“At 50, he went with then-representative John Kasich to Rolling Stones and Pearl Jam concerts-at the latter of which he threw himself into the mosh pit. According to a long-time aide, Condit attended a 50,000-strong Hell’s Angels birthday bash for a convicted cop-killer. It now emerges that he was enjoying other things, as well, that belie his Nazarene façade: Thai and Chinese food, Ben & Jerry’s low-fat chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream, body-oil massages, and ladies of all stripes-an intern, a barely legal preacher’s daughter, and a flight attendant among them. His favorite D.C. bar is a joint named Tryst; his favorite tie-rack is his headboard. Needless to say, the private Gary Condit has caught most people by surprise.” – Sam Dealey in the Weekly Standard. Hold on a minute. Didn’t even Alan Keyes jump into a mosh-pit? And what exactly is wrong with Thai and Chinese food? Or chocolate chip cookie-dough ice-cream? Or body oil massages? Or a Pearl Jam concert? Or a coffee-shop-diner (where in D.C. I eat daily) called Tryst?As to the facts, the preacher whose daughter was allegedly seduced has now said he made it up. As to Condit’s presumed guilt, it seems increasingly likely that Condit’s whereabouts are almost entirely accounted for the day Chandra Levy went missing, we are left to ask the reason for this unseemly harrumph. Dealey’s argument is summarized by this sentence: “The enlightened position Quinn propounds-that sex doesn’t matter-is only an evolved version of Clinton’s defense-that sex is private.” So sex isn’t private? And if sex isn’t, what is? After the debacle of the attack on Bill Clinton’s sex life – rather than his perjury – the puritanical right has obviously learned nothing. Until they do, the political wilderness is theirs’ to enjoy.
BUGLIOSI RIDICULOSI: The best and most thorough pricking of Vincent Bugliosi’s pomposity I’ve yet seen is Peter Berkowitz’s. Calm, thorough and accurate, this little essay is a primer not on the alleged outrage of the last election’s resolution – but on its eminent reasonableness.
REALITY BITES: American liberal orthodoxy states that race as such does not exist. It is a social construction, or a false social labeling, or another fantasy of troglodytes. That’s why it’s always interesting when science – in its neutral, non-political guise – crashes up against this shibboleth. A story in Saturday’s New York Times details the issues involved in making racial or ethnic distinctions in mapping the human genome. Part of the point of studying the genome is to find the origins of diseases – in order to find ways to cure them. But certain parts of the human population have slightly different susceptibilities to such things. So what to do? Surely Dr. Eric Lander’s view is the right one: “We must make sure the information is not used to stigmatize populations,” the Whitehead Institute scientist told the Times. “But we have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that what is learned will be useful for all populations. If we shy away and don’t record the data for certain populations, we can’t be sure to serve those populations medically.” Exactly. In this fraught area, we should stop insisting that there are no genetic differences between ethnic and racial groups, and start trying to discern the probably very subtle but also discernible differences. Scientists shouldn’t work from an a priori political stance that racial difference is a myth. They should ask naxefve questions and seek the best answers. And those answers, from everything we know, look as if they’ll be extremely complex – and possibly deeply challenging.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: A British reader takes issue with my account of the Tory leadership election. I’ve heard similar analyses from British friends, and they seem persuasive. Here it is:
“Whilst homophobia probably had a role in [Portillo’s] elimination from the contest, the reality is that few people really knew what he represented after so many of his U-turns. For instance, Portillo’s only substantive pronouncement on same-sex partnership rights was to say that he did not have an opinion either way; and his call for a public debate on drugs policy left many commentators asking in vain what his own views were.
“Even more importantly, however, was the cavalier and high-handed way in which Portillo dealt with many of his parliamentary colleagues. Following his Road to Damascus conversion to an ill-defined “caring Conservatism”, for example, this aspiring Party Leader gratuitously cut off many of his closest friends for being too right-wing, even though a number of them were the very MPs whose support he would eventually need to become Party Leader. Notably, hardly any member of the Thatcherite ‘No Turning Back’ group of MPs endorsed him. Indeed, during his candidacy, Portillo effectively said that he would expel figures like Lord Tebbit (former Party Chairman) if they publicly criticised such politically correct ideals as multiculturalism. So much for free speech in the Tories’ broad church.
“Worse still, Portillo surrounded himself with sycophantic twenty-somethings who ultimately formed the core of his campaign team and who went round telling Tory MPs, “No support, no job”. One such figure was Portillo’s principal press officer, Malcolm Gooderham, who shot to fame weeks before the General Election when he was exposed in the “Daily Mirror” newspaper for trying to plant anti-Hague stories in the tabloid press. Significantly, Gooderham was not sacked for such blatant disloyalty.
“With respect to your remarks about Ken Clarke, I believe that there is an American saying, “I’d rather be right than President”, which sums up the Conservative Party’s predicament after two consecutive 1983-style defeats. According to the opinion polls, Clarke was always the most popular of the original five candidates for Party Leader, both amongst Tory voters and the electorate at large. Both Clarke and Duncan Smith have said, moreover, that the only issue that seriously divides the Party (i.e., the euro) will be regarded as a free vote, especially whenever the referendum is held.
“Principles are wonderful things, but not much use if they condemn a political party to perpetual opposition – a lesson that Labour had to learn the hard way. Unfortunately, Michael Portillo was a flawed individual who would have been unable to return the Conservative Party to government for a variety of reasons. That is why, in the final analysis, he lost.”
The Dish 