Two Speeches a World Apart

EJ Dionne in the Washington Post is almost always worth one's time, and this morning is must read material. He calls Sen. Obama's Wednesday address on faith and politics,

what may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican.

High praise, and almost certainly not the last time that the junior senator from Illinois will be compared to the man who was once the junior senator from Massachusetts.

It's telling to contrast what made those two speeches groundbreaking. Kennedy was set to run for the presidency, to become our nation's first Catholic president. Worried about anti-Catholic attacks on his loyalty to country like those that hampered Gov. Al Smith of New York in the presidential election of '28, Kennedy delivers an address to Southern Baptist leaders that underscored the limits of his faith. It essentially boils down to, 'I'm a Catholic, but I'm not going to take orders from the pope.' Imagine that, a Democrat needing to convince voters that his faith wouldn't matter TOO MUCH.

Fast forward almost fifty years to Wednesday at the Call to Renewal conference in DC. A lot has changed in the party of Kennedy, so much so that conservative Catholics like to make the near-blasphemous claim that JFK would have run as a Republican today. Sen. Obama delivers his address not to assure Americans that he'll maintain the separation of church and state, but to reassert that progressives don't need to advocate a public square stripped of all faith and values.

There's a lot to say about the particulars of Obama's speech, but the contrast between these two historic speeches makes it crystal clear how necessary the senator's words were on Wednesday. If his call for fairminded dialogue is heeded, America and all working of the common good will be stronger for it.

Welcome to the big leagues...

So THAT'S what happens when a top flight European squad takes you seriously in a match in a World Cup. See, the US apparently thought that its experience with Portugal in the opener of the last cup was standard fare. Not so much. In the ever encouraging words of the ESPN commentators, 'the US got smoked.'

The unfortunate thing is that right up until that second beautiful goal rocketed into the side netting from about 80 yards away, the US was right in the thing. Controlling possession. Down 1-0, but on an early goal. The Czechs hadn't looked particularly strong since then. Reyna just had an incredible strike come within two or three inches of tying up the game. All was well in the world.

And then, bad clearance by central defense, and BOOM, 2-0. It was a clean right hook to the jaw, and we went down just like Michael Warrick in the 9th round last Wednesday. Doctors reported only weak signs of life for the remainder of the game.

I read somewhere after our loss to the Germs in the quarterfinals in '02 something like this: 'Congrats America, you've truly arrived. Today you outplayed another team, but got beat anyway. Welcome to World Cup football.' Well, maybe this is another step in our development. Congrats America, you're on your way. Today a European team took you seriously, and beat you mercilessly up and down the pitch. Welcome to World Cup football.

Back to the Land of Guinness and Old Friends

This time there's a good reason for my absence! The Grillmaster returned to his Irish/Northern Irish/[insert Anglo-national reference here] stomping grounds last week for a much needed vacation. Nothing sounded better than a week of quiet countryside, welcoming people, and stirred memories.

HA! The only moments of quiet were while in the pub toilet. Aside from that, the Guinness and old friends kept me well occupied. Such a different experience to cross the ocean and feel like you're going home again. Too many highlights to list them all, but I'll do my best with a top 10 list.

10. An open bar banquet in the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin. Miraculously, less intoxicating than you might think.

9. Sharing R. Kelly's 'Trapped in the Closet' with an international crowd, thus further damaging Euro-American relations.

8. Holding it down in the best table in Belfast, the corner booth at the Duke of York.

7. Defending the honor of the Mitchell class of 2005 by winning the innaugural Guinness chug-off.

6. A glorious lunch with old friends at the best Middle Eastern cafe you've never heard of in Dublin's Chester Beaty Library.

5. Seeing the future of world theatre in '100 Minutes.' Amazingly successful even with so many frightening man-killers...

4. Discovering a whole new painful variety of cider with a crowd sophisticated enough to appreciate the complicated nuances of the cider pallette.

3. Rambling the beautiful emptiness of the Donegal roads with our intrepid and fearless American driver.

2. Meeting young Master James Walker for the first time, and seeing his parents sane and well.

1. Returning to our little piece of paradise at Downhill Hostel. And the fact that if I ever need to start an alternate life as someone named Daniel, I'll have an innkeeper to vouch for me.

Dear George...

