The meaning of marriage, anthropologically speaking

Those inclined to consider the purpose of marriage might want to hear what anthropologists have to say on the subject:

Arlington, Virginia--The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, released the following statement on February 26, 2004 in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Thomas Friedman gets it right

While I’ve obviously become fatigued with political postings, I still fear that “they are trying to kill us.” Thomas Friedman got it right, I think, in yesterday’s NYT (the first paragraph resonating with the right and the second, I hope, with everybody):

Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.

Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price — in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits — see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none.

What would you ask? Update: Nothing is what you will ask.

This is part of the Radio City Music Hall Speaker Series.

What would you ask? I know the question invites humorous responses. But seriously, if you could get a truthful, complete response to a serious question, what would it be? I think I'd be asking about the Federal Reserve and the 2008 meltdown because everything else is a side show in comparison.

Update 11/5/09: As LJ commented, this is cancelled due to overaggressive language by the promoters that made it sound more adversarial than the Presidents intended the event to be.

Crusades circa 2001

I can't wrap my head around the recent GQ story by Robert Draper about Rumsfeld's use of Bible verses in daily digests of military intelligence prepared for Pres. Bush. The story includes a slideshow of the actual memos. Example here:
I'm not sure which frightens me more: to imagine that this reflected the view from the top at the Pentagon (i.e. that the U.S. military really was fighting a religious war); or that it doesn't reflect Rumsfield's view but was used to manipulate the President (and that we had a president that could be manipulated this way).

Notably absent are slides labeled with these Bible verses:

Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Re: Presidential respect

I'm sure this won't satisfy all, but a reporter at Slate comments on the habits of reporters standing (and not standing) for the president:

The discrepancy in treatment is all the proof a Republican needs to show that the press shows special deference to the new Democratic president. It's a distorted picture, though. We stood all the time for President Bush. Reporters customarily do so to show respect for the office of the presidency. In the East Room of the White House, we stood not only when the president came in but to ask questions. Some reporters said thank you to the president even before asking their questions. This practice continues under President Obama.

There are different rules for the briefing room though, which is the place both events on the video took place. It's more informal. (CBS's Mark Knoller talked to Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who confirmed that no offense was taken when the press didn't stand in the briefing room.) It's not that there is a no-standing policy, exactly, but more that the question is unresolved. The press didn't stand for Bush in February but did when the president visited the briefing room for the last time. When he held press conferences in the Eisenhower Old Executive Office Building, the press did stand. Same with the Rose Garden. (On foreign trips, it was confusing. We stood when the host country's press corps often didn't, but once in Tanzania the roles were reversed for some reason, and the U.S. press had to stand quickly to catch up with the local Tanzanians.)

[Update to add a little more; JUMP]
Why, then, didn't the members of the press stay in their seats when Obama walked in last Friday? Unlike the Bush planned press conference in February, Obama's visit was a complete surprise (you hear fewer clicks because not every photographer is there), which meant the natural instinct to stand when a president enters the room may have kicked in. As you can see from the video, they also ruined the shot, which means standing not only invited grief from conservatives but from their colleagues, too.

Scooter's indictment

I've not read it nor all the commentary leading up to it, and I'm not sure this is THE lie, but if Libby lied about the fact that Cheney told him about Plame early on (as his notes seem to indicate) then he was covering for his boss. Which, it turns out, he didn't need to do because she hadn't been covert for the requisite number of years.

While lying to a grand jury is a serious matter, his motives were at least selfless (cf Martha Stewart).

Query: Is the loss of Libby all that big of a deal to the White House?

Query two: Don't the facts that (1) the indictment is about only (!) lying to the grand jury, and (2) Rove was not indicted make this a rather tepid tempest in the proverbial teapot? And to query further, doesn't this take the wind out of the Left's sails AND with the upcoming strong nomination for SCOTUS, put The White House in the best position it's been in for weeks?