Month: April 2002

Sorry, but I’m taking today off the site. We opened last night, and I need a little time just to get some personal air, pay overdue bills, hang with the beagle, etc. This production has been a little like finishing a marathon, except another marathon is also just beginning. I’ll be back tomorrow. Promise.

I think that Paul Krugman believes that president Bush is the American equivalent of Jean-Marie le Pen. At least that’s the obvious inference from his column this morning. There’s not even a ‘to be sure’ paragraph, pointing out that the president is not an anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, racist thug. Unsurprising, given the extreme shrillness of Krugman’s hatred of this president. But shocking to read it on the op-ed page of the Times this morning – a new low in abuse, I think.

HOME NEWS: Alas, I’m called in for re-runs all day today, so there’ll be no more Daily Dish till tonight (late).

We owe Monsignor Eugene Clark some thanks for his homily at St Patrick’s Cathedral last Sunday. His views are shared by many prominent conservatives in the Church, especially among many older Catholics who grew up thinking of homosexuals as unspeakable, and still cannot acquiesce comfortably in their open presence in society. He’s misrepresenting Church teaching, however, by saying that the notion that some people are born gay is “not true.” In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has specifically used the word “innate” to describe some homosexuals’ orientation. The trouble is, there has never been a widespread discussion of the church’s teachings on homosexuality within the church. To my amazement, when I’ve spoken at colleges like Notre Dame or Boston College on the subject, I’ve found that I was the first person ever even to delineate the church’s actual position in such a forum. Most Catholics are not even aware that their Church has broken with Protestant fundamentalists in describing many people’s homosexuality as an unchangeable, innate orientation. You can see why the silence exists. Conservatives are understandably squeamish about declaring so many of their fellow priests as ‘disordered’ and so many of their parishioners as uniquely susceptible to evil. Some good might yet come from this fiasco if this subject could become less taboo in the church. The pope must speak about it – since up to perhaps half of his own priests experience it directly. When an institution so disproportionately gay as the Catholic church cannot even discuss the issue of homosexuality, the kind of crisis we’re now witnessing will never end peaceably – except in immoral discrimination or widespread sexual laxity among the clergy. For a middle way to emerge, we have to talk. It’s a pity heretical bigotry should inflame the discussion, but at least it might get more in the hierarchy to talk openly about what can be ignored no longer.

THE BEING OF ACTING: “Working your way through a character’s evolution can therefore become, I discovered again, a little digression through your own needs and wants. It can let you say things you’d never say in real life but that make you feel more complete for articulating. It’s safe therapy, I suppose, in which you can feel things and say things and even believe things without ever having to take personal responsibility for them. You can call that acting. But you can also call it a kind of freedom.” Check out the rest of my piece on acting here. As I write this, I’ve just come back from our first dress rehearsal in front of an audience. The good news is: we finally did it. The bad news is: we open tomorrow night. Forgive the light dish today; I’ll supplement later. But I had to get a drink with the rest of the cast after tonight’s cathartic opener. I have to say that, however the play turns out (and it’s still needs work), it’s been such a great experience meeting and becoming friends with a crew of such surpassing kindness, talent, and hilarity that I barely care how it all ends up. We’ve had a great – if at times grueling – time.

In what looks set to be the beginning of a more active political presence, the daughter of the vice-president, Mary Cheney, has just joined the board of the Republican Unity Coalition. The RUC is a new group in the Republican Party, designed to advance the inclusion of openly gay men and women in the party’s ranks and leadership. It’s spear-headed by Charles Francis, a close gay friend of the president, and a good friend of mine and supporter of this site. According to Charles,

Mary’s main focus will be to help the RUC reach out to gay and lesbian voters, as well as build bridges to all within the Republican Party. This summer, she will work with us to build the RUC membership network across the country. Mary’s experience, both in her past work at Coors and with the Bush/Cheney campaign, provides the RUC with a whole new level of judgement and political savvy. We are so proud to have Mary Cheney stand with the RUC.

Cheney puts it this way:

RUC is an organization that reflects my fundamental beliefs and principles. Working together we can expand the Republican Party’s outreach to non-traditional Republicans; we can make sexual orientation a non-issue for the Republican Party; and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans.