So it has come to this: the leader of the free world is upstaged by a two-bit faux-populist anti-Semite from Iran. The letter from Mahmood Ahmadinajad exemplifies that ever so fine line between insanity and genius. It's a brilliant tactical stroke, in all likelihood actually made a difference at the UN yesterday thanks to our cowardly friends in Russia and China, and has at least temporarily put Bush on the defensive.

If you need any more proof that our President has made this country less safe, think of this: he has so little international credibility that a semi-coherant rant on Christian theology from a repressive Islamist dictator is all it takes to tip the global balance of power against US interests. Mission accomplished.

Strength through Conviction

Peter Beinhart has an interesting piece in this weekend's New York Times magazine. The title, 'Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal,' is somewhat misleading (the article barely touches on the Cold War liberal in question, Reinhold Neibuhr), but the content is provocative and challenging on a couple of fronts. My friend Paul Musgrave is too caught up in New York cynicism to see the truth in Beinhart's arguments, but I'll let it go this time without imposing Calvinball-related penalties on him.

Beinhart seems to have two points that are most worth pondering. First, he dares to argue that liberal foreign policy ought to draw strength from its convictions. This is no small contention these days. A sizable chunk of liberal elites is thrilled that simply embracing realistic self-interest can make liberals come off like trust-worthy world stewards in comparison with the ideological wrecklessness of King George. But is this enough? Beinhart argues convincingly that it is not only inadequate to the world we face, but a betrayal of the greatest achievements of liberals in foreign policy in the early days of the Cold War. Neibuhr had a deeply calculating, pragmatic streak, but it was grounded in principles far more meaningful than simple 'realistic' self-interest.

Which brings us to his second argument, equally contentious although quite different. What should these neo-liberal principles look like? Beinhart pushes his Cold War analogy in ways that aren't entirely satisfying, but are certainly provocative. In short, Cold War liberals were wise enough to realize that the foreign policy of a democracy must allow for difference in the world if that policy actually believes in its democratic ideals. Thus, the analogue to the socialist allies of Europe (which never fully yielded to communism) is today's popularly supported Islamist parties throughout the Middle East.

The challenge then becomes to determine WHY those European socialists never yielded to the USSR, and replicate those circumstances with contemporary Islamist parties. I'm no Cold War expert, but I'd posit that two features that helped America's cause in Europe do in fact exist today in the world of Islamist politics. First, ethno-nationalism never died in Western Europe. Nations wished to maintain national distinctiveness in a way that prevented submission to the heavy-handed USSR. A similarly enduring national strength remains in the Middle East. Pan-Arabism remains discredited, which ought to limit the threat that Islamist parties will unite in any meaningful way to control the region by force.

Second, I would imagine that US policy-makers indulged the socialistic experiments of Western European leaders, while establishing bright lines that could not be crossed without consequence. Why couldn't such an arrangement allow for engagement of Islamist parties? The United States will tolerate a great deal of internal diversity and autonomy within Islamic democracies, so long as nations eschew things like overtly calling for Israel's destruction, denying basic human rights (especially to women), and fostering terror groups intent on attacking the US.

This list of bright lines is clearly incomplete, but I think it is a viable path for engaging the very real and growing strength of political Islam. It would push liberals beyond short-sighted realistic calculation, indicate to the world that America can balance self-interest with local democracy, and remind us of some of the ideals that gave real strength to liberal foreign policy in the not-so-distant past.

Martick's Restaurant Francais

The best restaurants scare you. You wouldn't set foot in the place unless a trusted friend took you there first. You're a little nervous during your first visit, but after that you relish the chance to be the person bringing your friends there, to watch them while they nervously shift in their seats and wonder, 'What the hell am I doing here?" These places are never crowded, but always seem to be open. You leave for long periods, neighborhoods change, but the scene inside is always more or less the same.

The Grillmaster knows of a few such places, and had the chance to dine in one of my favorites this past Friday. Martick's Restaurant Francais has a bit of a deceptive name. Continental? Sort of. Classy? Eh, well, no. Sophisticated? After a fashion.

Martick's is a Baltimore landmark, and anybody who has the chance ought to get the to appreciate it before the octogenarian crank who runs the place hangs up his apron. He's Mr. Martick (his dad was THE Martick). He was born in the place. It was a speakeasy during Prohibition, a bohemian hip spot after that, a dark shell while Martick fled to France to learn to cook, and now a run-down speakeasy look-alike that just happens to serve some of the best French food in the area code.

