Month: May 2003

“Brain studies reinforce what recovering alcoholics and their counselors have been saying for years: Long-term alcohol and other drug use changes the chemistry of the brain. These anomalies in brain patterns are associated with a rigidity in thinking; both harm reduction and Alcoholics Anonymous treatment approaches focus on helping people in recovery work on their destructive thought processes. ‘Dry drunk’ is a slang term used to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober; such an individual tends to go to extremes. It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush’s speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms — “crusade,’ ‘infinite justice’ — that were later withdrawn. Next came ‘evildoers,’ ‘axis of evil,’ ‘regime change” — terms that have almost become cliches. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics and addicts I had treated.” – Katherine van Wormer, San Francisco Chronicle.

INSTA-COMMENT!: I sent the quote above out on the Inside Dish this week (to get a weekly newsletter from the site with advance access to articles and extra goodies, click here). Here’s one of the best emails I got in response, from someone who actually is an addict:

I’m a newly-recovering methamphetamine addict. I am part of the growing wave of meth/sex dual addicts in the gay community, but working hard on living healthy. Being HIV positive demands it, really, and with a viral load now at 75 I have a shot at living a long time. As you can well imagine this issue is extremely important to me. I have just under 60 days of good sobriety after 3 years of increasing use, so I can’t claim to be an expert on recovery issues … yet. But I’ll tell you this: the only rigidity in my thinking is related to the tunnel vision of extreme attachment to my drugs of choice. In all other areas, my intelligence, perceptions, and feelings are quite fine (now), thank you. To use the language of recovery to make a political attack is not just Begala-esque, it is putrid and insulting. Oh wait, is there any difference?
Bush, unlike our previous addict, I mean, president, all but admitted his addiction in this year’s State of the Union address. Thus his compassion. Seriously, when he made his comment about how addiction reduces one’s life focus into a single destructive compulsion – as an active addict at the time, I almost burst into tears.
For Bush, outright admission would not have been proper, as it would have given a bit too much encouragement to those of us still wallowing in the self-pity of our addictions. Bush’s eloquent allusion to his past drug use was a far cry from Cleopatra “Queen of Denial” Clinton’s “I lit it, put my mouth on it, sucked it, but I’m sure no THC made it into my bloodstream” denial.
I don’t know about you, but in my experience, an addict working on his problem is far more honest and trustworthy than someone who may or may not have been an addict, depending on what the definition of addict is, but is in denial about that or something, or in Clinton’s case, everything else.

Amen. I also found that section of Bush’s State of the Union profoundly moving. And his record on AIDS, in comparison to Clinton’s talk-talk, is equally impressive. Yes, I know I have my issues with his record in other areas and some of his allies, but I trust him in ways I never trusted his predecessor – even on issues where Clinton seems on the surface to be superior.

Donald Luskin responds to my post about deficits. Check it out. In my defense, I didn’t buy into the notion that there was some kind of scandal in the report not being included in the Bush budget. My concerns are primarily about the analysis in the report, which I haven’t seen debunked. Yes, it’s far more important to reform entitlement spending than to keep taxes stable – I’d prefer we means-tested social security and extended the retirement age rather than forgo tax cuts – but leaving the entitlement crunch intact and cutting taxes at the same time seems irresponsible to me. That’s my point.

Some of your email responses to my post about Jonah Goldberg’s baby is worth responding to in a post. My point, broadly, is that heterosexuals do not usually realize that they disclose their sexual orientation all the time. Whenever they mention a wife or husband or child or all the other quotidian aspects of being straight, they don’t think of it as a declaration of heterosexuality. They just think they’re talking about life. And they are. But with gay people, any such references to our partners or homes or joint travels is regarded as somehow bringing up sex. Here’s en email that expresses the point well:

I hope the Jonah tiff is tongue-in-cheek. The equating of the birth of a child or a father’s pride with your lust for the boyfriend is stunningly stupid.

Note that this reader can only conceive of my relationship in terms of lust. Not love or companionship or respect or shared interests or reading the paper together or taking turns to walk the dog or watching Jimmy Kimmel each night. All my relationship will ever be to this reader is sex. Here’s another email making the point more graphically:

I’m not sure you’ll get your wish. Heterosexuality is normal and it’s about life. Homosexuality is about sex. It’s normal and reasonable for heterosexuals to be repelled by implications of homosexual sex.

But homosexuality is no more about sex than heterosexuality. It’s a sexual and emotional orientation with exactly the same contours, dramas, blessings and bugbears as heterosexuality. 99 percent of a gay relationship is about life when sex isn’t happening. It’s about waking up together, getting to know each others’ friends and family, getting into a fight on vacation, or complaining about the weak coffee your boyfriend just made. That’s what I think of when I mention the boyfriend. I wouldn’t dream of talking about our sex life, which is as private as any heterosexual’s. And part of the trap gay people are in is that we don’t even have a vocabulary to describe our lives. Imagine trying to describe your relationship with your wife or husband without being able to ue the terms ‘wife’ or ‘husband.’ Would ‘girlfriend’ do? Or ‘partner’? Or some other either infantilizing or euphemized term? Without the right to marry and the vocabulary of marriage, gay people will be permanently, rhetorically and culturally marginalized, shunted to the side of families into which they are born, uniquely unable to participate in the rituals that bind families together and keep them intact. That’s why marriage is so important an issue. And that’s why the fight for equal marriage rights does not come from a place that wants to hurt the traditional family. For most of us, it comes from a desire to finally be enfranchised in the traditional family into which we were born. It’s a unifying, conservative impulse. And it has almost nothing to do with sex as such at all.