This is splendid news. It seems to me a quite amazing fact – and devastating to the David Brocks of the world who want to keep gays on the Democratic plantation – that the most prominent openly gay member of a first or second family in American history is a Republican. This reflects a simple truth: that gay people come in all shapes and sizes, from all backgrounds and religions, and from every political shade and hue. Rather than be terrified of this, we should welcome it. From all accounts, Cheney is also no believer in traditional gay rights victimology and may, with any luck, begin to give a prominent voice to what many regular, non-activist gay people believe: that we want no special favors, just simple equality; and that the right to marry is a critical and non-negotiable part of that struggle. Welcome, Mary, to the even more difficult part of coming out as who we are: not just that we are gay, but that we are complicated, diverse and often non-leftist in our politics. Now let’s see if the religious right and gay left unite in decrying this hopeful sign of changing times.

THE FRENCH THUNDERBOLT: What to make of the far right’s amazing success in France? You’ll read plenty of jeremiads in the usual places about this being a sign of resurgent anti-Semitism, racism, and so on. In so far as le Pen represents these things, these jeremiads are not out of place. But his highest ever level of support – still only 2 percent more than seven years ago, by the way – should, I think, be read more broadly. It’s a sign that the French left, having attempted to move to the center, is, as a result more incoherent than ever (although it may still do fine in the legislature, thanks to the French voting system). Jospin was hurt by his leftist rivals as severely as Gore was by Nader. But more profoundly, this was clearly a vote propelled by a populist revolt against the autocratic, anti-democratic and dangerous power of the European Union and the leftist platitudes – all immigration is good, crime cannot be defeated, the nation-state is dead, the need for a strong military is anachronistic – that are now routinely expressed by European elites as almost theological certitudes. His victory speech last night was an appeal to “the excluded, you the miners, the steelworkers, the workers of all those industries ruined by the Euro-globalization of Maastricht, you the farmers forced into ruin, you the first victims of crime in the suburbs and cities.” Some of this is protectionist claptrap, but some of it is also a revolt against policies devised for, of, and by the European liberal elites. Le Pen’s most radical position is that his country should quit the European Union altogether, and has described the euro as “the currency of occupation.” When a mere 51 percent approved the currency in the first place, you can see why he has appeal. He has also abandoned some of his vile anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant positions, in favor of more mainstream beliefs that immigrants should adopt the national culture of their new country. In fact, it may well have been the Muslim anti-Semitism that led in part to the violence and vandalism of the last month that gave his anti-crime message even more potency. I’m not defending le Pen; his past and present bigotries render him unelectable. He won’t win the presidency, thank God. But if Chirac doesn’t hear what this vote portends, then we can expect more unrest.

EUROPE’S RIGHTWARD MARCH: In a broader context, le Pen’s victory is even more striking. In Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Italy,and Belgium, right-of-center anti-immigrant, Euro-skeptic parties are all in the ascendant, as this helpful piece in the Guardian explores. In some ways, you can see the victory of our friend Pim Fortuyn as a symbol of these trends as well. As for the American implications, I’d say any trend that can help weaken the pretensions of the EU to becoming a transnational rival to the U.S. is a thoroughly healthy thing. I’d also say the clout of voters in Europe alarmed by some elements in radicalized Muslim communities in their own countries could bode well for the long-term struggle against Islamo-fascism. And given the new strength of the Christian Democrats in Germany, the incipient resurgence of the Tories in Britain, and the Berlusconi government in Italy, the full picture should give even more sustenance to president Bush. When he wages war against Iraq, he could have far friendlier allies in government in Europe than he seems to right now.

DOES THE POPE GET IT? No, not about the sexual-abuse scandals. About the threat of Islamo-fascism. Here’s what he said this weekend to Nigerian bishops:

I must also raise an important issue which I know is a source of grave concern to you and your people. There are certain parts of the country where proponents of Islam are acting with ever greater militancy, even to the point of imposing their understanding of Islamic law on entire states within the Nigerian Federation and denying other believers the freedom of religious expression. I strongly encourage and support your every effort to speak out courageously and forcefully in this regard.

So it’s only when Jews confront these militants that he has a problem?

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “After midnight, when most of their elders – and most of the press – had left, the crowd began to boogie. In coats and ties, or rugby shirts, they looked like young Bush Republicans – albeit better dancers, whirling each other across the blue carpet against the blue walls.” – Donald G. McNeil Jr., of the New York Times, describing supporters of the neo-fascist rightist, Jean-Marie Le Pen, as the French equivalent of Bush supporters.

