This is the kind of bold initiative I want to see more of from the Bush administration. Publicly-funded single-sex schools are an excellent way both to encourage excellence in environments where both girls and boys can do better, and also to increase parental choice. The usual “civil rights” groups are whining, of course. They should be ignored. This is an especially important move for boys – who are currently lagging behind girls in many educational skills, and too often subjected to anti-male curricula. I’m biased, of course. I went to a public co-ed elementary school and a public single-sex high school. Of course I turned into a raving homosexual, but most of my peers didn’t. (And, no, I didn’t go to one of those private all-boy schools which make American Catholic churches look like repositories of sexual restraint). All in all, this is a bold and smart move. I just hope they don’t cave into the “feminist” establishment and back down.
STEVEN ERLANGER’S SMEAR: Truly amazing that Howell Raines’ New York Times has yet to weigh in editorially about the assassination of an openly gay political leader in Holland. What’s keeping them from commenting – either in editorial columns or op-eds? Beats me, although the obvious answer is that they don’t have a clue what to say. The Times was no better than most other mainstream media outlets in brazenly misrepresenting Pim Fortuyn’s politics, and having stoked the animosity that ultimately felled Fortuyn, they might well be a little leery of jumping in. Here’s how the Times’ Steven Erlanger’s explained the Fortuyn phenomenon a mere day before he was murdered by a member of the far left:
Exploiting a general disappointment with Europe’s mainstream politicians, evident in the lower voter turnout, Mr. Le Pen and others who have modernized their fascism, like Jörg Haider of Austria and Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands, have made extraordinary showings in percentage terms.
It’s perfectly fair to say that populist displeasure at the dictatorial remoteness of the EU played a part in support for Haider, Le Pen and Fortuyn, but describing the colorful professor Pim as a modernizer of fascism is sloppy, false and defamatory. I discovered this appalling quote from an excellent article by Dutch journalist, Diederik van Hoogstraten, just posted on Salon (subscribers only, alas). Here’s the money quote, though:
Calling Fortuyn a neo-fascist is in line with seeing every voter for Le Pen or Berlusconi as a dumb xenophobe. The European left, in power but out of touch, has done exactly that for years. But the issues that Fortuyn and other addressed, have needed urgent attention from the social-democrats in office. To call those who planned to vote for him a bunch of fascists is, to say the least, strange, as many of them had voted for leftist parties in prior elections. It’s safe to say that the ruling class of today helped create the electoral base for populists whom they still do not know how to fight.
For excellent treatment of the Fortuyn affair, and how it has shown up the mainstream media’s biases, check out the Independent Gay Forum website. Paul Varnell’s piece is particularly fine. Reason’s Charles Paul Freund also has an excellent dissection of how the media cannot deal with unconventional politics. I like this point:
For now, appeals to diversity, gender equality, etc., are reserved for groups that, in contemporary journalistic discourse, are given “oppressed” status. When such groups use these appeals, or when these appeals are used on their behalf, it’s legitimate. But when the same appeals are used to argue against the apparent interests of such groups, it’s a category violation. In other words, you can’t allow the villain any of the good lines without either raising the status of the villain or lowering the status of the lines, and that in the end that is one of the most revealing aspects of the Fortuyn story.
For a classic example of how mainstream American gay organizations have responded, check out the website of the Human Rights Campaign. They say … nothing. And why would they? Whenever anything serious happens in the gay rights movement, such as the military battle or the marriage struggle or a prominent assassination, these groups are always, always, AWOL.
ET TU, MICKEY? Mickey Kaus, pioneering blogger, has now defected to the mainstream. It’s a sad day for the blogosphere. His blog will now be incorporated into Slate, which is very smart for Slate (and another sign that Jake Weisberg knows what he’s doing). In my opinion, most online magazines will in the not-so-distant future become agglomerations of bloggers. Their most popular features are already drifting in that direction. What they will eventually become will be more like talk-radio stations, where a handful of provocative bloggers will create a branded talk environment, rather like the blogosphere itself, but with a few editors picking which people to include. The interesting question will be: how is that different from a reader’s “favorites list” – except some editor muckety muck picks the links and you don’t? The only difference will be having to access these blogs via a magazine portal, presumably. Conceptually speaking, that’s a thin reed on which to hang what we once called a magazine, much thinner than a bunch of pages of dead wood. But, hey, good luck to them. It’s worth a shot and proof that Jake is thinking about the medium more deeply than Mike seemed able to. And knowing Mickey, he won’t be likely to cave into groupthink. Also knowing Mickey, of course, this relationship will probably last about eight minutes.
