Is this position subject to confirmation by the Senate?

No, it's not. But the State Department should be asked whether Cohen's views on imperial dominion, Iran and the like are appropriate for such a high State Department official.

To begin, if we cry foul whenever the GOP brings up decades-old statements or papers to attack our candidates and leaders, then engaging in similar behavior strikes me as petty and disingenuous.

I think old writings can be (mildly) relevant for everyone unless -- as I said -- they are repuidated convincingly.

Also, once standards are set for what views are considered offensive, out-of-the-mainstream, controversial, etc., there is value in demanding their equal application, even if one disagrees with the standards.

Having said all of that, I think that arguing that we need a draft becasue otherwise we have to rely on stupid and female soldiers is a sufficiently ugly arugment that he should at least be asked about it. And the claim that we need a draft because we want to keep expanding our military obligations -- is pretty relevant now.

Finally, if you think is pro-draft arguments regarding equity, duty and fairness are good ones (as I do), then that is all the more reason why he should be asked whether he continues to believe in a draft on those grounds.

I'm not saying this article is disqualifying. But he is being put into a pretty high position in our country's state department at a pretty critical time, and he ought to be asked and so should the State Department about his history of beliefs that are considered (rightfully, in most cases) to be fringe.

So Glenn, by good, do you mean these arguments ought to prevail? If so, I had no idea you were a fan of coerced labor in the service of the state. I mean, it is understandable in a mindset such as Cohen's. I'd love to hear your own elaboration.

No, by "good argument," I mean just that -- that it's an argument grounded in reason and that has persuasive qualities to it. There are a lot of positions that I reject but which nonetheless have good arguments in suppot of them -- but ultimate, I think the good arguments against them are more persuasive than the ones in favor.

I do think that society would benefit if the wars our elite starts were ones they would have to fight in or have their children fight in. I also think that there is an inequity to having a large pool of poor people who largely serve as the ones who fight our wars. Those are what I call good arguments in favor of a draft.

But ultimately, I find the arguments against a draft -- that it would likely fuel more wars by having a huge and bulging army, and the involuntary/freedom-depriving aspect of it -- to outweigh the good arguments.

By the way, do you consider compulsory jury service to be a form of unconscionable involuntary servitude?

I think that's a crappy way to do business, but I guess that's how Arianna feels she has to deal with the "gotcha" conservatives.

Yeah - even though I understand what I think is driving that choice, I think she's making a mistake by doing that, too. For one thing, if you start closing down comments or deleting them at times, it can create the reasonable suggestion that you approve of comments that you don't delete.

Additionally, she's almost lending credence to the notion that anonymous comments are meaningful, and she therefore needs to conceal them. Anonymous comments on a blog can come from anyone, and the number of people who comment on any given blog - especially larger ones like hers - is a minute fraction of the people who read the blog.

But I guess she has a brand to protect and a well-funded blog to safeguard and doesn't want to give anyone ammunition to attack her. I say that not to be derogatory, just descriptive. I think that's what is motivating her.

I do consider it involuntary servitude; it just is and there is no way around that.

Well, what if a foreign army is invading and there are insufficient numbers of volunteers to ward them off? Isn't that at least as compelling a case of "need" as the need justifying compuslory jury service?

We just need to continue to work to keep them the hell out of Congress!

One way -- one important way -- to do that is to reveal the true face of this political faction (by, among other things, highlighting the popularity someone like Ann Coulter attains among them), and not let them maintain their moderate, upstanding, mainstream facade which allows them to attract large numbers of voters who would not go anywhere near them if their true face were exposed.

That is the value of Ann Coulter and discussions about her.

Advance purchases may be nice, but tend to attract those that already know what they want. It would be nice to leave the "headlines" for the time when they will more readily attract those with less exposure to Glenn and his work.

Exactly. The book isn't going to be released for a couple of months still and the purchases will make more of an impact as part of the whole about-to-be-released campaign. I genuinely appreciate the sentiments of people who mention it and suggest ordering it, but it would be much better to wait until doing so has a bigger impact (thanks to Susan for pointing that out).

Ronald Reagan was a very poor and grossly overrated president, but saying he never got near the armed forces is a bum rap.

Agreed. The way I worded it was inaccurate and I now fixed it. He was ordered deployed in World War II but cited his eyesite difficulties to avoid deployment.

Still, he was hardly some sort of great military warrior.