Thanks for everyone. All the best.

@Jaybird, feelings are mutual.

@Rufus, please Mr. Dierkes is my father.

It's spiraled in the media-sphere well beyond what I think it ought to have. So I guess at this point I think he probably should resign. But I'm not sure either way it will help. The damage, it seems to me, has been done.

@North, You and Jay are probably right. We'll see. The line about Obama is pretty harsh. I just can't get over how f'in stupid the guy is to have himself quoted to this effect in Rolling Stone.

I think this yet again shows the 60 vote thing (contra Greenwald) is a huge matter and the filibuster as the de facto norm is so corrosive to the legislative branch.

We have 50 or so liberal Democrats, a liberal President who won a significant victory (I"m never sure of this "mandate" stuff), after having won a very significant 2006 Congressional election (2 waves in a row in their direction) and they can't really govern all that much.

Either our parties need to break up and allow for more cross-partisan vote wrangling or we need to have parliamentary proceduralism commensurate with our new parliamentarian identity and practice.

The mismatch is killing us.

@Barry, The only piece I would add to that is buying off the Sunni insurgency (the so-called Awakening). They had a group of radical Al Qaeda guys killing Sunnis, the Sunnis realized they had already lost the civil war in Iraq to the Shia and so they were willing to deal. The ethnic cleansing was really done by the Shia in Iraq with the US (post-invasion) mostly on the sidelines.

In terms of an Afghan Awakening, the Iraqi Sunni tribal system is much more centralized anthropologically (as I understand it) than the Afghan one is. Not to mention there is no equivalent scenario in Afghanistan (as you mention). The Pashtun people don't seem particularly willing (a la the Iraqi Sunnis) to cut off The Taliban even if they could--which given drug funds seems unlikely anyway. The Afghan Taliban are far more integrated into their reality than Al Qaeda in Iraq ever was--plus they have way more numbers.

The Pashtun are more like the Shia in Iraq (numerically). In other words, what reason do The Afghan Taliban have to make a deal with the US? None, seems to me.

I guess the US' only real chance would have been to install a ruthlessly efficient, coldblooded but highly effective military dictator in power. Karzai doesn't exactly fit that bill.

@Scott, well al qaeda is over in pakistan and even if the Taliban were to come back to power in Afghanistan, it's not clear that AQ would come back anyway. And it's not like the US is ever going to leave without still having drones over the country so I don't exactly see how AQ is the central reason to fight a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan since AQ is part of the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Which leaves the Afghan Taliban. Yes officially our policy is that we are preventing them from coming back to power. The question is: is this even possible, much less realistically achievable?

In reality Petraeus, McChrystal, et. al know that the Taliban in some fashion are going to be dealt back into power. They are just trying to quell what they call the "irreconcilables" before they make the deals. But the COIN policy they are running relies on locals (mil, police, and gov't), picking up the slack. Ain't happening in Afghanistan and ain't gonna.

Without that, the US is just basically killing bad guys. The Taliban can just keep getting new guys to join their ranks and wait the US out.

@rufus. indeed. I suppose one could try to argue Gaga is more postmodern than Madonna: the name recursive from Radio Gaga, as well as a reference to Madonna ("Our Lady", "Lady" Gaga), the mixing and matching a kind of bricolage, the fragmentation and incoherence and raunch sexuality, as well as the inability to do much but surf and re-use the traditions instead of diving into them.

oops, that's her crotch.

Also what's with the cross on your crotch? What does that mean? Having sex with her is like getting crucified? It will kill you.

As a former Roman Catholic I still have great appreciation for the Martin de Porres imagery in Like a Prayer and Madonna's general use of her Italian Catholic heritage. But Gaga, she should have it in her--in the great tradition of many Italian Roman Catholic Americans (Scorsese, Coppola, et. al)--but boy she just can't make it work imo. Disappointing really.

@Zach, Basically. But I'm not really sure beyond skin tone why you need a Persian actor? Or possibly worse what middle eastern means here. Should every part for a Mexican be played a Mexican? Or at least Latinos only?

@North, that's a good point. The Airbender one I don't get at all.

@Chris Dierkes, you're probably right, Win S. Win is probably the better motto at this point.

@Michael Drew, that was the title of the previous post.

David,

Your definitely right that I left out the traditional philosophical-theological arguments against homosexuality and only worked with Scriptural exegesis. Fair point.

That tradition I would argue has its roots mostly in Stoicism which seems to me (ethically) to confuse the meaning of an ethical act with the bodily parts. This is how Augustine derives the notion of original sin as transmitted (like a virus) through the sexual act.

I think the Stoic tradition relies on a concept of natural law which is potentially problematic in many regards--most especially a tendency to eternalize/valorize what are social-cultural forms of practice as "nautral".

I mean if one holds that view, then scientifically there is a real question as to whether the tradition might actually support the opposite view. That is, homosexuality (and bisexuality for that matter) are quite common (even rampant) throughout the animal kingdom, including primate mammals. Including homo sapiens. Being gay, in that sense, might be naturally considered natural. If still a minority (in terms of numbers overall) natural position.

As to the criticism concerning love. I received a similar criticism in the comments to that post. I wasn't saying that you can never love the sinner and hate the sin. I should have made that point more specific, but I was saying that in this particular case I think we have reached a place where people have to make stands. Not that anyone ever is acting in the perfect manner, but to the best of our (admittedly incomplete) abilities.