Yep, I guess they were inevitable too. I wondered why someone hadn’t had the wit to make me a Queen. Now they have.

ANTI-REPUBLICAN BIGOTS: Do they exist? Of course they do. In the gay world, I get it all the time. So does this Jewish guy.

A report commissioned by the Bush Treasury Department is left out of the budget, claims the Financial Times. Hmmm. Money quote:

The study’s analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of US economic output or more than 94 per cent of all US household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington’s “deafening” silence about the future crunch.

With each Bush budget, the fiscal future of this country – including its ability to fight necessary wars – is being gutted. Why are there so few conservative voices protesting? John Scalzi throws in his two cents.

This astonishing and deeply depressing report from the civil and external wars that have ravaged the Congo deserves to be widely read. The Rwanda genocide – one of the most horrifying events of the last century – continues in a different form, laying waste to a vast territory in central Africa. “We couldn’t believe the things these people did during the genocide, until they came and started doing them to us,” says a market-woman in Bukavu to the Economist, mixing up Hutu killers and Tutsi invaders. There is reason for a sliver of hope, with the emphasis on sliver.

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “This Republic is at its greatest danger in its history because of this Administration.” – former Klan member, now Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd.

ONE PAPER DROPS DOWD: A local Texas paper has decided not to publish Maureen Dowd any more. After her doctored quote from the president, she’s no longer a trusted columnist:

Dowd violated one of the cardinal tents of the newspaper business: Don’t mislead your readers, because your credibility is your only currency. Lose it, and the reader won’t care how good a writer you are.

Amen to that. I wonder how many other papers who syndicate Dowd are reconsidering, given her propensity to deceive.

I’m delighted that Jonah Goldberg and his wife, Jessica Gavora, have such a cute kid who’s the spitting image of her dad. I’m delighted that many NRO readers are equally chuffed. But next time I mention my boyfriend, would you please spare me the emails telling me I’m pushing my sexual orientation in your face? What has Jonah just done but declare his heterosexuality loud and clear? And good for him. But what’s sauce for the, er, well, you can fill in the rest of the metaphor yourselves.

HILLARY STIFFS GAYS: And activists are surprised? Were they alive during the Clinton administration? Yes, the Clintons sounded good, but, to echo Bob Geldof, on gay civil rights, they did fuck all.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Have you noticed that the NY Times is running banner ads at the top of The Onion’s website? I’m most annoyed at this. I read The Onion to laugh at made-up stories with forged datelines and invented quotes. Wait, no, maybe that’s the Times. I’m getting confused.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

I’m inundated with readers’ claiming false facts, shady reporting and phony by-lines at the NYT. I tell them to send their complaints directly to retrace@nytimes.com. On one issue, Adam Cohen has emailed to insist he did too visit Cass Technical High School in Detroit. Cohen’s piece had used the dilapidated state of the school to argue that predominantly minority schools were under-funded. But right next to the school was a new one, built to replace the old one at a cost of over $100 million. Cohen never mentioned what seems like a pretty pertinent fact. The reader went on:

After a few minutes of research on Nexis, I learned that the new facility is budgeted for $114.5 million. To put things in perspective, only two other high schools in the entire United States have ever been built in the $100-million range. The new building is a six-story, air-conditioned glassy building that is laboratory-intensive, with music, art and dance studios. How, I wondered, could Cohen have missed the gigantic construction site right next door to the school that he visited, or the sign prominently announcing that the building under construction is the new Cass Tech? In fact, much of the new building is already standing. How could the prospective move not have come up in conversations with administrators that Cohen supposedly interviewed? … I don’t suppose it is possible, is it, that Mr. Cohen never visited the Cass school in Detroit? It seems worth investigating, doesn’t it? The only other explanations I can think of are (a) incredibly slopply reporting, or (b) blatant bias. Which is it?

Cohen emailed me to say the following:

Re: Your “Email of the Day,” Saturday May 24, 2003: I certainly did personally visit Cass Technical High School in Detroit to report my Editorial Observer, a fact the school principal or the guidance counseler I quoted in the piece can readily confirm. I did all of my own reporting. I wish you had made an attempt to contact me–I’m reachable through the New York Times switchboard–before printing an anonymous letter attacking my professional conduct.

The email attacked no-one. It asked a simple question about what could explain this weird lacuna in Cohen’s reporting, which in the current atmosphere at the NYT is understandable. Cohen still doesn’t respond to the notion that he ignored a huge aspect of the story in order to promote his own liberal bias. As I’ve said before, at the NYT these days, you get to pick between frauds and ideologues. Cohen’s the latter. That’s now what passes for good news at the Times.

