Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Game of Thrones: Second Sons.

Rival queens. Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey) and daughter-in-law Margaery Tyrell (Natalie Dormer).

Game of Thrones Finally Takes Some Mercy on Its Viewers. By Ross Douthat, Spencer Kornhaber, and Christopher Orr. The Atlantic, May 20, 2013.

Game of Thrones Season 3, Episode 8: Weddings and Blood Offerings. By Andy Greenwald. Grantland, May 20, 2013.

Discussion of Game of Thrones Season 3, Episode 8: “Second Sons.” Panel with Ben Mankiewicz, Brett Erlich, and John Iadoarola. Video. What the Flick, May 20, 2013. YouTube.

More on Game of Thrones here.




Game of Thrones 3x08: Cersei and Margaery. Video. GameOfThrones2013, May 19, 2013. YouTube. Also here, here, and here.




Game of Thrones 3x04: Margaery Continues to Play the Game. Video. GameOfThrones2013, April 22, 2013. YouTube.




Game of Thrones 3x08: Daenerys Meets the Second Sons. Video. Jaqen H’ghar, May 19, 2013. YouTube. Also here, here and here.




Daario Naharis Joins Forces with Daenerys. Video. EvilDarkChris, May 20, 2013. YouTube. Also here and here.




Game of Thrones 3x08: Second Sons | Daenerys Scenes. Video. EmiliaClarke Ph, May 20, 2013. YouTube.



The “Muslims Killed by the West” Lie. By Dennis Prager.

The “Muslims Killed by the West” Lie. By Dennis Prager. National Review Online, May 28, 2013. Also at Real Clear Politics.

Securing Israel Today. By Pete Hegseth.

Securing Israel Today. By Pete Hegseth. National Review Online, May 28, 2013.

How Hafez al-Assad Saved Israel. By Caroline Glick.

How Hafez Assad Saved Israel. By Caroline Glick. Real Clear World, May 25, 2013. Also find it here and here.

Compass Goes to Zakopane: A Photo-Essay. By Alex Berezow.

Compass Goes to Zakopane: A Photo-Essay. By Alex Berezow. Real Clear World, May 27, 2013.


Slovakian countryside. Alex Berezow.

Bob Dole: Republican Party Should Put A Sign Up That Says “Closed For Repairs.”

Bob Dole: Republican Party Should Put A Sign Up That Says “Closed For Repairs.” Video. Real Clear Politics, May 26, 2013. YouTube here and here.

GOP Already Tried the Bob Dole Paradigm. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, May 28, 2013.

Too Many GOP Establishment Deals with Democrats Put Us Where We are Today. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, May 28, 2013.


It’s Not the Palestinian Economy, Stupid. By David Horovitz.

Memo to Kerry: It’s not the economy, stupid. By David Horovitz. The Times of Israel, May 27, 2013.

Statesmen Stuck in Middle East Time Warp. By Evelyn Gordon. Commentary, May 28, 2013.

What Is True Conservatism? By Peter Wehner.

What Is True Conservatism? By Peter Wehner. Commentary, May 24, 2013.

GOP fear of Common Core education standards unfounded. By Michael Gerson. Washington Post, May 20, 2013.


Wehner:

In a recent column, Michael Gerson wrote about modern conservatism’s “two distinct architectural styles.” One approach within conservatism, he said, celebrates those who seek to apply abstract principles in their purest form. The alternative approach is more disposed toward compromise, incremental progress and taking into account shifting circumstances.

What’s worth noting, I think, is that many of those in the first camp consider themselves to be more principled and authentically conservative than those in the second, who are often derided as RINOs and “squishes,” as part of the much-derided “establishment” and who go along to get along. These politicians continually back away from fights like shutting down the federal government, preventing an increase in the debt ceiling, going over the fiscal cliff and filibustering background checks. The failure to engage these battles, and many others, is a sign of infidelity to conservatism.

Now, it’s not as if this critique never applies. There are certainly Republicans who claim to be conservative but don’t have deep convictions, who are in politics not because they care about advancing ideas as much as they care about power and titles. But what is of more interest to me is the divide over what a genuine conservative temperament and cast of mind is. A new book on Edmund Burke, by the British MP Jesse Norman, helps illuminate this matter. Given the contours of the current debate, it’s worth recalling what Burke, whom Norman refers to as “the first conservative,” actually believed.

Let’s start with moderation, a word many modern-day conservatives instinctively recoil from but which Burke referred to as “a virtue not only amiable but powerful. It is a disposing, arranging, conciliating, cementing virtue.”