I know the analog to slavery is often brought up here and has problems in certain ways, but I think in this regard it's a valuable one. You could say that someone could hate the sin of slavery and still love a slaveowner. But if someone argued that Christianity's true interpretation (and only interpretation) was to promote slavery (as the case was made and has at least some, if not sufficient evidence scripturally), then they felt it was more important to be against slavery than to be Christian.

I don't think condemning committed same sex relationships is the only interpretation of Christianity. I don't live that. Nor (as Francis points out) is there anyone who can finally decide for all Christians what their position on this topic has to be so it will never reach said point, but if we hypothetically imagine some scenario in which that were the case (and all Christians had to be against homosexuality), then I couldn't in good faith continue to do what I do.

I certainly couldn't be an ordained representative of the church.

Unfortunately too often I think the church (or rather churches) do force this black/white take it or leave it approach on folks and many get hurt and many leave it as a result.

The polls don't necessarily reflect seats to be gained. Because of the weird districting, I think Labour is likely to get seats disproportionate to their actual vote count. This is a problem for The Tories.

Smacking around The Corner and The Weekly Standard in one morning. Nice.

@Endevour to Persevere, I replied to your comment below and it should have been up here.

@Chris Dierkes, on the existence of adult lovers that is.

@Endevour to Persevere, fair point.

@JH, Not acceptance or lack of love in a general sense. I meant in the specific sense of denying these people whom I love their families, their religious lives, and their existence. Concrete love in the way of their life. That I think is a make or break relative to my religion.

As to the Romans piece I don't think I proof-texted at all. In fact I think did the opposite of proof-texting. I showed the backdrop, theological worldview, and context (within the letter itself) of the passage in question, usually proof-texted.

I simply made (a non-objectionable factual) point that there was no such thing as adult committed monogamous gay relationships in the ancient world. And now those exist and the question is is that reality part of the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality or not?

@willybobo, not exactly. the notion of images is grounded in the teaching of the Incarnation. If God became human (as Christians hold), then the created order (particularly artistic depictions of the human form) can be an appropriate vehicle to point towards the inexpressible. So long as one never confuses the art for God. In Orthodox theology this is the difference between veneration (holding an image in respect) and adoration (which alone belongs to God). The prohibition against images becomes understood in the sense of prohibiting one from mistaking the image for the thing itself (i.e. God).

As to the kosher laws, this has to do with the place of the Gentiles in the Jesus movement. Jesus was Jewish, his ministry (best as we can tell) was almost entirely if not exclusively to Jews and all his followers were Jews. So when these Gentiles show up showing signs of repentance (see Acts 10-12), what to do with them? Do they need to become Jews in order to be in the family of Abraham (as Paul will put it)? Some Jewish Jesus followers said yes (e.g. James brother of the Lord). Others no (Paul). Others seemed to have some modified view (Peter?) whereby Gentile Jesus followers would hold to the Noahide commandments which were understood by many Jews to be the commandments inculcated upon all beings. Acts of the Apostles/Luke seems to possibly advocate this position.

Overtime (i.e. 300-400 years) as Jewish Christianity eventually ends up dissipating and Christianity becomes Gentile-dominated, the Pauline view wins out. The Pauline view is that since Gentiles came to worship the God of Israel through belief in the risen Jesus, then they do not need to take up the Jewish law because that is not how they entered into the faith.

There was a school of Jewish thought that said in the messianic age Gentiles would come to the Temple in Jerusalem, throw off their idols, and worship the God of Israel as Gentiles.

The Pauline tradition seems to follow in this line of thought. They can worship God with their own cultural tradition, says Paul, since the age to come has now been initiated.

@Scott, how exactly are they going to be "made to wait?" Even if bombing them pushes the date back say 2-3 years do you think there's any chance that in the interim they would do anything but consolidate their hold on power after an attack? However much they are currently hated by the populace, they would have to rally around their gov't in case of attack.

In which case you are back to North's comment--invading? Which is insane and would violate Bolton's point about precipitate and disproportionate. Even though I disagree with him on whether an Israeli strike would violate such principles, he at least still adheres to them.

Abandoning that and arguing for massive pre-emptive action is just basically we hate these guys and want to blow them up.

Arguing for strikes doesn't seem to achieve its end AND undoubtedly brings all kinds of other horrible consequences. Worst of both worlds if you ask me.

@North, well said. see update.

@Scott, if you're looking for a scholar on the Iranian regime, I suggest Karim Sadjapour. His view (the one I find most plausible) is that what occurred after the flawed election was that in essence there was a military coup and both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are really puppets to more behind the throne powers (in the Rev. Guard). If you accept that theory, then you study the Guards actions overtime (rhetoric notwithstanding) and they generally show a trajectory towards consolidation of power.

As to the Iran-Iraq war the Iranian regime was massively under equipped relative to the Iraqi army. Their only advantage was asymmetrical warfare hence the kind of actions they used (suicide bombing, martyrdom, etc.).

I would take actions like that to suggest they know asymmetrical warfare and therefore Israel bombing them would unleash said activities (covert ops, attacks through proxy, terrorism, etc.) on Israel and US positions in the Middle East. A very bad idea I think.