ROSS ON ARAFAT: If you didn’t catch it yesterday, check out this extremely revealing interview with president Clinton’s chief Arab-Israeli negotiator, Dennis Ross, on the genesis of the failure of the accords presented at Camp David and later at Taba. It’s a devastating account of Arafat’s simple refusal to deal plainly, to take the opportunities offered him, and confirms my view that there can never be a negotiated peace with this man. Here’s the money dialogue:

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you’ve got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

KELLER’S THEOLOGY: John Ellis (friend/supporter) makes a good point about Bill Keller’s latest column. It’s such a revealing insight into the collective mind of the New York Times’ curia, a kind of recitation of official theology. And that theology believes that the Democrats are only failing to get political traction – despite the Enron scandal, if you can believe it – against president Bush because they’re not paleo-liberal enough. His amazing memo therefore urges the Dems to campaign against capital punishment, against the Pentagon’s nuclear policy, and in favor of Castro. (He has a brief digression in favor of tax ‘simplification,’ whatever he means by that. Somehow I doubt he wants a flat tax). Now there are plenty of good – if to my mind unpersuasive – reasons for doing all of the above. But what planet are you on if you really think that this paleo-left combo will rally the masses to turf out a war-popular president?

MUCH ADO: Well, we’ve yet to have a preview because the technical intricacies of this production have overwhelmed our time to master them. We took Sunday off because we were all exhausted. Today, we continue to tech-run the last third of the show and hope to pull off our first full run-through tonight (not to paying audiences, if any). Take it from me: this has been a grueling marathon – physically, mentally, emotionally. To give you an idea, the main stage has about 15 trap doors from which almost every entrance and exit is accomplished. Every scene has interpolated light and music cues. There is singing, dancing, a disembodied voice, watering cans and shaving bowls. And then there are two other stages. The audience moves from one space to another in the course of three acts, from Dante’s heaven to, er, hell. Mastering all this well enough to be able to focus on acting the play simply takes time. Trying to rush it simply made it worse. For this reason, I’m very sorry to say I’ve had to cancel my appearance tomorrow at an AEI colloquium on Josh Muravchik’s new book, “Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” My apologies. But the show must go on. All day and all night, so far.

An exhausting six and a half hour technical run-through of the play tonight has me writing here at 3am. Basically, everything that could go wrong did go wrong. I guess these kinds of things happen in the theater all the time. I must have blocked all those experiences from my brain. But my favorite moment tonight came when I tried something new in a scene with my silk cravatte (hey, I’d never wear one in real life). For the play, I’ve shaved completely so I can add (with toupee glue) a thick and somewhat Starbucks employee-like go-tee for the first act. (I have to shave it off as a plot twist in the second.) Anyway, my acrobatics with the scarf managed to remove the beard prematurely, and for most of the scene, it was floating around the set like a small rodent searching for a home. Eventually, I tracked it down and stuck it back on. Better glue next time.

MORE BROCK LIES: David Horowitz writes a devastating account of yet more David Brock lies in the current FrontPage magazine. This particular lie is relevant because it targets the very moral integrity of Horowitz. Brock claims in his book that Horowitz, despite public hostility to anti-gay prejudice, was in fact a secret homophobe, uttering anti-gay slurs in private. Horowitz denies it; and quotes the only source he can think of denying it as well. I’m not surprised by this latest revelation. For the gist of this incident is central to the point of Brock’s book, which is to do all he can to corral gay men and women back into Democratic Party ranks where such luminaries as Sid Blumenthal and Bob Shrum think we all belong. In fact, it’s hard to under-estimate how much some on the left despise the idea of gay men and women leaving the Democratic plantation. They refuse to believe that some of us may actually support some (but by no means all) Republicans (as well as some Democrats) because we actually believe in the principles of small government, a free society, market economics, and a strong defense. So we must either be completely screwed-up hypocrites and closet-cases; or we must be simply oblivious to the pathological hatred of gays that exists among all Republicans.