According to Norman, Burke believed the proper attitude of those who aspire to power is “humility, modesty and a sense of public duty.” He was “anti-ideological in spirit,” deeply distrustful of zealotry and believed self-correcting reforms, while certainly necessary, should be limited, discriminating, and proportionate. For Burke, Norman argues, universal principles were never sufficient in themselves to guide practical deliberation.

“Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect,” according to Burke. “The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.”

“The lines of morality are not like the ideal lines of mathematics,” he wrote elsewhere. “They admit of exceptions, they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic but by the rules of prudence.”

A Burkean approach would never insist on absolute consistency in conducting human affairs. Politics is about carefully balancing competing principles, ever alert to the dangers posed by unintended consequences. It involves taking into account public sentiments, what Burke called the “temper of the people.” Nor is politics ever as simple as saying we believe in liberty and limited government and therefore the application of those principles is self-evident. Burke’s view, according to Norman, is that “perfection is not given to man, and so politics is an intrinsically messy business… The function of politics, then, is primarily one of reconciliation and enablement.” What deeply concerned Burke were people of “intemperate minds.” What is required of statesmen is wisdom and good judgment, sobriety, foresight and prudence.

Now Burke’s interpretation of conservatism was not written on stone tablets delivered on Mt. Sinai–and even if it were, merely to invoke Burke does not mean one is properly applying his insights to the here and now. But it does strike me that as this debate intensifies, and as various people lay claim to being the True Conservatives, it’s worth reminding ourselves what the greatest exponent of conservatism actually believed.

Orthodox Paradox. By Noah Feldman.

Orthodox Paradox. By Noah Feldman. New York Times Magazine, July 22, 2007. Also find it here.

In Syria, Go Big or Stay Home. By Ray Takeyh.

In Syria, Go Big or Stay Home. By Ray Takeyh. New York Times, May 27, 2013.

Takeyh:

From liberal internationalists to hawkish conservatives, a chorus of influential voices in Washington is suggesting that American intervention in Syria would also do serious damage to Bashar al-Assad’s close ally, Iran.

Military action in Syria would demonstrate, so the argument goes, that America is serious about enforcing its red lines. Impressed and crestfallen, Iran’s recalcitrant mullahs would scale back their nuclear zeal and conform to international nonproliferation agreements.

However, given the fact that any intervention by the Obama administration is likely to be tentative and halting, rather than an overwhelming show of military force, it is not likely to end Syria’s civil war or intimidate Iran’s rulers.

The sort of intervention needed to bring about a decisive rebel victory would require more than no-fly zones and arms. It would mean disabling Mr. Assad’s air power and putting boots on the ground. America would have to take the lead in organizing a regional military force blessed by the Arab League and supported by its own intelligence assets and Special Forces. After that would come the task of reconstituting Syria and mediating its sectarian conflicts. As the war in Iraq painfully demonstrated, refashioning national institutions from the debris of a civil war can be more taxing than the original military intervention.

Because it would take all of this to oust Mr. Assad and end the violence, America must accept the need for a robust intervention. There is no easy solution or middle ground. Moreover, rather than intimidating Iran, a less-than-decisive American intervention in Syria would do the opposite. It would convince Iran’s leaders that America doesn’t have an appetite for fighting a major war in the region.

There is something curious about the debate gripping Washington. Although more than 70,000 Syrians have been killed since the civil war began and the Assad regime appears to have violated all norms of warfare by using chemical weapons against civilians, calls for robust intervention are muted.

The legacy of Iraq looms large. A war-weary nation that has sacrificed so much on the battlefields of the Middle East is reluctant to embark on new campaigns. Neither the Obama administration nor its Congressional critics seem to have an appetite for nation-building. And there is a reluctance to admit that half measures like arming the rebels or establishing a no-fly zone are unlikely to end the suffering of the Syrian people in the face of a determined Alawite minority, led by a vicious Mr. Assad, who has no qualms about carrying out ethnic cleansing in a struggle to the death.

A prolonged war in Syria would offer Iran the same advantages that America’s invasion of Iraq did. Once the United States settled into the task of reconstituting Iraq, generals, politicians and pundits insisted that a second front couldn’t be opened in the Middle East. As Washington tried to sort out Iraq’s troubles, it ignored Iran’s mischief and subversion.

While Iran enjoyed immunity from American military force as a result of Washington’s preoccupation with Iraq’s civil war, Iranian proxies in Iraq systematically assaulted American troops with I.E.D.’s and helped derail their mission. In the meantime, Iran’s mothballed nuclear infrastructure was taken out of storage and refurbished.

