporters on the one hand, and staffers on the other, and suddenly -- who knew? -- the staffers started asking questions. Of the people present, only two -- the small heads above the blonde curly hair of Debbie Wing -- are not identified by CBS as FEMA staffers. I suppose they might be reporters, but since FEMA only gave reporters 15 minutes' notice that there was going to be a press conference at all, even that number of reporters seems unlikely. They might also be FEMA staffers whom CBS either could not identify, or who did not work with Vice Adm. Johnson "on a daily basis." [UPDATE: No reporters were present. H/t Gary.]

So unless we are to believe that all these FEMA staffers found themselves in a room full of FEMA staffers they knew and worked with, and at most two journalists, sat down in the chairs where journalists normally sit, and asked the questions that journalists normally ask, all without noticing a thing, I don't see how we can conclude that this is anything other than a deliberately staged fake press conference about which FEMA staffers subsequently lied.

Not that that's anything new; it's just that every so often I think it's important to keep track even of the smaller examples of this administration's mendacity. Because in an administration that had genuinely introduced a new moral tone" into Washington, as Bush promised to do, people would know that to pull a stunt like this would cost them their jobs whether or not anyone found out about it.

Paging LGM

by publius

Stay classy, Ann Althouse.

(I seem to remember that her line of argument worked well in third grade. Althouse, however, is foolishly ignoring other piercing weapons in the third-grade insult arsenal. For instance, never underestimate the power of a good "oh yeah, well you have cooties," or "oh yeah, well your mama [insert undesirable characteristic]."

Surprise! Vagina Dentata!

by hilzoy

Somehow, I missed this gem when it first came out at Foreign Policy Passport:

"Later this month, South African women will be able to purchase the Rapex device, marketed as the "anti-rape condom." The rapex, shaped like a female condom, is worn internally and equipped with 25 teeth in its lining. The razor-sharp teeth fasten on the attacker's penis if he attempts penetration. Since the device does no lasting damage to the attacker, it is completely legal and will sell for 1 Rand (around 14 cents) when it hits stores. The majority of women surveyed about the device said they would be willing to use it.

The inventor of Rapex, South African Sonette Ehler, a former medical technician, got the idea when a traumatized rape victim lamented to her, "If only I had teeth down there.""

Here's a photo:

Look at the little teeth!

The FAQ page for the Rapex is full of delights. For instance:

Q: Is its removal easy once penetration has taken place?

A: Yes, there is no need for you to remove it, as it has attached itself to the penis upon initial penetration it will be removed as the penis is withdrawn.

Yep: it has attached itself with its little teeth!

Q: Can't the rapist simply take a pair of scissors and cut it off?

A: No. The latex cannot be cut easily, the hooks are embedded in the skin and it is extremely difficult to remove.

Oh Noes Mr Rapist! What to do?

Q: Will it cause permanent damage to the rapist?

A: No, not if he gets professional help without delay

Preferably at a hospital. A hospital that will document the procedure, for future use in criminal proceedings. Heh heh heh.

There are some other funny questions, like "Will the rapist be attached or stuck to the woman?" and (my personal favorite) "Can this be worn during masturbation?", to which the manufacturers tactfully answer "No, not at all", rather than "Yes, but only if you really hate your dildo", or "Of course it can, silly, but only if you fancy explaining to an emergency room doctor what a toothed female condom is doing attached to your fingers."

ENDA Redux (With Free Gift!)

by hilzoy

According to the Advocate, ENDA (pdf) -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- is scheduled to come up for a vote in the House today. Rep. Tammy Baldwin will offer an amendment banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The amendment is likely to be pulled after being debated. If you support ENDA and/or Tammy Baldwin's amendment, now would be a good time to write your Representative and say so. I think it's important to do this even though the Baldwin Amendment might be pulled and Bush will veto the bill itself: our Representatives need to know that banning employment discrimination for gays and transgendered people has real political support.

In the long run, however, the reason protections for transgendered people have been dropped from the bill, and the amendment reinstating them is likely to be pulled, isn't that it's particularly difficult. Protecting transgendered people from employment discrimination doesn't involve massive new programs or vast expenditures; all we need to do is pass legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to them. Moreover, the main obstacle to this is not some powerful vested interest; it's just the fact that most people don't know what it's like to be transgendered, or why they need these protections so much. As a result, there just isn't enough political support for extending rights to transgendered people.

The reason for that, I suspect, is just ignorance. If you aren't transgendered yourself and haven't thought about what being transgendered would be like, the idea of undergoing gender reassignment must seem pretty strange. I remember, back in college, talking about an interview with someone who had recently become a woman, and who was thrilled that she would finally be able to be a lesbian. I and my friends -- decent and thoughtful people, every one of them -- were just mystified by this. I mean, if you were a man, and you wanted to have sex with women, didn't you already have a perfectly good way of doing this? And if so, what on earth was the point of all that excruciating surgery?