You walk up to the door and wonder if you're in the right place. There are no signs of life, just a broken looking doorbell. When you give it a ring you'll either be greeted by a muffled bark or else just silence. After a little while the heavy wooden Prohibition-era door will swing open. If you're lucky, an eccentric host or hostess will ask you what the password is. If you're not, Mo Martick will be there in his boxers asking you what you want.

As your eyes readjust to the dim light, you can hardly believe your eyes. Baroque nude statues. Snakeskin wallpaper. Velvet curtains. Tile floors and a tin roof. The odds are that a half dozen other patrons of varying degrees of uniqueness are scattered across the small room. The menus are handwritten, the air is still, and you swear you don't know where the hell this place came from.

Then the food comes, and you realize why your friend brought you to what upon your arrival you took for the anteroom to Hell. It's French country cooking at its best. Fairly simple, moderately priced, hearty, and fantastically good. It still doesn't make sense, this infernal place with heavenly food. But that's what makes it great and rare. That kind of unsettling juxtaposition is tough to find, especially in these days of exurbs and urban renewal. Take the time to enjoy it while you still can. And try not to let it show that you're a little bit scared.

Mr. Hu Goes to Washington

This morning, the Grillmaster had the opportunity to witness the arrival and formal welcome of Chinese President Hu Jintao. The whole event was quite impressive. Two of my pictures from the morning pretty much sum up my ambivalence towards China. First, the formal shake of the two executives, perhaps the two most powerful men in the world. Second, the protestor who was hauled off right in front of us. Quite the day.

I've recently come across the following thank you note intercepted by the AP...

From: President Hu Jintao
To: President George W. Bush

Dear G-Dubs,

I very much enjoyed my visit to the White House today. Your troops are most impressive, although the ones in white wigs I found a bit curious. Laura is quite the catch! State-sponsored TV doesn't do her justice.

I was a bit put off by the screeching protestor that your officials somehow allowed to infiltrate the press corps. I mean, she writes for the damn Falun Gong newspaper! I have seen your Fox News, so surely you know that all journalists are not objective reporters of the truth. My police would surely have made life quite unpleasant for her and her relatives, but I suppose you all have your democratic processes that must be respected. Perhaps you can find room for her at Gitmo? I kid!

Seriously though, great show yall put on today. It was an honor to be received in such fashion. In a country of less than 300 million people, I can see how a crowd of 2,000 is a sign of respect. Of course, in China we could have convinced at least 25,000 of our 1.3 BILLION people to make an appearance, but hey, who's counting!

I hope we can continue the cordial relationship that we have fostered over the past years. I'm told that you're agenda is fairly open for the next three years, so perhaps you'll have time to pay Beijing a visit. I'll make sure the protestors keep their distance.

Your Comrade,
Hu

The Joys of Spring

Bourbon on the roof, Chipotle with friends, and now the O's have put up 13 on the Indians. Ain't Spring grand. No particularly profound thoughts other than that. I'll leave those to Walker Percy. This is from his classic essay on the aesthetic experience, aptly titled 'Bourbon'

"The pleasure of knocking back Bourbon lies in the plain of the aesthetic but at an opposite pole from connoisseurship. My preference for the former is or is not deplorable depending on one's value system--that is to say, how one balances out the Epicurean virtues of cultivating one's sensory end organs with the greatest discrimination and at least cost to one's health, against the virtue of evocation of time and memory and of the recovery of self and the past from the fogged-in disoriented Western world. In Kierkegaardian terms, the use of Bourbon to such an end is a kind of aestheticized religious mode of existence, whereas connoisseurship, the discriminating but single-minded stimulation of sensory end organs, is the aesthetic of damnation."

Out of the Desert

WARNING: SHAMELESS PLUG

The Grillmaster finds the desert troubling (too much sand, not enough meat). Nevertheless, it has been fertile metaphorical ground in the past for my writing, and seemed fitting in this piece just published through the Center for American Progress. Hope you enjoy.

