Have you ever read a weirder New York Times’ “EDITOR’S NOTE” than yesterday’s? Here it is: “Readers who solve The Times’s Sunday puzzles may wish to skip this note until they have completed today’s crossword. That puzzle, on Page 64 of the magazine, is titled “Homonames.” Its principal answers are homonyms of well-known names — words pronounced like the names but spelled differently and unrelated in meaning. After advance copies of the magazine had been delivered, a few readers, perhaps prompted by the sound of the title, said they perceived allusions to gay life among the puzzle clues. Slurs involving sexual orientation would be a violation of The Times’s standards. The newspaper has requested and received assurances from the puzzle editor and the puzzle creator, a veteran Times contributor, that no such allusions — nor any suggestions about anyone’s sexual orientation — were intended.” Now take a look at the clues in the “Homonames” crossword: “Tote a narrow opening?” “Friend of Françoise?” “Add more lubricant.” “People who live next to a Y.” “__flash.” “Tiny openings.” “Scratched up leather straps?” “Reddish purple.” “Fashion designer Gernreich.” “Gob.” “Place to get a screwdriver.” “1967 Rookie of the Year.” I’m happy to take the Times’ word for it that this crossword had no conscious intent to make me fall about laughing. But has the crossword creator ever thought of having psycho-therapy?
AND NOW THEY’RE AFTER NORAH: I guess most of you know by now what gay leftists do to those gay men and women who dare to disagree with them. The apparatchiks of the Old Guard attack the dissidents, vilify them, smear them, ransack their private lives, do anything to keep them from being published or read or listened to. Norah Vincent, a young lesbian independent writer, is not the first. But the vicious attacks on her by the usual suspects are still depressing. Today in the New York Times, the Voice’s official gay lefty Richard Goldstein, goes on the attack again against her with this slur: “The liberal press needs to ask itself why they consistently promote the work of gay writers who attack other gay people.” Attack other gay people? Did Goldstein, who recently ransacked my private life for sport, say that with a straight face? Perhaps he is unaware of his ally, Charles Kaiser, who glibly says the following in the Times today: “I certainly think that Andrew [Sullivan’s] popularity, especially on the talk-show circuit has a lot to do with his own self hatred.” That’s not an attack on another gay person? To accuse someone of self-hatred is the lowest and cheapest of insults. It’s something no-one can rebut; and it strikes at the core of someone’s integrity. So too does the notion that those of us who want to offer a different future for homosexuals – integration into the wider world, the replacement of victimology with self-esteem, a free market economy where individuals can pursue their dreams regardless of sexual orientation – are somehow “attacking” gay people. Both these assertions are among the lowest smears possible upon someone’s integrity. The only thing lower is the charge of hypocrisy – a deliberate lie that has repeatedly been foisted on me as well. What are these smear-artists afraid of? That Norah and I might actually win an audience? That we might have earned some readership? That we might change some people’s minds? Ah, there’s the rub. The best answer to these hate-mongers is to keep writing and thinking and ignoring them. Their day is over, and the only thing left of it, like the smile of the Cheshire cat, is the lingering poison and envy that hovers in the air. Meanwhile, check out Norah’s new website. Yes, it’s www.norahvincent.com.
CATHOLIC DUAL LOYALTY AGAIN: Joe Conason’s work has always given me the willies, but his latest questioning of the motives of the spy Robert Hanssen was even more disturbing than usual. In his limning of Hanssen’s connections with Opus Dei, a special order for laity and clergy within the Catholic Church, Conason does more than simply veer up to the edge of an ancient and trusty anti-Catholic libel. He suggests that Hanssen wasn’t merely a traitor for the Russians, but a traitor for the Vatican, secretly waging war against leftists in the United States, using classified information. How’s that for a two-fer? Conason’s implication is that Hannsen’s treachery for the Pope was worse than his doings for Moscow, because he was ideologically motivated in his papist surveillance of American lefties, while merely financially interested in handing secrets over to the Russians. Worse, Hannsen’s emails show him to be appalled by Bill Clinton, Conason’s mentor in all things political and moral. Imagine that: a man who thinks more highly of the Pope than Bill Clinton! Conason veils his prejudice by citing liberal Catholics’ issues with Opus Dei. But his meaning is clear enough. Obviously, I’m not defending the activities of Hannsen. But I am querying the easy anti-Catholicism (especially when it comes to conservative Catholics) in the liberal media. Check it out for yourself. And ask yourself: would anyone get away with this kind of dual loyalty smear with any other group? American Jews, for example? I doubt it – and for good reason.
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “Hillary just doesn’t care about battered women and their kids.” Sub-head on a piece by Richard Miniter, Wall Street Journal. Does she hate cuddly little animals as well?
LETTERS:A Hillary mystery unraveled; dumber jocks; the hell of special interest groups; etc.
CHINA’S ANTI-CHOICE POLICIES: The Daily Telegraph reports that China is going to force up to 20,000 abortions in a small province that has been bucking the neo-fascist government in Beijing. Amazing quote from a U.N. official, Sven Burmester, the United Nations Population Fund representative in Beijing: “For all the bad press, China has achieved the impossible. The country has solved its population problem.” The bad press includes the drowning of infants in rice-paddies, forced abortions for heavily pregnant women, coerced sterilizations, and on and on. Here’s a simple good faith test for feminist groups in the U.S.: take a stand against forced abortions and sterilization in China. Or is ‘choice’ for women merely a noble principle when the government is attempting to stop abortion rather than impose it?
The Dish 