THE DEMOCRATIC PLANTATION: So when a gay-tolerant Republican/conservative heterosexual emerges, it’s imperative he or she be exposed as a secret hater. And when a non-leftist gay writer, thinker or politician emerges, he or she must be exposed as a hypocrite or nut-case or slut or some mixture of the above. (Never mind that every homophobic trope is deployed by the left in this fashion. If it’s in defense of the left, it can’t be bigotry!) What a few on the gay-left have tried to do to me for a decade – smear, expose, defame, marginalize, blackmail, etc. – they must also do to any gay-friendly hetero figures on the right. All of us threaten their monopoly on gay votes and loyalties. Hence the outing of my private life. Hence the smearing of Horowitz. All gay Republicans must be seen as hypocrites (even if they’re nothing of the sort) and all gay-tolerant Republicans must be exposed as simple phonies who secretly hate gays as passionately as Fred Phelps. The Democrats are terrified of dissent and debate in this area, as much as they are on race, since without these monolithic special interest group blocs, they can’t get anywhere near a majority. So any deviation from party loyalty is immediately punished as “Uncle Tom” behavior, and the more influential you are, the worse the smears. (Clarence Thomas gets the all-time prize for this.) I understand why some gay non-leftists, who poke their heads above the parapet for a while, crack under this pressure. There are few on the right who genuinely support our positions and provide emotional support, even if there are fewer outright homophobes among them than some would have you believe. I can even understand why some – Brock being first among them – would give up the fight and choose the easier path of defecting to the warm embrace of Frank Rich, Sid Blumenthal, and the like. I wouldn’t wish this kind of psychological pressure on anyone, and, in some ways, I sympathize with some of the stress Brock must have found himself coping with over the years. But the truth is: that doesn’t excuse his lies, smears, and distortions. The world is more complicated than he and his fellow partisans want it to be. What I and others have been trying to do for years is not smear gay Democrats – many of them have a principled and highly plausible politics – but to insist that alternatives are conceivable, and even beneficial in as much as they increase the ideological space for all gay people to maneuver in. Some leftists appreciate this and respect those who disagree with them – even enjoying the diversity of debate (I think of people like Urvashi Vaid or Paul Berman). Others – more partisan figures, or those who see politics as an arena for personal warfare more than political debate – simply want to shut this discussion down and engage in ugly smearing, ‘outing’, and defamation. Alas, this has always been what David Brock has been about. He once did it from the right. Now he’s doing it from the left. The only difference is that now that it suits the agenda of Rich, Blumenthal, Hertzberg et al, it, it’s more respectable in the mainstream media. But it isn’t. It’s still disgusting. As well as deeply, deeply sad.

THE END OF THE THIRD WAY: It was good while it lasted. Tony Blair promised to revamp socialism by never returning to tax-and-spend liberalism. He argued that a big, publicly-financed European-style welfare state could be compatible with American-style low taxes. Now he’s surrendered, as he always would. Gordon Brown, who is busy maneuvring to despatch Blair to history immediately after if not before the next election, this week unveiled a budget that will clobber British tax-payers with higher taxes in order to fund the 1940s behemoth called the National Health Service. Brown is also quietly playing to anti-Americanism in Labour Party ranks and watching gleefully as Blair’s attempt to support the war on terror meets a ferociously anti-Israel press and public. It’s no accident Brown’s speech was massaged by Bob Shrum. Neither Labour nor the Democrats have fundamentally changed their view that government knows best, that bigger government is better government, that terror should be appeased not opposed, and that higher taxes – not tax reductions – are the wave of the future. What this shows more deeply, I think, is that New Labour and the New Democrats were chimerae – designed as window dressing to get back to power after the rightward shift in the 1980s and 1990s. But underneath, nothing has changed. Look at Gore. His moderation in the 1980s and 1990s was a deliberate lie. He’s now liberated to say what he truly believes. It’s only a matter of time before Blair is sidelined and Britain’s Labour government echoes the Shrum-Greenberg-Brown-Gore line: pay your taxes, and do what you’re told.

EUROPE VERSUS THE JEWS, PART DEUX: “The question is whether the West will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel in its war against terror or whether it will side with terror against it. At present the signs are ominous. The leitmotiv of the state of Israel, forged after the world looked the other way from the Holocaust, is ‘never again’. The West has now given its response: ‘Yes, again’; and if they are destroyed, the Jews, as ever, will be to blame.” Don’t miss Melanie Phillips’ trenchant analysis of anti-Israel sentiment in Britain and Europe.

I love this medium. Y’all do my research for me. A friend sent me the relevant passage from ‘A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man.’ I read it as a Catholic teenager and it obviously resonated. I’m sorry my addled brain ascribed it to Waugh rather than Joyce. It makes much more sense than Waugh. Here it is:

— Do you fear then, Cranly asked, that the God of the Roman catholics would strike you dead and damn you if you made a sacrilegious communion?
— The God of the Roman catholics could do that now, Stephen said. I fear more than that the chemical action which would be set up in my soul by a false homage to a symbol behind which are massed twenty centuries of authority and veneration.
— Would you, Cranly asked, in extreme danger, commit that particular sacrilege? For instance, if you lived in the penal days?
— I cannot answer for the past, Stephen replied. Possibly not.
— Then, said Cranly, you do not intend to become a protestant?
— I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

I take his point.

CAN LAW FUNCTION? He can’t even go to a graduation. Rome’s self-interested attempt to keep him on – to prevent the deluge – seems to me to be an exercise in short-term preservation at the expense of long-term self-destruction. But we’ll see, won’t we?