Lax Standards

The Grillmaster has been resisting the urge to post on the Duke lacrosse saga. It's a story that has left me torn from the beginning, and hasn't gotten any less troubling now that the defense claims that DNA tests have cleared all their clients.

Like most white middle class kids in Baltimore, I played lacrosse early. From 6-16 I played in some form, from winter soft stick clinics through a brief and hilariously injury prone high school goalie career. I love the speed, power, and skill of the game. I love watching goalies throw themselves in front of shots that hurtle towards net in excess of 100 mph. I love that the first warm Saturday afternoons of spring mean lacrosse season is in full swing. And I love that both my alma maters (Loyola High School Baltimore and UVA) are at the top of the lacrosse world year after year.

But there's no getting around the fact that many of the best lax players are rich white guys who can be loosely described as 'assholes'. The Grillmaster has himself certainly done some asshole things in his day, but lax guys tend to take it to another level. This is a long way from saying that they are all aspiring sex offenders, but there's no doubt in my mind that a sizable chunk of the best players in the high school and college game cultivate an air of preppy jock untouchableness. Dave Jamieson's article over at Slate is WAY over the top (at least based on living in the lax mecca that is Baltimore), but most honest players would probably acknowledge he has a bit of a point.

All of these thoughts jumbled together when the initial allegations around Duke's excellent men's team came into the open. I wasn't particularly surprised, although I was really saddened for the sport and most of the guys on the team. I thought that some sexual assault probably did occur, although I was sure they'd have lawyers who would fight tooth and nail to protect them. Now it looks as if the evidence is pointing away from sexual assault, although we'll have to see how the story plays itself out.

It's been morbidly amusing to watch every social theorist in the country link this incident to their cause celebre. When guilt seemed assured, race theorists ranted, feminists fumed, and Marxists muttered. Even conservatives like David Brooks got in on the act, linking this incident to the fall of values-based education. If these allegations are dismissed in coming days, you can rest assured that other 'theorists' will chalk this up to the fact that poor black folks just can't be trusted.

Regardless of what happens at the end of this case, a lot of damage has been done to a good sport and the vast majority of good guys who play it. When over 40,000 fans crowd Ravens' Stadium to watch the Final Four, this will rival the main storyline. 'What if Duke's season hadn't been cut short,' commentators will ask to no end. 'Will the sport's image ever recover,' an earnest sideline reporter might ask. Virginia has one of the most dominant teams in men's lacrosse history (knock on wood), but no one will remember that as the top story of the 2006 season.

And probably most depressingly, this story will set back some of the progress that had been made towards diversifying the game geographically, racially, and economically. You probably haven't heard this on CNN or MSNBC, but lacrosse was actually becoming less of an elite-cornered market. Kids beyond Baltimore and Long Island are starting to play at earlier ages, which in a decade or so almost certainly means that the best players will come from a much more diverse pool. Hopefully the universally despicable actions of one night won't do irreversible damage to the game that reminds me so much of home.

Neuhaus Naked in the Square

If you don't know who Richard John Neuhaus is, you probably should. More than anyone, he has provided the intellectual heft behind contemporary religious conservatism, built the brainy foundation upon which Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others now rest. Damon Linker, a former editor of Neuhaus' journal First Things, has a comprehensive, somewhat sympathetic, and eventually damning account of Fr. Richard's goals in this week's New Republic (free subscription required). I don't know the story of how Linker parted ways with his former boss, but it makes for one hell of an article.

The Soundtrack

Dear and loyal readers (perhaps that should be singular?):

My apologies for neglecting the grill these past two weeks. I can only plead the combination of much work with a great extended visit from the Grillmistress. I very much enjoy tending this little corner of cyberspace, but certain things have a happy habit of distracting one during free hours at home. As the Grillmistress has returned to the great North for a little while, I can get back to my monastic discipline of blogging.

There have been dozens of newsworthy events during the past weeks, which I may get to in time. But there is pressing business of the musical variety that I simply must put on the grill. After all, every cookout needs background music. The Grillcouple saw both at the Strathmore in Bethesda last week. Think of the USS Constellation meets the Starship Enterprise, and you start to get the Strathmore.

