It's pretty much a cliche at this point that the Lox aren't going to be commercially successful, skills notwithstanding. But even when the odds are stacked against you, some errors are unforced ones. Like -- oh, I don't know -- sampling the Cheers theme and making it gangster.

Sommer takes a Twitterdebate public. The Slanket: an enormous wearable fleece blanket, shapeless and akin to a cleric's robes. Are these things ever appropriate? I say: yes, and buy me one. 

Here's how she constructs the debate:

In one corner are those who reasonably argue that these blankets are an abomination, too strange and ridiculous looking to even be considered a reasonable purchase. In the other corner, the comfort-at-all-costs camp, who say that staying warm while having your hands free is just awesome enough to merit looking like a jerk. These are invariably the same people who show up at the airport in their pajamas and think shorts and flip-flops are perfectly fine fashion choices for a second date.

Wow! I cooked you dinner yesterday and this is how you repay me?  For the record, I've worn a tie to work twice this week, and vests -- either of the button-up or sweater variety -- every day. I overdress for air travel. I don't own a set of pajamas, but if I did, I wouldn't change into them as soon as I came home from work. I do, however, live in a drafty house and would prefer not to freeze or layer up just to watch TV or read a book on my couch. Is it so wrong to want to be warm and comfortable? 

Here's what she told Time's Michael Scherer:

I strongly believe there should be a single, clear standard for interrogation across the federal government, and that this standard should comply with the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and U.S. law. I plan to introduce legislation in January that would close Guantanamo, make the Army Field Manual the single standard for interrogations, prohibit contractors from being used to carry out interrogations and provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to detainees. If the incoming administration decides to propose an alternative to this legislation, I am willing to hear its views. But I believe we must put an end to coercive interrogations by the CIA.

This is clearly more specific about what Feinstein, the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, thinks is appropriate in interrogations. She clarifies that she isn't backing away from making the Army Field Manual on Interrogations the proper government-wide standard, which her previous statement didn't do. And it's hard to see, after this statement, how Feinstein is taking any position that could remotely be construed as lax on torture.

What still confuses me is why she stepped out into these waters in the first place. Did she misspeak? Sure, OK, we all do from time to time. Was she trying not to get out in front of the still-coalescing Obama administration? Or is there actually some significant push from some unknown-to-me quarter, in either the new administration or the intelligence community, to resist making the Army Field Manual the new interrogation standard?

Crossposted to The Streak.

Ah, but you'd be neglecting the cancer of religious extremism right here at home. Matt Duss at the Center for American Progress takes note of pastor Rick Warren, who appeared on Sean Hannity's scummy little Fox News show to say that the U.S. has a divine obligation to attack Iran. Here's the relevant exchange:

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous [by saying we should kill Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad]?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

Am I drawing an equivalence between Rick Warren and Islamic extremists? Why, yes, yes I am. That's because his statements are identical to those of the demagogic, fanatical preachers who motivate perplexed children into fighting religious wars. As Duss observes:

[I]f this were a conversation between an Iranian TV host and an ayatollah in which they discussed scriptural justifications for “taking out” high ranking members of the U.S. government, you’d probably see Sean Hannity running the clip on his show — while slowly shaking his head in pious disapproval — as evidence of what crazy extremists those Iranians are. As it is, they’ll probably be running this on Iranian TV as evidence of what crazy extremists those Americans are.

Somewhere, a student with the wrong last name or the wrong place-of-birth is being pulled out of line at an airport and questioned, while religious fanatics like Warren enjoy the deference of politicians, businessmen and media figures.

Crossposted to The Streak.

Then other times I find myself completely ignorant about Israeli politics and come across elegant, powerful and moving essays like Gershom Gorenberg's semi-requiem for the Labor Party and feel the old tribal itch again. But I'd only be redundant. Read this.

And one more thing: in comments, don't push my buttons about Israel or the Jews, OK? I don't need to hear how you think the discourse on Israel is stifled or how the Israelis get away with murder without criticism or how American Jews aren't nearly sufficiently critical of Israel or blah blah blah. Not a single one of these statements is at all interesting or original. If you can't tell, I am trying to betray my heritage here, and you aren't making it easy on me.

Chalk up another win for the counterinsurgents. The Washington Post reports today that one of the final acts of the Bush-era Gates Pentagon (as opposed to the Obama-era Gates Pentagon) is to elevate irregular warfare -- stability operations, counterinsurgency, all that asymmetrical stuff that isn't two mechanized armies clobbering one another -- to the same policy standing as the old stuff. Deputy secretary Gordon England, who's on his way out, signed some paper:

The directive, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on Monday, requires the Pentagon to step up its capabilities across the board to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign security forces, surrogates and indigenous resistance movements to shore up fragile states, extend the reach of U.S. forces into denied areas or battle hostile regimes.

Does this sound familiar? It should. The directive takes a very similar approach to the Army's new stability operations field manual, the one that places what used to be called post-conflict operations in the same military pantheon as offensive and defensive operations. It's a recognition that the current security environment is one in which the U.S. is challenged less by armies and navies than by failures of governance and fanatics with cell phone -activated bombs and destabilizing economic imbalances.

The policy change is largely the result of the assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities -- one of the positions I said in a recent piece to keep an eye on when looking at the shape of the Obama administration. Michael Vickers -- who you may remember as the killer geek from "Charlie Wilson's War" -- explains what it's all about:

Vickers said he envisions that the Pentagon's primary vehicle for carrying out irregular warfare operations will be a global network -- already underway -- made up of the U.S. and foreign militaries and other government personnel in scores of countries with which the United States is not at war. The network is designed to wage "steady state" counterterrorism operations. The directive also requires the Pentagon to develop capabilities to conduct larger-scale irregular campaigns, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The goal of the network, Vickers said in a recent speech, is ambitious: "to create a persistent, ubiquitous presence against our adversaries . . . and essentially to smother them over time."

The directive "should have a big impact on resources" as well as military planning, Vickers said.

We'll see whether that cashes out to mean civilian resources located in the Pentagon actually go back to the civilian agencies that really ought to be able to supplement stability operations and irregular warfare. State, USAID, Agriculture, I'm looking at you.

Crossposted to The Streak.

[Ret. Rear Adm. John] Hutson said the new administration should stick to what he called the "golden rule": "What would we want the enemy to inflict on us or not inflict on us?" Any deviation from norms such as the Geneva Conventions, he said, undermines the ability of the United States to insist on the proper treatment of any captured American soldiers and damages the standing of the United States around the world.

Hard to argue with that. And why would you want to?

Crossposted to The Streak