GAY MARRIAGES LAST LONGER: Fascinating, if small study, reinforces the lesson from Scandinavia – that same-sex marriages, far from weakening marriage, could strengthen it. They seem to last longer than straight marriages. But shhhh. Don’t tell the social conservatives. They have their preconceptions to protect.

A fascinating squabble over CNN senior correspondent Andrea Koppel is beginning to make the email rounds. It concerns allegations that the Israeli Defense Force has conducted a slaughter of civilians in the Jenin refugee camp. The reliably anti-Israel and pro-terrorism newspaper, the Independent, is running hard with the story today. The New York Times version is harrowing but doesn’t find evidence of anything but collateral civilian deaths. Still, It seems Andrea Koppel knew for sure there was an Israeli massacre as early as last Sunday. Here’s an email from an Israel-sympathizer who had an encounter with Koppel last week:

I am attending the Israel Venture Association annual conference in Tel Aviv and was introduced to Andrea Koppel from CNN as we were waiting for Prime Minister Sharon and Secretary of State Powell to finish their discussion Sunday evening at our hotel.
While we were chatting, an American-born Israeli joined us to tell Andrea about his perception of media distortion in that the press that stresses moral equivalence between Israeli civilian deaths caused by Palestinian terror and Palestinian civilian deaths caused by Israeli military actions. He argued that Israel has tried to engage in a peace process since Camp David and has been double-crossed over and over by the Palestinian Authority. Further, he argued the civilian deaths caused by Palestinians are intentional, whereas the deaths caused by Israel are mostly the tragic, unintentional results caused by Israel trying to defend itself.
Andrea replied, “So when Israeli soldiers slaughter civilians in Jenin, that is not equivalent?”
Israeli: “What are your sources? Were you in Jenin? How exactly do you
know there was a slaughter?”
Andrea: “I just spoke with my colleagues who were there, and they told me of the slaughter.”
Israeli: “Did they actually see the shooting, the bodies?”
Andrea: “Palestinians told us about the slaughter.”
Israeli: “And you believe them without evidence. Could they possibly be
lying and distorting facts?”
Andrea: “Oh, so now they are all just lying??”
The Israeli became emotional in describing that his children are afraid, his friends have been murdered, and if this goes on, “We could lose our lives or we could lose our country.”
Andrea, “Yes, you will lose your country.”
At this point, I interrupted the two of them and asked Andrea Koppel,
“Did I just hear you correctly– that you believe the current crisis will lead to the destruction of the State of Israel?”
Andrea: “Yes, I believe we are now seeing the beginning of the end of Israel.”

Koppel and Walter Isaacson have denied the gist of this account, and insist that Koppel didn’t use the word ‘slaughter.’ The man present continues to insist that was precisely the word she used, and that she clearly predicted the demise of Israel. I wasn’t there. I have no way to prove which party is lying. But when you see Andrea Koppel on television, ‘reporting’ on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems to me you should be aware of this alleged exchange.

HOW CONSERVATIVES UNDERMINE MARRIAGE: Terrific piece by Jon Rauch in the current Atlantic, fast becoming indispensable reading under the guidance of David Bradley and Mike Kelly. He points out how the stalemate on equal marriage rights for straights and gays has had an unintended effect: more and more localities, cities, states and companies are setting up pseudo-marital arrangements for gays, which can be and are extended to heterosexuals. So domestic partnerships, civil unions, and other “ABM” (Anything But Marriage) relationships are being codified by society. By blocking gay marriage, social conservatives are busy helping create a plethora of pseudo-marital institutions that really are undermining marriage. Hence the big jump in ‘unmarried partners’ in the Census. If the Bush administration really wanted tio support marriage, they would back gay marriage as the critical institution to prevent its decline into irrelevancy. But they don’t; they can’t; they won’t. They’d rather see marriage undermined across the culture than get over their hostility to treating gay relationships as equally beneficial as straight ones. This is perverse in the extreme. “Can you imagine social conservatives telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry?” Rauch poignantly asks. “Can you imagine them saying, ‘The young men of America’s inner cities won’t take marriage as seriously as they should, so let’s encourage them to shack up with their girlfriends’?… Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.” Yes, Jon. Someday they surely will.