If you don't know who Kurt Elling is, find out, and see him in concert if he ever comes through your neck of the woods. His hipster schtick would be a little over the top if he wasn't so damn good. His lyrics probe philosophical depths, his voice pushes the extremes of pitch and pace, and his band is TIGHT. Listen to his arrangement of My Foolish Heart, and get ready to testify. I'm forever in debt to my first year philosophy of religion teacher who introduced me to this dynamic talent. The old farts at the Strathmore didn't know how good they had it.

The crowd was much younger and more in the know on Wednesday night. You might not have heard of the SFJazz collective, but you probably have heard of some of its members. Joshua Redman, Nicholas Payton, Bobby Hutcherson, and five other world-class musical talents in one band. 8 original compositions from band members. Oh yeah, and 6 covers from some obscure guy named Herbie Hancock. It is a true treat to see a group made up of such explosive individual musicians who know how to play as a band and obviously care about entertaining their audience. Class professionals. And DAMN can Mr. Payton blow that horn.

The River City might not always have the most character, but with regular doses of music like this, there might just be enough soul in my life to get by.

Hope Springs Eternal

A Late Follow-Up

Apologies for the delay in a full post on last week's letter from the Catholic Dems in the House. Was in Durham for a conference on Southern values, and then spent the weekend in the company of great friends down in Chapel Hill. I can now tick 'Roam Franklin Street After UNC Beats Duke' off my list of life accomplishments.

The cynic and the realist (are they the same?) will say that the letter is just an example of shameless Democrats pandering to pollsters. 'What's that, you say? We need religion to win elections? Brilliant!' There's likely a grain of truth in this (after all, the Grillmaster owes his job to the post-2004 upswing in interest in faith and progressive politics), but I don't see any more reason to doubt the sincerity of these Democrats than that of their Bible-thumping counterparts in the GOP. Politics is the art of the possible for all involved; these politicians did an admirable job of explaining how pragmatism meets principle in their very public lives.

At least two things bear particular note from the letter. First, it is signed by some of the strictest 'pro-lifers' in the House and some of those most loyal to the 'pro-choice' community. Can this be? Maybe, just maybe, it's actually possible that reasonable people on both sides of this argument can disagree on the particulars of the issue at hand, and have the courage to acknowledge the legitimacy of that disagreement. Whether motivated by party bonds or the ties of faith, this is a significant acknowledgement. It bodes well for the tone of our public discourse, the health of our courts, and the honesty of our political life.

Second, the signatories of this letter do not fall into the blasphemous rhetorical game of claiming exclusive ownership of faith in politics that characterizes the fringes of the Religious Right. As more faith voices gain the courage to speak up on behalf of progressive political causes, they ought to never replicate the arrogance and pride of Robertson, Dobson, and Falwell. Faith in public life is frought with compromise and ambiguity. Denying the reality of this compromise may be the surest sign of someone so deep in the moral murk of politics that they can't see any light from above.

More on Catholic Dems

So the full letter from 55 Catholic Democrats in the House was released yesterday. It's a fairly eloquent, if imperfect, statement of how these elected officials bring their faiths into their public roles. I'll write a full post after work, but for now check out what Alan Cooperman has to say in this morning's Washington Post. Note the Family Research Council guy playing defense. If that isn't a nice way to start your morning, I don't know what is...

Catholic Democrats in the House

Totally spot on article from EJ Dionne in the Post this morning about an upcoming letter from Catholic Democratic Reps, both pro-choice and pro-life, on their Catholic faith, their public service, and the difficulty of grappling with the abortion issue. To this Catholic Democrat, it's exciting to see such documents in the works. Will write more later.

This Makes Me SOOOOO Mad!

Joking! George Will has a fairly entertaining article in this morning's Washington Post on why conservatives are consistently happier than liberals in polls. I don't dispute the poll, although he doesn't say whether the results are controlled for level of wealth. That obviously could make a huge difference.

Assuming that such controls did take place in the research, he has a point on a number of scores, although as a liberal I'd reframe his argument. Liberals are less happy because we're more outward-looking, more concerned about others, and more determined that the world can in fact be made a better place. Therefore, the darkness of the world upsets us.

Conservatives have more realistic (and mentally healthier) views of evil; they expect it, and deep down don't really think government can do much about it. So they can drink Coors and drive their SUVs in bliss while Iraq burns.