If a very reluctant Obama administration does becomes entangled in Syria, it is likely to treat Iran with the same degree of caution as the more hawkish Bush administration did — avoiding any direct confrontation with Iran and refraining from issuing ultimatums about Iran’s nuclear program. The result would be an emboldened Iran willing to cross the nuclear threshold and assert its dominance throughout the region.

To be clear, there is no doubt that a decisive rebel victory in Syria and the fall of the Assad dynasty would constitute a major setback for Iran, given that Syria has always been Iran’s most reliable pathway to its proxy Hezbollah. But a rebel rout is highly unlikely without full-scale, decisive American intervention.

Facing public pressure to stop the violence, Washington may soon embark on an incremental intervention that would gradually deepen American involvement without producing a decisive outcome. But such half measures won’t impress Iran’s hardened rulers, who are engaged in a fundamental struggle for the future of the Middle East.

Pleased with Mr. Obama’s much vaunted pivot to Asia, the mullahs in Tehran are already convinced that America seeks deliverance from its Arab inheritance. A major American intervention would give them pause; a reluctant intercession in Syria by a hesitant America would only enhance their resolve.

Paradoxically, an intervention intended to persuade Iran’s leaders of the viability of American red lines could instead convince them that their nuclear program is safe from American retaliation.

Rush Limbaugh: Liberals Think Conservatives Are “Rotten, Evil People.”

The Media Will Not Turn on Obama. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, May 28, 2013.

Rush:

Republicans don’t try to suppress anything. You know, liberals think that we are bad people. We think they have bad ideas. It’s a huge difference. They think we are reprehensible people. We think they have bad ideas. (interruption) Some of them are what? (interruption) Some of the what, the ideas or the people? (interruption) Well, yeah, but my point is that it’s an attitude and a mind-set. The liberal . . . The thing that animates them is that we are rotten, evil people.

To hell with our ideas. I mean, they don’t even go there. They don’t even debate our ideas. We are just rotten, evil people. When commenting on them in public, let’s talk about how their ideas are bad. They are far more grievous and aggressive in their pursuit of us and their attempt to relegate us to irrelevance. It’s the old Obama bromide here of eliminating all opposition. That’s what the IRS scandal was about: Eliminating opposition.

Obama doesn’t want to debate ideas. Obama doesn’t want to debate anybody. He doesn’t want to listen to Republicans’ alternative ideas on health care, alternative ideas on jobs, alternative plans. He doesn’t want to do that. He doesn’t wanna deal with alternative ideas. He doesn’t wanna deal with that. He just wants to eliminate opposition. So the IRS scandal was an overwhelming success, and media isn’t gonna change anybody’s opinion. The media’s not gonna do anything about that.

Wedding Party Plunge Video.

Wedding Party Plunge Video. TheRemedyFilms, May 20, 2013. YouTube. Also here.




Different Wedding Party Plummets into Water After Pier Gives Way. Video. AOL News, May 28, 2013.

Chris Matthews: “Ted Cruz is the Unsmiling, Contemptuous Face of the Wild, Nasty Hard-Right.”

Chris Matthews: “Ted Cruz is the Unsmiling, Contemptuous Face of the Wild, Nasty Hard-Right.” By Noel Sheppard. NewsBusters, May 24, 2013. See also Breitbart, Townhall, Mr. Conservative, Washington Examiner, YouTube.

Ted Cruz Takes Center Stage, Media Increases Attacks. By Breeanne Howe. RedState, May 29, 2013.




Matthews:

Let me finish tonight with this. Ted Cruz of Texas is a disaster, not least for the Party that ran him for the Senate. He says he doesn't trust his fellow Republicans. Neither, he said, does he trust Democrats. He’s putting himself on the national stage as the enemy of compromise, of reasonable comity between the Parties, of bipartisan agreement itself.

No, Senator Cruz wants all out political war. He wants to bring down the budget, forfeit any Congressional control on spending or taxation. He prefers a chaotic order on Capitol Hill where he can stand in the middle of the legislative traffic yelling stop, where he can derail any reasonable budget control in order to bring attention to himself. He’s come to Washington to start fights, to disrupt any chance of ending this dysfunction because dysfunction is what he dearly hopes to someday challenge.