Honestly: we didn't get it at all. We had no idea. We didn't see, for starters, that being transgendered is not a matter of sexual orientation, nor even a matter of wanting to be of a different gender. (I, for instance, would be fascinated if I could somehow become a guy for a week or so, so that I could see what it feels like from the inside. If God offered me the chance to do this on a temporary basis, I'd accept in a heartbeat. Not the same thing at all.) It's a matter of feeling as though you already are the gender your body says you're not, and as a result feeling, every minute of every day, as though your own body, which by rights you should be able to inhabit seamlessly and without question, is horribly wrong. And it's also a matter of feeling as though you're stuck with an ineliminable sense that something about you is all wrong, in a way that's very hard to make sense of. I mean, it's hard, especially for a child or a teen, to make sense of the thought that s/he is really a boy/girl, when a simple inspection of his/her body reveals that s/he is obviously -- "obviously" -- not.

I don't imagine this is any easier if the people around you think of you as some sort of freak.

My sense is that most people don't get this at all. If you don't happen to be transgendered, or to know (that you know) someone who is, or to be a blogger who researches it and finds herself thinking "holy sh!t", it's hard to understand. And without that understanding, I think that the attempt to win employment protection for transgendered people cannot succeed. This is what has to change.

When I was writing my last post on this topic, I found myself thinking that it seemed awfully unfair that transgendered people themselves would probably have to do most of the work of bringing this change about. I wrote:

"I can't think of any good reason why those of us who are not transgendered should wait for transgendered people to bring their situation to our attention. Between paying for surgery, telling the people they know, dealing with hormones and therapy and electrolysis and so on, and navigating what I'm sure are the absolute delights of a workplace transition, I imagine they have enough on their plates already."

Luckily, it's pretty easy to change people's attitudes on this point, at least on an individual level. (The problem isn't that it's hard; it's that there are so many individuals who don't get it.) The best way I can think of is to read She's Not There, by Jenny Boylan. It's a wonderful book in its own right, well worth reading whether or not you have any interest in transgender issues. Boylan is funny, thoughtful, insightful, and whip-smart; moreover, she's a really wonderful writer. And she has no particular agenda, unless the thought "It would be really good if people knew what this was like" counts as an agenda.

Since I think that those of us who are not transgendered need to try to take some of the burden of changing attitudes off the shoulders of people who are, I propose the following: I will buy a copy of She's Not There for the first ten people who promise to do two things: first, to read it, and second, if you like the book, to find someone who does not understand what it's like to be transgendered and give it to them, subject to these same two conditions, and having explained to them why you're doing it. If you want one of these copies, email me at hbok at mac dot com. [UPDATE: Send me your address, so I can send you the book. I promise not to use it for any other purposes.] It's a great book; I don't think you'll regret it.

Of course, if you want the ten copies to be available for someone else, you could also just buy your own and take it from there. The more, the better.

Political activism that takes the form of reading and sharing really good books: definitely, my kind of issue.

Don't Be A Playa Liberal Hatuh

by publius

Like Yglesias and Atrios, I find the press’s “Everything That Happens Is Bad for Democrats” narrative extremely annoying. (See yesterday’s Post for the most recent example). The more interesting question though is why it keeps happening. Why do ostensibly liberal reporters keep returning to this narrative frame?

Although unintentionally, I think Andrew Sullivan’s interesting article on Obama provides a possible answer: liberal guilt. Examining how the generation-gap affects Clinton and Obama’s respective liberalism, he writes:

A generational divide also separates Clinton and Obama with respect to domestic politics. Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. . . . She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives.

Frankly, I disagree that Obama is free from these demons. But still, Sullivan is on to something larger here. And that larger point is that liberals over the past two generations have been afraid to express their real views.

I’m not sure where it comes from. Maybe Nixon’s victories. Maybe Reagan’s. Maybe Bush’s. Maybe from 1994. Maybe from the Latina union-supporting, ERA activist who dumped Mickey Kaus in college. I’m not sure. But somewhere along the way, liberals got it in their heads (not always wrongly) that showing their true colors risked professional and political harm.

Islamic Extremism In Pakistan

by hilzoy

In reading various bloggers' reactions to events in Pakistan, I have noticed that a number of them seem to think that Musharraf is all that stands between us and a nuclear-armed Islamist state. Thus, Don Surber:

"Musharraf is a pro-Western man in the second-largest Muslim country on the planet, after Indonesia. That does not make him too popular. But allowing Pakistan to fall into the hands of a Taliban-like government is far worse."

Jihad Watch:

"One hardly has to regard General Musharraf a saint in order to appreciate that his removal would more likely usher in an era of Sharia and jihad than New-England-town-meeting-style democracy."