FROM DR STRANGELOVE TO MR EX-GREEN:“Many viewed [Lomborg’s skeptical predecessors] Herman Kahn and Julian Simon as “American rightwing ideological economists,” as Lomborg admits he once viewed Simon. (Kahn may have partially inspired the title character of “Dr. Strangelove,” to give a sense of how he was regarded.) Thus, the left wing could dismiss their views as inherently without merit and unworthy of response or consideration. Censorship via silence. But Lomborg was a progressive Social Democrat and member of Greenpeace from politically-correct Denmark. For Lomborg to change his mind and to reject publicly the “Litany” made him not merely an adversary but a heretic and apostate. The only appropriate response was burning at the stake. Fortunately, literal burnings are rare in the Western World, but as the fanaticism, hate, and violence of the New Left (as seen in the streets of Seattle and repeatedly in Washington DC), raving fanaticism is by no means a thing of the past.” This and many other reactions to Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” in today’s Book Club discussion.
EUCLID UPDATE:Well, she’s put on about five pounds, hasn’t pooped in the apartment for a week, and this evening secured a place on my bed. As I prepare to crash now, there are two beagles occupying my futon. But the best news is that Dusty tried to play with Euclid tonight. She wasn’t that successful. Euclid seemed a little intimidated and kept wandering over to me, as I wrote the Dish, for some sort of approval. Eventually, she picked up a small toy Dusty had tossed in her direction and walked off with it. A start, I suppose. But for a week’s convalesence, the progress has been pretty remarkable. Thanks for all the inquiring emails. I hav
e a feeling I can’t give this little thing away now.
THE LAW DEPOSITION: Read it here in excruciating detail. The Boston cardinal and protector of child-abusers must be hating this. Imagine the humiliation of actually being accountable to victims. My favorite quote from Law’s lawyer: “Well, first of all, let me take the first issue, the First Amendment. I suggest that we agree that I can have a continuing objection as to the First Amendment. I have raised the First Amendment as a defense and feel the inquiry into the internal workings of the Church is inappropriate.” How’s that for clerical privilege.
PRO-MILITARY P.C.: What on earth is wrong with a newspaper printing stories about how some horny American sailors all but rampaged through some Australian brothels when first given shore leave? No one disuptes the facts, but military families are upset. The Sun newspaper, of Bremerton, Washington, which reprinted the story, grovels to its outraged readers in an apology. Pathetic. These soldiers can defeat al Qaeda but they can’t deal with bad publicity? Here’s a tip: if you don’t want bad press, don’t go to brothels and so wear out the prostitutes that they have to shut the place down for a breather.
MORE FORTUYN SMEARS: This from the insufferably smug John Simpson, the BBC bigwig who earned ridicule in the Afghan war for claiming on BBC radio to have liberated Kabul. He throws around words like “hatred,” to describe Fortuyn’s politics. When Fortuyn loses his temper after Simpson compares him to Jean-Marie Le Pen, this merely confirms for Simpson that he is right. Here’s a lovely piece of liberal bigotry: “But in many ways – his avowed homosexuality apart – Fortuyn was an archetypical right-winger.” Has it occurred to Simpson that someone’s sexual orientation does not dictate a thinking person’s politics on matters such as taxes, immigration, or the role of government. Does he think “archetypal right-wingers” support same-sex marriage, legal cannabis, abortion on demand, and so on? Do you think Simpson would for one minute show the same condescending skepticism toward Fortuyn’s murderer, a mere environmental activist? When I read columns like this one, you can see where the anger that propelled Fortuyn to prominence comes from. I hope the Fortuyn list wins unprecedented support in the coming Dutch elections. (By the way, check out the photo. There’s a Fortuyn supporter holding up pictures of Martin Luther King Jr, John F Kennedy and Malcolm X. So much for would-be Hitlers.)
WHY I STILL LOVE TNR: Because a liberal pro-Gore magazine is still prepared to take on environmental irrationality. Gregg Easterbrook, a Lomborg in tweeds, has been on the case for years and years. Always worth reading, his evisceration of the American Prospect’s blather is, as always, informative and enjoyable.
EVERYONE’S A CRITIC, PART TROIS: Remember what I said about theater critics? All subjectivity, unreliable, undependable? I take it all back. What a wonderfully perceptive reviewer of acting Nelson Pressley is. Just kidding. He’s nice about me and my lovely, saintly, hilarious Beatrice, Brooke Butterworth, but he’s tough on the directorial concept of the show. All in all, completely fair criticism. But then I’m way biased aren’t I?
The Dish 