Pay attention to Senator Cruz because he is the unsmiling, contemptuous face of the wild, nasty, hard-right fringe of a Party that once competed with the Democrats to be the country’s governing Party. All Cruz wants to do is prove that self-government is evil or impossible or whatever else will justify his existence as a hard-right political bomb thrower.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Chinese Single Women’s Ideal Men: “Secondhand” Suitors Surprisingly Popular. By Rachel Wang.

(via Flickr/花花视界@厦门)

Chinese Single Women’s Ideal Men: “Secondhand” Suitors Surprisingly Popular. By Rachel Wang. Tea Leaf Nation, May 21, 2013.

How Can a Chinese Woman Born in 1990 Already Be “Too Old” for Marriage? By Liz Carter and Rachel Wang. Tea Leaf Nation, March 4, 2013.

In an American Classroom, Awakening to the Reality of Chinese Gender Discrimination. By Jan Cao and Xueting Liu. Tea Leaf Nation, March 25, 2013.

One of the World’s Most Amazing Love Stories Happened on a Mountain in China. By Shelley Jiang. Tea Leaf Nation, November 6, 2012.

Getting Married to Get Ahead in China’s Business World. By Eveline Chao. The Daily Beast, April 9, 2013.


Wang:

A recent survey of over 35,500 single ladies in China offers some insight into Chinese women’s attitudes towards men and marriage. The survey, which included questions such as “Why are you still single?” and “What kind of man do you hope to marry?” shed light on the types of men that single Chinese women prefer, with some surprising results.

While 51.13% of the women surveyed regarded “getting married” as their goal, they reported that the top three male traits that made them prefer singlehood were men’s constant involvement in “ambiguous” love affairs, their tendency to talk a lot but accomplish little, and their stinginess. While these feelings may resonate globally, what set the Chinese marriage market apart were respondents’ attitudes towards men, as well as their expectations and standards for their potential future husbands.

When asked “What kind of men are you willing to marry?” the most popular response was “a divorced man who owns a house and car,” followed by “a successful 40-something man who has gone on a lot of blind dates but is still single.” Interestingly – and even a bit surprisingly – the least popular kind of man, coming in behind even “an unassuming computer programmer,” and “a handsome freelancer,” was the so-called “phoenix man,” a high-level corporate manager with a lot of relatives. More broadly defined, a “phoenix man” is someone who came from humble beginnings, made his way through school, exhausted resources of his family in the process, and was expected to change the fate of the family when he eventually succeeded.

Instead of being regarded as heroes who changed their own destinies, “phoenix men” have long been unpopular in the Chinese marriage market, especially among “peacock girls” – those from urban, relatively wealthy families. Women dislike what they perceive to be the men’s insecurity, fear of failure, penny pinching, inferiority complexes, and prioritization of his extended family over his own wife and kids. These are thought to be traits irreversibly ingrained in his psyche by the time he reaches adulthood.

Many Chinese believe that when you marry someone, you are marrying into a lifestyle and an entire family. In a country with conservative marriage traditions, many men and women still think divorce is shameful and that second marriages should be low-profile. China has some long-standing traditions when it comes to marriage, including especially tight family ties, living with the husband’s family after marriage, and having the wife serve his parents and potentially his entire family. In modern days, couples who live and work in more westernized urban areas are less likely to abide by such traditions, but they have not completely disappeared and may remain in the back of women’s minds like a time bomb.

Many single Chinese women therefore find it difficult to decide whom to marry. On the one hand, marrying a relatively rich divorced man is like taking a “secondhand” man, and they may feel they lose face by doing so. On the other hand, marrying an affluent “phoenix man” might embroil the woman in endless troubles with his extended family.

Netizens weighed in on the dilemma. One woman commented on the survey, “I personally think that you may lose face by marrying an old man [a divorced, middle-aged man], but at least you might have some security in life. He might also be less flirtatious [with other women]. A more stable life would bring you a sense of safety.” On Weibo, a Twitter-like social media platform, user @bt桃子 remarked, “One reason marrying a divorced man is better than marrying a single man is that you can see what his attitude toward marriage is: whether he is abusive, whether he is responsible enough, whether he likes to get involved in love affairs. It’s hard to learn any of this about a single man unless you’ve lived closely with him for a while.”