And, of course, the inimitable Victor Davis Hanson:

"It would be hard to think of a bigger mess than Pakistan: nuclear; half the population radically Islamic; vast sanctuaries for the architects of 9/11; a virulent anti-Americanism in which aid and military credits are demanded but never appreciated; dictatorship at odds with America’s professed support for Middle-East constitutional government-all the while doing little to hunt down al Qaeda while assuring us that the possible radical alternative, with some reason, is far worse." (Emphasis added.)

For this reason, I thought it might be worth providing some actual facts about support for Islamism in Pakistan. You'll find them below the fold.

Keep On The Sunny Side Of Life!

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. "Thank heavens for small favors," the official said. Compared to Pakistan, "Iraq looks pretty good.""

A country that shelters the al Qaeda leadership and has nuclear weapons undergoes a coup. The Constitution is suspended, a general assumes dictatorial powers, the independent media are shut down, hundreds are arrested, and the police are given sweeping new powers. Some might call this a crisis, or a tragedy, or a very ominous development. But our Secretary of State's advisors can find a silver lining to every cloud, an upside to every downturn, lemonade in every bitter lemon, a light at the end of every tunnel. No gloom and doom for Condi and her team!

To them, when Pakistan falls into dictatorship, it's not a calamity; it's a "small favor".

-- I just keep repeating the phrase: Fourteen more months. Fourteen more months and this nightmare will be over.

Shameless Begging And Pleading

by hilzoy

Via Slacktivist, I note that we have been nominated for "Best of the Top 1,000-1,750 Blogs" in the 007 Weblog Awards. The trouble is, Slacktivist has been nominated too, and deserves your vote as well. (Think of the wondrous Left Behind series.) Fortunately, you can vote every day, so if you feel torn, you can vote for each of us on alternating days. We're in second place so far -- even without begging and pleading and groveling. Now that I have abased my pride and knelt before you, the sky's the limit! Who knows: we might even manage to climb into the 500-1,000 category next year.

Pakistan

by hilzoy

As Publius noted, the news out of Pakistan is not good at all:

"The Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, declared a state of emergency on Saturday night, suspending the country’s Constitution, firing the chief justice of the Supreme Court and filling the streets of this capital city with police officers.

The move appeared to be an effort by General Musharraf to reassert his fading power in the face of growing opposition from the country’s Supreme Court, political parties and hard-line Islamists. Pakistan’s Supreme Court had been expected to rule within days on the legality of General Musharraf’s re-election last month as the country’s president. (...)

After a day of rumors in the Pakistani news media than an emergency declaration would come, the first proof came just after 5 p.m., when independent and international television news stations abruptly went blank in Islamabad and other major cities. Soon after, dozens of police officers surrounded the Supreme Court building, with some justices still inside.

Under the emergency declaration, the justices were ordered to take an oath to abide by a “provisional constitutional order” that replaces the country’s existing Constitution. Those who failed to do so would be dismissed.

Seven of the court’s 11 justices gathered inside the court rejected the order, according to an aide to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Issuing their own legal order, the justices called General Musharraf’s declaration unlawful and urged military officials to not abide by it.

By 9 p.m., Chief Justice Chaudhry and the other justices had gone to their homes, which were surrounded by police officers. The police blocked journalists from entering the area, disconnected telephone lines and jammed cellphones in the area."

Also:

""There have been 400 to 500 preventative arrests in the country," Aziz told a news conference in Islamabad.

Media and police sources say 1,500 opposition figures from Pakistan's military, judiciary and political sectors have been detained.

In the wake of Saturday's declaration, the government also issued new rules forbidding newspapers and broadcasters from expressing opinions prejudicial to "the ideology of Pakistan or integrity of Pakistan"."

In addition, "all non-state TV stations and some radio channels, including international services such as BBC World TV, have been taken off air"; and elections scheduled for January have been postponed indefinitely.

Along with a lot of other people, I think one of the best pieces of background is Joshua Hammer's After Musharraf. Barnett Rubin is covering the situation at Informed Comment: Global Affairs, and here are links to bloggers from Karachi and Lahore. (Their blogrolls have links to other Pakistani bloggers.) The text of Musharraf's emergency declaration is here.

My take below the fold.

I'm off the fence and for McCain

by Charles

This is my only front-page post at Redstate in support of a Republican candidate for the nomination. John McCain has little to no chance of getting nominated, but I'm supporting him anyway. My reasons are backing him are a combination of things, having to do with my agreement with him on key issues and for what I see as shortcomings in the other candidates. The slate of candidates is imperfect, so my rationale was to go with the least imperfect one. My three main criteria for picking a president in this election cycle are national security, the economy, and integrity. As I see it, McCain is the most solid of the candidates in those categories, so let me go through them.

More below the fold...