As a Christian, this part of conservatism is one of its great appeals to me. Evil will always exist, and if any of us think we're going to get rid of it with the perfect government program, we're living in a dreamland. Still, I hope I never entirely lose the sense of connectedness and hope that makes me convinced that we can improve the condition of this world through government action, and causes me to be in a bit of funk today because Iraq is as close as ever to civil war.

But Will He Get Tea in Jail...

A fascinating juxtaposition of jurisprudence in the past weeks. In Austria, an English historian is locked up for 3 years for denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile, in America, the Supreme Court upholds the right of a religious group to drink hallucinogenic tea in its rituals. And around the world tensions continue to simmer around the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed.

The situation in Austria is particularly interesting given the recent hubbub about the freedom of the press in Denmark. They have a thing for cartoons, in case you haven't heard. To hear the Dutch tell it, Muslims should swallow their pride, because freedom of the press is absolute, and democracy demands we know how to be offended.

But not so fast my friend! Austria's laws criminalize "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media." A relic of the post-war period? Not at all. The law was passed in 1992.

As the Grillmaster argued in an earlier post, this freedom ought to be protected except in the most abnormal circumstances. The case in Austria is a sad example of fear of the past violating this principle. Austria's democracy ought to be robust enough to withstand the propostrous historical claims made by this British anti-Semite. He should be publicly condemned as a bigot, and allowed to wander into relative obscurity. Unfortunately, the specter of the Nazi past still looms so large, and neo-fascism remains so visible, that Austria lacks the democratic self-confidence to allow fools to speak their foolish minds. An added misfortune is that this surely reminds Europe's Muslims that while their governments will curb speech to protect Jewish minorities, similar restraints do not exist to insulate their beliefs from doubt and ridicule.

On the heels of these decisions, the Supreme Court today affirmed the right of a small religious sect to drink hallucenogenic tea in their rituals. It's not directly related to either free speech case in Europe, but points again to America's remarkable ability to accomodate difference and free expression. The justices decided that the ritual was a sincere religious expression, and thus accomodated difference rather than impose restraint. If the Roberts Court shows similar consideration for freedom from warrentless search and from inhumane treatment while in detention, it will truly do this country proud.

Unfortunately, the Grillmaster wouldn't bet the smoker on it. Governments tend to err on the side of security, especially in time of threat. It's why Austria has the laws it does, and why the Roberts Court is unlikely to live up to my hopes.

A Humbled Neocon

In yesterday's NYT Magazine, Francis 'It's the End of History, and I Feel Fine' Fukuyama presents an interesting argument he titles, 'After Neoconservatism.' He sees in the Bush Administration's 2005 actions clear signs that neoconservatism is in retreat, crippled by its combination of idealism and militarism.

Rather than cede the stage to cynical Kissengerian realism, Fukuyama attempts to construct a foreign policy strategy informed by neoconservatism's foundations, but divorced from its disastrous implementation by the Bush White House. As he puts it, 'What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.'

The whole article is well-worth reading. Fukuyama brings a lifetime of scholarship and intellectual engagement with neoconservatism's founders to the table. At the same time he comes across as very fair minded and willing to engage in self-criticism, which immediately disqualifies him from affiliation with the Bush Bunch.

He's so fair minded, in fact, that the Grillmaster could have sworn his article could just as easily have been called After Liberalism. He affirms the need for promoting universal human rights and democracy. He calls policy-makers out for concentrating on military power while ignoring the cultural, economic, and moral 'soft power' that hegemons can bring to bear on the world. He wants to promote robust international organizations and alliances that can grant legitimacy to international action. In this his model is the NATO bombing of Kosovo, hardly what one would traditionally think of as a neo-con triumph.

You'll buy his argument depending on how you view neo-cons to begin with. If you think neoconservatism is primarily characterized by a dedication to human freedom, you're more likely to jump on board, and hope that your ideology hasn't been hopelessly discredited by King George. If you're like the Grillmaster, you'll remain highly suspicious; there's a willingness to arrogantly and wrecklessly use force that seems to be in the water the neocons drink. I don't call into question the genuineness of Dr. Fukuyama, just of those across the river from me in the White House who might have read his article yesterday.

Robert Wright on Cartoons and Riots

Robert Wright in this morning's NYT has a very well-balanced piece on the Islamist riots around the Danish cartoons. Must have read my post last week...