A comment by Weibo user @一帘花碎影 illustrated some of the main complaints women have about “phoenix men”:
Love yourself! Stay away from phoenix men! They bear the entire family’s hopes while in college, and get what they believe is a good job in a state-owned company with a salary of two or three hundred thousand a year. If you are not from a rich family, his entire family will think that you are not good enough for him. Down the line, his relatives will always come visit him, borrow money for all sorts of reasons, and make you help them get jobs. If you don’t help them, they will think he is an ungrateful child who has no appreciation for their sacrifices.
Women faced these tough choices in a variety of ways. A plurality of those surveyed reported that in their single lives they chose to devote themselves to their work. Almost half reported they had no sex life. A sizable 13.28% said they did not want to marry, while 23.87% said they were, “uncertain, tired, and might never love again.”

In the end, many Chinese women still find choosing a marriage partner very difficult. An easier relationship might come with other trade-offs, while a harder one might not be worth the energy spent. It is worth noting, though, that only single women participated in this survey, so it does not reflect the views of all Chinese women or Chinese society as a whole. Many couples are happily married every day: the marriage registration computer system recently crashed because of the large volume of couples who wanted to get married on May 20, a date that is a homonym for “I love you” in Mandarin.


A young Chinese couple catches a private moment during their wedding. (Amaotou/Flickr)

College Grads Are Jobless In China’s “High-Growth” Economy. By Gordon G. Chang.

College Grads Are Jobless In China’s “High-Growth” Economy. By Gordon G. Chang. Forbes, May 26, 2013.

Why Chinese college graduates aren’t getting jobs. By Lotus Yuen. The Atlantic, May 24, 2013. Also at Quartz.

Why America’s Mideast Peace Push May Actually Make Sense. By Haviv Rettig Gur.

Why America’s peace push may actually make sense. By Haviv Rettig Gur. The Times of Israel, May 27, 2013.

The Demise of Middle East Borders. By Dore Gold.

The Demise of Middle East Borders. By Dore Gold. Israel Hayom, May 24, 2013.

Some Cracks in the Cult of Technocrats. By Chrystia Freeland.

Some Cracks in the Cult of Technocrats. By Chrystia Freeland. New York Times, May 23, 2013. Also at Reuters.

Economics versus Politics: Pitfalls of Policy Advice. By Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. Draft paper. MIT.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Why Camp David Changed Nothing. By Christian Caryl.

What I Left Out. By Christian Caryl. Foreign Policy, May 24, 2013.

Economy Needs Both Reform and Investment. By Fareed Zakaria.

Economy needs both reform and investment. By Fareed Zakaria. Washington Post, May 22, 2013.

Paul Krugman’s blog: The Conscience of a Liberal. New York Times.

What Conservative Reformers Don’t Like About Immigration Reform. By Ross Douthat.

What Conservative Reformers Don’t Like About Immigration Reform. By Ross Douthat. New York Times, May 24, 2013.

The “Sensible” Objections to the Gang of Eight Bill Don’t Make Much Sense Either. By Matthew Yglesias. Slate, May 8, 2013.

Solving the Immigration Puzzle. By Reihan Salam. National Review Online, May 9, 2013.

What Mideast Crisis? Israelis Have Moved On. By Ethan Bronner.

What Mideast Crisis? Israelis Have Moved On. By Ethan Bronner. New York Times, May 25, 2013.

Why Israelis Have Moved On. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, May 26, 2013.

Forty Days After the Boston Bombing: We Must Stop Radical Jihad. By Karima Bennoune.

40 days after Boston bombing: We must stop radical jihad. By Karima Bennoune. The Guardian, May 25, 2013.

John Quincy Adams on America’s Role in the World.

An Address Delivered at the Request of a Commission of the Citizens of Washington; on the Occasion of Reading the Declaration of Independence, on the Fourth of July 1821. By John Quincy Adams. Washington: Davis and Force, 1821. Also find it here, here, and here.

John Quincy Adams’ Address of July 4, 1821. By Jerald L. Banninga. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 53, No. 1 (1967).


Excerpt, pp. 28-29:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the older world, the first observers of mutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire, what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this–America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice, and equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

Skylar Neese, 16-Year-Old West Virginia Honors Student, Murdered by Classmates.

Skylar Neese Murder: Rachel Shoaf’s Plot To Kill Classmate Shocks Town. By Vicki Smith. AP. The Huffington Post, May 25, 2013.

Shock as 16-year-old confesses to stabbing classmate who was missing for two months “just because she didn’t like her anymore.” Daily Mail, May 25, 2013.

Court Transcript: Shoaf and Co-Conspirator Planned Skylar Neese’s Murder. By Kim Freda. WBOY.com, May 16, 2013.

Body Found in PA Identified as Missing Star City Teen. WBOY.com, March 13, 2013.


Skylar Neese