In other words, the deal for Shalit's release was secured by some of the neocon's most despised enemies (Jimmy Carter and Syria), with the help of a President they insist hates Israel (Barack Obama), relying on tactics they have long scorned (diplomacy, negotiating with Terrorists, including Hamas).

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. . . .

This is why Glenn's attention to constructions of gender is so important, and underlines why, I think, there was so much unease with and complaints about yesterday's blog topic.

Encapsulated in these excerpts are some fundamentally unsound ideas about how masculinity is defined. And these are not confined to the right. Foremost, it is defined over and against what is seen as feminine. In yesterday's letters, there were many references to the term "real man" and to the (putatively opposing and less valued) concept of the feminine or "feminization of our culture." And under the rubric of this latter concept falls the tactics scorned by the neo-cons, as Glenn describes them.

Underlying these ways of seeing men and women are essentialist notions of identity--notions that everyone deplores when they see them applied to race, but that many are blind to when it comes to gender. Essentialism is the simplistic view that male and female behaviors and identity are biologically rather than culturally determined. What follows from this is a hierarchy of value that assigns the most value to the traits that are defined as masculine (whatever they are at any given time or in any given culture).

I think that some misunderstood the point of yesterday's critique. At least, as I saw it, the issue was not that Klavan isn't a "real man" because he failed to go to war. It was that Klavan arrogates a number of privileges to himself based on an imaginary notion of what a "man" is. And that this notion, this gender construct, is a ridiculous and self-serving fantasy, one that no one lives up (or down) to, yet one that is dangerously relied on in matters of life and death, as we see in this grotesque critique of Carter, diplomacy, etc. by the neo-cons.

I think that pointing out the fact that people like Klavan do not actually adhere to the behavior model that they set up as their raison d'être, their justification for solipsism, xenophobia, and a whole host of dangerous and idiotic actions, is critical in revealing the shifting and culture-bound nature of masculinity. It is a little discussed yet crucial aspect of our political life.

Thanks for the link. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Janko had been tortured and accused of being a spy by al Qaeda before he was imprisoned by the U.S. and Obama's gang conceded that, and yet they still insisted he was a part of al Qaeda??

So Janko's petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted. I wonder if Obama has some sleazy move prepared.

Btw, is it typical of judges to use exclamation points repeatedly? I was kind of surprised. Maybe it's just my job--I always delete them when editing.

macgupta, you're right, I don't think Mr. Fish was being too hard on Obama.

And neither was rrheard, so let's all join him in a piece of Obama's Chocolatey Hopey Changey Smiley-Face Eight-Layer Fascism Cake Surrounded by Nuts. At sig.

HA HA! You're killing me.

I'd say raging dickhead is something akin to Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Apparently, a majority of people want to prevent FUTURE torture "even when it might be critical to stopping a terrorist attack against the US."

And of course (*) the best way to prevent FUTURE torture is to confront PAST torture.

But a substantial portion of the anti-torture majority also wants to avoid confronting PAST torture.

That's a little crazy, but that's where we are.

I think this is partly a function of our very short memories in the U.S. Now that Bush is laying low, all of the rage toward him and his gang has dissipated. And then, Obama supporters have the moronic idea that a president cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. It's, oh, he has so much to do, he can't have this distraction, as if he were going to act as prosecutor at all the trials himself. And Obama gave them a nifty catch phrase to save them from thinking too hard about it, i.e., Let's look to the future, etc., etc.

It seems like there should be much more to this, but I cannot think of any good reasons for this lack of zeal for justice among our citizens.

If torture is enhanced interrogation

and and interview with the calm and rational Gleen Greenwald is a shouting match,

then it follows that this

•An ombudsman (English plural: conventionally ombudsmen) is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some external constituency while representing the broad scope of constituent interests.

is a person who acts as a cowardly and untrustworthy mouthpiece while representing a narrow scope of organizational interests.

Despite the fact that the organization is called National Public Radio.

Btw, and OT, I have discovered that Charles Krauthammer has an uncanny resemblance to a giraffe.