It’s hard not to be struck by the following story in the New York Times today about the Iranian response to President Bush’s aggressive posture in his state of the union address. Here’s the money quote:
But Mr. Bush’s implied threat against Iran generated a discussion among politicians here about relations with the United States, with many arguing that anti-American oratory no longer serves Iran’s interests. Some suggested that direct talks were the only way to avert the threat. The minister of defense, Ali Shamkhani, was summoned to Parliament to answer questions over hostile remarks by one of his commanders.
Duh. The language these regimes understand is the language of clarity, force and threat. Engaging them in dialogue without the credibility of the potential use of force is pointless. I just don’t buy the argument that soothing words promote the chances for peace or reform. On the contrary. I hope Dick Cheney gets this. And I hope that his emollient stance in the Middle East is a great fake that will lead to decisive action against Iraq.
CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE IN AFRICA: A reader reminds me of this year-old piece in the National Catholic Reporter. It highlights grotesque heterosexual priestly abuse of nuns in Africa – one of the centers for Catholic growth in the world. Nuns were selected for sex because, in a continent plagued by AIDS, they were deemed more likely to be HIV-negative and so less likely to infect the priests. Many other African priests, of course, are covertly married to one or more women, and the Church turns a blind eye. More and more, it seems to me that the strained sexual doctrines of the current church – with regard to both priests and laity – are beginning to destroy the Church from within. And the Pope’s deafening silence on this – and Cardinal Egan’s refusal to acknowledge his own past malfeasance – suggests that this is only going to get worse before it gets any better.
STEIN VERSUS KRUGMAN: Here’s an amusing and pertinent critique of Paul Krugman’s anti-monetarism by Ben Stein. Krugman’s Tobin column has enraged a whole swath of academic economists who don’t hew to Krugman’s politics. Still, it seems to me Krugman has a point in his column on health-care today. He’s dead-on in noting that a huge, looming issue in our politics is government guaranteed health-care for seniors and others – and the vast expenditures it would require. But he’s surely excessive in thinking that Americans cannot tolerate inequalities in health-care between the rich and the poor. Such inequalities are inevitable in a free society and with a free-ish market in health-care goods and services. Where most people do agree is that what Krugman calls ‘essential’ health-care should be available to all. The difficult issue is how to define ‘essential.’ Technology, as Krugman rightly notes, has transformed and is about to transform even further what medicine can do for us. The hard question is: what is ‘essential,’ given almost limitless possibilities? The latest breakthrough drugs – or generic ones? State-of-the-art surgery – or emergency care? What we now regard as essential would have been deemed science fiction by the men and women who first came up with Medicare and Medicaid. So do we keep these models of government-guaranteed health-care or junk them? These are immensely hard calls and I wish conservatives would be more openly honest about the trade-offs we have to make. Of course, when the issue is fodder for demagoguery by liberals, it becomes harder to have a serious debate. A simple, universal entitlement to the best healthcare available at any point now and in the future would simply bankrupt the country. But what stopping place before that point is morally and fiscally acceptable? And is there any way to have a political debate about this that doesn’t degenerate into life-and-death horror stories? Count me as one of the less hopeful observers.
MAN WINS FEMALE BEAUTY PAGEANT: At Harvard, natch. The story gets better as it goes along.
The Dish 