Kofi Annan fails to scare anyone; Mike Tyson succeeds in scaring Washingtonians; Texas mom found sane, guilty, evil; Blair re-launches re-branded party; Roger Clinton deeply implicated in brother’s pardon scam; BBC chairman accuses his critics of being white and middle-class.
THE ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATS: They’re not exactly shouting from the rooftops. But they sure have their wetted fingers hoisted in the air. Janet Reno says in Florida that “I have trouble with a war that has no endgame and I have trouble with a war that generates so many concerns about individual liberties.” Notice she doesn’t say that the war has violated individual liberties, or that she believes that, but merely that there are “so many concerns” about it. Has there been any war in which such concerns have not been raised? The Richmond Times-Dispatch also reports that “the former U.S. attorney general said she thinks the government would be hard-pressed to find a legal basis to prosecute many of the Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners being detained at Guantanamo Bay.” Oh, let them go, then. Back to Sandy Berger and letting bin Laden escape from Sudan to Afghanistan. Do these people ever learn? And then there’s Senator John Kerry. As a Vietnam vet, he’ll be the front man for those Democrats desperate to dispel the war atmosphere that could realign American politics away from dovish liberals for decades. Senator Hillary Clinton spelled out the formula in Boston at a Kerry fund-raiser: “John’s leadership is critical to where we plan to go in this world. We need people of the stature and the experience of John Kerry … asking the hard questions. We are having the debate Congress is required to have – where to go, what to do.” Like most things Senator Clinton says, this is unobjectionable on its face. But its intent is clear. Some Democrats are simply uncomfortable about America having a strong and unapologetic role in the world. This isn’t treason; it’s weakness. And weakness in the dangerous world we face is an invitation for more terror. Be warned.
THEY STILL DON’T GET IT DEPT: On the anniversary of September 11, don’t you think a major newspaper might focus on the victims, the progress of the war, the remaining terrorist threats or some such confluence of stories? Not at the San Jose Mercury News. A reader points out that their Monday front page had two September 11 stories – one was titled: “BACKLASH ANXIETY”. The slug read: “Hate crimes against Arab Americans, Muslims and people simply mistaken as Middle Eastern have largely subsided. But six months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, many Bay Area residents still carry a lingering anxiety that violence and discrimination could resurface at any moment.” The second story was called: “Failed council bid raises question of intolerance,” about a Sikh candidate for office who might have been subject to anti-Sikh prejudice fueled by 9/11. Liberal bias? Ludicrous.
HAVE BLOGS REACHED THE ‘TIPPING POINT’?: An interesting article from John Hiler – the guy who figured out how blogs have hijacked Google – showing how weblogs are beginning to be the online version of what Malcolm Gladwell called “connectors” and “mavens.” Weblogs may soon become one of the most effective ways of getting a new idea out not just to other blog sites, but beyond them to the wider world.
MEDIA NUKE SHOCK HORROR: You thought yesterday’s asinine “America-as-rogue-state” New York Times editorial was bad enough? Scott Shuger has an inventory of other dumb and knee-jerk coverage of the recent shift in U.S. defense policy.
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “Eugenics, as advocated by kindly figures such as its pioneer, Sir Francis Galton, or its most eloquent exponent, Dean Inge, was simply the notion that the useful and intelligent classes should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to breed, and the murderous morons, who are never going to contribute anything except misery to themselves and others should be discouraged. No one need be killed. The eugenic case is made simply by looking at the pedigrees of the criminals who appear in court, and contrasting them with those of the judges. The overwhelming number of judges (however idiotic we may pretend they are) come from intelligent, decent families, and the overwhelming number of criminals come from stock that is violent and stupid.” – A.N. Wilson, in an article titled, ‘Our Future Lies With Eugenics,” in the Daily Telegraph.
ROD DREHER’S GAY PROBLEM: There’s no question in my mind that National Review’s Rod Dreher is not a homophobe. He’s always been extremely civil to me; he has good gay friends; he’s a brave journalist. He’s also an intelligent Catholic who knows, for example, that Navarro-Valls’ recent statement that gays should be barred from the priesthood was an outrageous distortion of what Rod would call “authentic” Catholicism. To see why, you only have to remember that amazing footage of Father Judge praying in the World Trade Center, about to meet his death. If the Vatican has its way, Father Judge would never have been allowed to be ordained. But Rod doesn’t seem to see good men like Judge when he writes. All he sees is something he calls a “lavender mafia” allegedly running the Church, controlling seminaries, discriminating against good straight Irish-Catholic boys, and the rest of it. Yes, that’s right. Gays are not victims of this Church, they are a cliquish cabal secretly running it! The evidence? Hearsay, mainly. Dreher laments a “swishy priest” whose homily led a New York cop to walk out of mass, he recommends a book whose blurbs complain about “effete” homosexuals taking over seminaries, aka gay “brothels.” He reprints letters from priests who end by proclaiming, “Stop letting the homosexual bishops and their friends pick our new bishops!” and blames the appointment of child molesters on gay bishops and cardinals. He even goes after the Jesuits: “The vindictiveness of the faithless liberals who run the heavily gay Jesuit order is staggering.” Notice the casual attempt to equate faithlessness with homosexuality. Elsewhere, Dreher insists on calling the defrocked Bishop O’Connell “this homosexual ephebophile,” as if his homosexuality is relevant in such an instance. Imagine if he had spat out the phrase “this Jewish ephebophile.” Charming, isn’t it?
THE CHURCH’S FUTURE: Then prompted by the one calm contributor to the discussion, Romesh Ponnuru, Dreher backtracks to say that he has no problem with celibate orthodox gay priests, as long as they are struggling with their “homosexuality.” (I think he means desire to have gay sex. There’s no teaching that says gay or straight Catholics should struggle against their orientation.) But what about celibate, orthodox happily gay priests? Dreher ducks the question by defining gay priests as “those that reject Rome’s teaching on both celibacy and sexuality.” But what of all the others? What about those who are celibate and support the Church’s teaching on sexuality? What of those who are celibate and privately differ with the official teaching but do not publicly challenge it? What of those who are celibate but privately offer help and guidance to gays and straights struggling to deal with the Church’s teachings on sex? What about those who would like to reconcile their faith with their sexual orientation but, faced with no middle way, are forced into the hands of radicals? And what about those who, like many straight priests, struggle to be celibate but occasionally fail? Should any priest who strays once or twice be expelled? These are the difficult practical questions that cannot be explained or discussed in the context of paranoid rants about “lavender mafias” and seminarian brothels. What we need is firm discipline of any priest – gay or straight – who violates the trust of minors, greater guidance and counseling for gay candidates for the priesthood, and a period of reflection about the meaning of priesthood itself – and how we can rescue what is obviously a deeply troubled vocation for the enormous challenges of the future. And less hysteria and paranoia. Please.
The Dish 