MY ONCE AND PRESENT BOSS: Marty Peretz endured a lot of name-calling in the 1980s and 1990s for his skepticism about the ability and will of Palestinian leaders to deliver on their occasional public endorsements of ‘peace.’ For Marty’s troubles, he’s been all but banned from NPR, described routinely as a Zionist fanatic, and barely gets coverage in the mainstream media without some reference to his allegedly ‘reflexive’ support for Israel (to borrow Eric Alterman’s latest euphemism for the old dual loyalty smear). What a shock that a committed Jew might actually care about Zion! I’ve had my differences with Marty over the years (who hasn’t?) but I never doubted the sincerity of his faith in Israel or wavered in admiring – yes, admiring – him for it. And you know what? Leaving all matters of loyalty, politics, or whatever out of it, he’s also been right. He got it – early and perceptively. When I had the task of editing his magazine for five and a half years, people often asked me how I put up with all the pro-Israel material. Put up with it? I eagerly endorsed it. Occasionally, I thought it wouldn’t hurt to add more dissent, but for the most part I found TNR’s coverage to be exemplary of what a committed political magazine should publish. Which brings me to recommend Marty’s latest diarist – one of countless that he has written in defense of his beloved Zion. He makes two sharp points: that the European intelligentsia that so often frets about the death penalty in America has apparently no qualms about the PA’s public lynchings of suspected collaborators in the last few weeks. In fact, I haven’t even seen a photograph in the press of these victims of Arafat’s police state. Marty’s also smart in pointing out how those early stories about Israeli draft-resisters have not been followed by similarly prominent stories about how more Israelis are volunteering for service now than the draft requires. That’s a sea-change, an important sign of the atmosphere in Israel, and yet barely covered. Why not?

CORRECTION: A couple of readers say my attribution of the remark, “I may have lost my faith. I haven’t lost my mind,” with respect to joining the Church of England after leaving the Roman church is incorrect. It was James Joyce, not Evelyn Waugh. If any of you have the exact quote (from “Portrait of The Artist As A Young Man,” perhaps) I’d be grateful for it.

YOU SWELTERING? Trust me – after doing a six hour tech rehearsal in leather pants in this heat, you’re not the only one. So here’s an old article from Newsweek in 1975 that might cheer you up, if you’re convinced it’s global warming. If you’re not, or if you’re not sure, what be
tter reason for joining the book club this month and reading the most provocative discussion of the subject in years – Bjorn Lomborg’s book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist”? There’s still plenty of time to read the book before the May 4 discussion starts – with me, Bjorn and other andrewsullivan.com readers. So buy the book today and get a grip on the weather.

MEDIA BIAS WATCH: Check out Patrick Tyler’s “News Analysis” in the New York Times today. A classic piece of anti-Bush spin, with the major quotes attributed to a former Clinton official and the Egyptian ambassador all arguing that the last week’s impasse in the Middle East is yet another blow to the administration. Tyler also manages to bring Venezuala into it. Not a single nod to anyone who believes the current crisis is no threat to the war on terror. That, after all, would not be New York Times ‘analysis.’ It would be objective journalism.

THE TERRORIST BISHOP: Along with protecting sexual abusers of children, the current hierarchy of the Catholic church is also adept at sheltering terrorists and their supporters. The terror-loving bishop Oriana Falaci referred to recently, is Bishop Hilarion Capucci, 77, the Greek Catholic Archbishop of Jerusalem. Capucci, once imprisoned for arms smuggling for the PLO, is a big fan of the regimes in Iraq and Iran, and has visited both countries, telling Tehran IRIB television that “the Muslim people of Iran are revolutionary standard-bearers of humanitarian and moral values.” He’s also high on Saddam’s Iraq. Less than two years ago, he visited that country and praised it for financially aiding Palestinian terror in Gaza and the West Bank. You see the “culture of life” means barring Catholic couples from using contraception, but not preventing Catholic bishops from supporting sending teenage girls on suicidal murder missions.

SO I ASKED FOR IT: Here’s an email responding to my challenge yesterday to come up with a serious defense of our marijuana laws:

Many of the very same people who celebrate the remarkable reduction in New York crime through the Guiliani/Bratton “zero tolerance” policy on all crimes somehow reject this same sort of reasoning when it comes to drug policy, particularly in regard to the decriminalisation of marijuana. The Netherlands is usually cited as the model for decriminalisation but the Dutch experiment is in reality a disaster. It has turned Holland into the drug baron of the West with all of the attendant rise in crime implied by the retention of this policy; its young people are now the biggest users in Europe of cocaine and ecstasy; use of heroin and cannabis has risen and there has been an explosion of drug-related crime.
Here’s a successful alternative that transcends the liberalisation policy of the Netherlands and the bogus and corrupt war on drugs pursued in the United States. It’s the Swedish solution. In Sweden, where a mere 9% have tried drugs compared with Britain’s 34%, drug use is kept low through tough enforcement and prevention policies. In the 1960s Sweden decriminalized amphetamines and produced an epidemic. It has since reverted to its tough approach. It does not just enforce fines for possession and prison for large-scale possession and supply. It has criminalized drug use itself. The police test the blood and urine of suspected users, and if they come up positive they are fined. If teachers suspect that pupils have taken drugs, they call in the police and social workers. Against this background, treatment and drug education policies work because all the signals are pointing in the same direction.
But law enforcement relies on popular consent and that is precisely what the present campaign is intended to undermine. Promoted by organizations backed by unlimited funds to pump out propaganda, it is capturing the gullible, the opportunistic, the malign and those for whom it would be a grave social embarrassment for their drug-puffing, pill-popping children to gain a criminal record. By contrast, when have you ever seen a serious study of Sweden’s success in this area?

Sorry, I’m still unconvinced. The problem with the Dutch example is that it’s a small country in a large continent. It’s almost inevitable if one place – with open access to the rest of Europe – legalizes dope, while the rest don’t, it could still become a haven for drug-criminals across Europe. A continent-wide liberalization of marijuana laws in the U.S. would not attract the same problems. As for Sweden, how can a free society tolerate mandatory drug-testing of ‘suspected users’? As for the amphetamines example, it doesn’t follow that legalizing pot would be as harmful. Even anti-marijuana advocates concede that addiction is far less likely with pot than with speed or, God help us, crystal meth. It also seems to me that legalization of the relatively harmless cannabis – far from undermining all drug laws – could actually help restore some confidence in a legal system that currently makes no distinctions of any profound kind between drugs that really do harm and those that don’t. Lets have the best of both worlds: legalization of soft drugs and a zero tolerance policy for the rest? Anyway, that’s my take. Any further refutations?

When two smart liberals in D.C. both decide that the only hope for their party is drafting a Republican for the presidency, the real state of the Democrats could hardly be more brutally exposed. For what it’s worth, I think Jon Chait and Josh Green are engaging in wishful thinking. On abortion and affirmative action alone, McCain has much less of a chance of becoming a Democratic nominee than Colin Powell (in reverse) ever had of becoming a Republican nominee. (And at least Powell was already in the party.) Moreover, if McCain were to perform Clintonian pirouettes on these issues, he would erase his cenral attraction to voters: his ‘straight-talking’ conviction politics. Maybe events, i.e. the evisceration of the Democrats’ funding base after campaign finance reform, will prove me wrong, and they’ll be desperate to have anyone who can raise the sizzle factor among their candidates. But I doubt it, and I like McCain far too much to want him to erase his long-standing loyalty to his party to be eclipsed by being wooed by a bunch of desperate Washington lefties. But think about what this little gambit really says about the Dems right now. They have acknowledged that a president they still routinely describe as a moron, a tool of corporate interests, and an inarticulate boob is all but unbeatable by anyone in their ranks. This is a party, remember, that had to win back the Senate by a Republican defection, and now it wants to win back the White House the same way. The truth is, the only people actually excited about the current Democratic Party’s domestic and foreign policy ideas are Republicans yearning for the excitement of conversion. If I were McCain, I’d remember Evelyn Waugh’s line, when asked, as a fading Catholic, whether he would join the Church of England. “I may have lost my faith,” he replied. “But I haven’t lost my mind.” Stay sane, John. Stay sane.

Her screed on European anti-Semitism rather hits the nail on the head. Here’s an incident I had not heard of:

I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, an angel who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party.”

Who is this bishop?

DOWD GOES BLOGGING: The Beatrice of the New York Times op-ed page writes a column that essentially follows up on her last one, responding to input from readers, via 600 emails. Hmmm. Great idea, Maureen. Next up: MODO.com. Blog away, baby, blog away.

MEN ARE FROM MARS, PART XXXVIIB: Don’t miss Michael Lewis’ account of being present for the birth of his second daughter – this time, sober. My favorite passage? How about this one:

At some point in his private ordeal one of the hospital staff will turn to him and ask, sweetly, “And how is Dad doing?” He must understand that no one actually cares how Dad is doing. His fatigue, his worries, his tedium, his disappointment at the contents of hospital vending machinethese are better unmentioned. Above all, he must know that if his mask of perfect selflessness slips for even a moment he will be nabbed.
“Would a little food taste good to you right now?”
“I don’t think so.” (Muffled, through oxygen mask.)
“Because they have these Ring Dings in the vending machine. The kind with the vanilla icing.”
The fixed accusing stare. “You’re incredible.” Pause. A weary tone. “If you want something to eat, just go get something to eat.”