NYT CRAPOLA II: “The New York Times reported today that UM president Donna Shalala ‘received authorization Wednesday morning from the executive committee of the university’s board of trustees to negotiate the Hurricanes’ membership in the ACC.” However, a source with knowledge of the discussions said Wednesday night the executive committee did not vote Wednesday, nor did it give Shalala the green light to finalize a deal with the ACC. The source said Shalala and UM athletic director Paul Dee briefed the executive committee on the status of the ACC issue, got feedback and were told to continue their fact-finding.” – the Miami Herald, yesterday.

Here’s an email I just got from a former Bragg intern, who thinks the New York Times reporter has gotten a bum rap. For fairness’ sake, here’s the text:

I was Rick’s intern during the Spring of 2002 here in New Orleans. As someone who hopes to go into journalism, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to work with such a gifted writer.
As Rick’s intern, I would receive a call from him a couple of times each month about a story he was working. He’d have me do some background research and do a few interviews, mostly with peripheral people to the story. I would call and email him with my information in whatever city he was in working the story. When he filed his stories, I’d read through each one eagerly, hoping to spot a morsel I was able to get. Occasionally I would find a reference, and once or twice I even saw a quote I gathered. Imagine that, one sentence of something I did… in the New York Times! Usually there wasn’t much of a sign of the work I’d done, and that was okay with me. But, his stories always surprised me… how he got the details and the quotes from the people that really mattered. How they opened up to him. How he shaped and colored the story, how it jumped off the page and came to life. I’m not someone with stars in my eyes. I just recognize what a gifted reporter and writer he is. And he wasn’t making it up. Many don’t like the fact that he’s so good, but they’ve never been able to prove he lied. They never will.
You’ve painted him as a low life, abusive jerk – allegations that couldn’t be further from the truth. He never ripped me off or mistreated me. Yoder has never made such a claim. It was clear from the beginning that the internship was unpaid, and that the NY Times would not give bylines or credits to interns or stringers. It wasn’t Rick’s policy, it was the Times. If I had a problem with that I wouldn’t have accepted the position. What I got out of it was valuable experience researching and doing interviews for a top reporter. I never liked doing interviews all that much, but the experience working for Rick made me much more comfortable with the process. After all, isn’t this what internships are for? To help us people hoping to be journalists to get experience that will get us a job and make us better at what we do?
All of that to say that the Florida oyster story is by all accounts, an aberration from the norm. I’ve heard from another one of Rick’s interns that his tasks were pretty much the same as mine. There are no other charges that he relied on a stringer to this extent, and evidence points to the fact that he didn’t intend to when he started work on the story about water usage. Yeah, looking back, that decision wasn’t a great one for him. But it’s also negligent not to look at the NY Times official policy that prevented Yoder’s credit on the story (a credit he has said he never expected or even asked for). It’s also negligent not to acknowledge that news organizations (both print and broadcast) and blogs like yours, rely on legwork of others. That Wall Street Journal piece did an excellent job discussing this, using examples like the AP and magazines such as Newsweek and Time. They credit their workers, and haven’t run into this problem.
Rick has been working at the NY Times since 1994, and of course Raines wasn’t the editor then. Maybe he is one of the current editor’s favorites, but that favoritism would’ve had to have spanned various editorships to explain some sort of special treatment or conspiracy. Clearly, using interns and stringers in the manner in which he typically used them is a standard practice in various media, and hasn’t been frowned upon by the higher-ups.
Sincerely,
Erin Williamson

In my defense, I haven’t characterized Bragg’s character in this way. I don’t know him from Adam. I’ve merely characterised his reporting methods. They remain dubious, to my mind, however kind or supportive he was to young and impressionable interns.

It appears that tackling Iran is the last thing the State Department wants to do. But the Brits are beginning to be concerned with Iran’s mullahs meddling in Iraq. As Michael Ledeen explains, they have good reason to be concerned:

Inside Iraq, there are thousands of Iranian agents at work: radical Iraqi mullahs who were trained in Iranian mosques since the early 1980s, top officers of the Revolutionary Guards, various thugs and killers, and even the head of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, Ali Panahi, who was dispatched to Karbala to organize the anti-American demonstrations after the fall of Saddam, and then to Baghdad. The new American in charge of Iraq, Jerry Bremer, was so alarmed at what he saw in Iraq that he has been peppering the intelligence community for more information on Iranian operations ever since he arrived.

Iran’s deep connections to Hezbollah are also a key reason for the intractability of Palestinian terror. There’s much we can do short of military intervention: financial and logistic support for the student and opposition movement; aggressive attempts to monitor Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; outreach to dissidents through the Internet and Iranian exile radio; and so on. But military power shouldn’t be ruled out either. We are still at war. Iraq will never be successfully pacified or reconstructed without regime change in Iran. The connections between Iran’s ruling Islamofascist elite and al Qaeda need to be the subject of intense and sustained intelligence work. I suspect that we might find greater links between Tehran and al Qaeda than with any other terrorist-sponsoring state. Yes, we need to focus on Iraq right now. But not at the expense of the real source of trouble in the region.