No one writes about being an ass better than Michael.

THE GREAT CIRCUMCISION DEBATE: Check out the Letters Page for some strenuous and informed pros and cons. But here’s an extract from a study published in the British Journal of Urology that really lays it on the line, and provides details I hadn’t seen elsewhere. It was sent to me by a reader. If you’re squeamish, I advise moving on. If you still think circumcision is a good or even a neutral thing, read on. Especially if you’re a heterosexual woman and like orgasms:

With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.65.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.42.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.966.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.812.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved vaginal orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.14.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.33.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.840.77).

So it isn’t just the men who lose sexual pleasure by being mutilated. Their partners do as well. Why? Because circumcision throws a wrench into nature’s way of combining pleasure with sexual intercourse:

When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its ownbeddin of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtls neck glides in and out on the folded layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed against the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin, which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1], to contact the corona of the glans, which has the highest concentration of fine-touch neuroreceptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short-thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners. This juxtaposition of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].

So mutilated men have to go to far greater lengths to achieve orgasm – and they can damage their partner in the process:

As stated, circumcision removes 35% of the penile skin. With this skin missing, there is less tissue for the swollen corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum to slide against. Instead, the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve, pulls the vaginal secretions out of the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn. Unlike the anatomically complete penis, there is no sensory input to limit withdrawal. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine-touch [20]. To compensate for this imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubis and clitoris.

Well, I just hope you’ve had your breakfast already.

ROPE A DOPE: How many times can a sane person write an article pointing out that our marijuana laws are simply, irrefutably, incontrovertibly, nuts? Deroy Murdock does it again – and very cogently, I must say. There are plenty of topics on which I hold strong views but completely respect the views of those who disagree with me. I simply, honestly, cannot respect anyone who believes alcohol should be legal but marijuana shouldn’t. Here’s a challenge: will one reader provide a short (less than 300 words) defense of that position? I will gladly publish it in the Dish, if it has a modicum of sense. And, please, no circular arguments about gateway drugs and the like. It’s only a gateway to shady, illegal characters if it’s illegal in the first place. Besides, if presidents and CEOs and House speakers and mayors of major cities enjoyed pot in the past, how on earth is this gateway to anything but success and responsibility? Someone – anyone – persuade me, please.

BENEDICKS AND, ER… : “This is where Europe really trumps America. [Circumcision] is an outdated ritualistic norm, and flies in the face of logic. If cleanliness is an issue, I suggest using a bit of soap and attempting to suppress the urge to second guess the intention of God. Personally, I find my husband’s
uncircumcised penis quite large and glorious.” The circumcision debate and reflections on Shakespeare’s Benedick – all on the Letters Page.

Thanks for all the emails on circumcision. I’ve long suspected that this is an issue people care about but that our squeamish culture shies away from. Two points stand out, so to speak. The first is that circumcision for men clearly and indisputably lessens sensitivity and therefore sexual pleasure. Some would argue that this slows sex down, helps control premature ejaculation, and so on. But again, this is so subjective a choice, surely it should be left up to the man whose weenie is going to go under the knife. Secondly, the notion that it’s more painful for a grown-up, and is therefore best performed on infants, is complete projection. How do we know? If anything, the evidence points in the opposite direction, viz this email:

I’m not sure why it is so commonly believed that circumcision is easier on infants than adults. Perhaps this idea persists from the time, not so long ago, when it was believed that infants did not feel pain. There are two reasons why circumcision is almost certainly harder on infants.
1. The foreskin is naturally fused to the glans at birth, in something like the way that kitten are born with their eyes fused shut. Natural separation takes several years. Thus, the foreskin and the glans have to be torn apart, injuring them both, in order for the foreskin to be cut off.
2. We now are beginning to understand the vulnerability of the infant nervous system. The spinal cord response to pain is larger and lasts longer in infants. When infant nerve cells die, other nerve cells fill the gap and make inappropriate connections, thus permanently distorting the nervous system. This can lead to hypersensitivity. We know, for instance, that circumcised boys have a greater pain response to their 4 to 6 month vaccinations. Thus, while the long-term effects of infant pain are still something of a mystery, it seems quite imprudent to cause infants any unnecessary pain or injury.

I have no memory of my own mutilation experience. My mother told me recently that I screamed for hours in pain and shock. Because I don’t recall it now doesn’t mean it wasn’t traumatic then. Can you imagine our medical system doing this unnecessary procedure in any other context? I’m sorry but this is an indefensible practice.