Month: May 2003

Another spectacular column by Colbert King today on the lingering pockets of urban despair in our major cities, and the apparent inability of the police or our public authorities to do much to help the situation. He’s right that non-profits and voluntary groups are doing the only seriously productive long-term work here, although many cops do the best they possibly can under the circumstances. But this column has a special resonance for me. The corner of 17th and Euclid Streets is the corner where I live. This is my block. It’s right outside my window as I write this. While I advocate for disarming militants in the West Bank, I walk past armed teenagers every day just to take the beagle to the park. I also have to ask whether I’ve done enough. Apart from some minor engagement with local kids, these gangs simply scare me into retreat and withdrawal. How to overcome these barriers? As King suggests, a radical reorientation of resources; a transformation of social services as profound as our military transformation. School vouchers can help. But also, surely, a greater sense of personal responsibility for the lives around us. I plead guilty to a too-easy resignation.

What, I ask myself, has he conceivably done wrong? He has done nothing illegal. He has done nothing hypocritical. Only in the minds of a few religious fanatics, has he done anything immoral. This invasion of his privacy and attempted smearing of his character have been perpetrated for transparently political reasons and are yet another sign of how our culture is making it increasingly difficult for any actual living, breathing, fallible human being to function in public life, without profound personal costs. Is it relevant that Bennett is a “moralizer”? Not in the slightest. He hasn’t moralized against the alleged “vice” he has engaged in; in fact, the record shows the opposite. Yes, he has hob-nobbed with the likes of James Dobson and other theocrats. I hope this episode might open his eyes to the extremism of their agenda. But if our standards for anyone in public life are human perfection, we will have no public life. And if no one can advocate virtue or responsibility or morality without also being a saint, then our common moral life will also collapse. Bennett deserves privacy; he deserves whatever means he can legally use to relax when he is off duty. He is a human being. His smearers on the left merely show what has happened to our politics. When the Washington Monthly does in this decade what the American Spectator did in the last, you can see how widespread the rot has gotten.

“I had some different reactions to Bush’s speech. I thought the setting for Bush’s speech was brilliant. The bright daylight illuminating the colorful flags and uniforms against the battleship grey was arresting. The soldiers’ anticipation as they waited silently for Bush’s entrance made their applause during the speech feel, to me, genuine and joyful, quite moving. This visit was all about contrasts. Bush lands on an aircraft carrier, a heart pounding first for an American president, and sleeps on board. Contrast the feel of this visit with the idea of Cheney hiding out in Secret Location X and Bush retreating to Camp David throughout the war. This was much like his visit to Ground Zero after 9/11. I want to see the president going right to the soldiers, highlighting their accomplishments, expressing gratitude, live. He needs to publicly thank our soldiers for us, and he needs to thank them as Commander in Chief, which is why I disagree that it looked like he was using the military for partisan purposes; it’s his job to be there. I felt in awe of our pilots and sailors and could even tolerate Bush for a few minutes, a unique feeling for me. If people around the world see him on a aircraft carrier and associate us once again with miltary might, good. We are attempting to teach people how to treat us, are we not? I’m OK with people feeling intimidated if the alternative is thinking they can get away with flying airplanes into our skyscrapers.”

Fascinating quote from Tony Blair about the president. Fascinating because it flies in the face of so much dumb liberal commentary about Bush:

“He is highly intelligent, and it’s not clotted by so many nuances that the meaning is obscured. The good thing about (Bush) is that once he does really think that an issue has to be tackled he has big reserves of courage for doing it, and he won’t really be diverted… I trust him, and that is extremely important at our level of politics.”

Say what you like about Blair but I think he gets Bush’s character right. Pity he sometimes listens to Karl Rove too much.

EURO ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: In the same interview, David Margolick notes how one major anti-war campaigner, Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, uses classic anti-Semitic tropes to attack the prime minister:

quoted Labour Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell, the longest serving member of the House of Commons, as saying he thought Blair was unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisors. Margolick said Dalyell named Peter Mandelson, a former Blair cabinet member, Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fund-raiser and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, an Anglican who has a Jewish grandparent.

Charming, huh?

POT, PORN, AND AMERICA: I’m not sure I buy the statistic that pot, porn and illegal labor constitutes a black market worth ten percent of the official American economy. But I don’t doubt – who could? – that these industries are huge. Porn, mercifully, is legal, for the most part. But can you imagine the revenue gains for the government if the huge marijuana industry paid taxes and the money spent on trying to shut it down was actually used for something worthwhile?

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “By the year 2002, we can have a federal government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, 1995. Ah, but that was when there was a Democratic president. Now a Republican is in office, that “fiscal catastrophe” is vital public policy! Mike Kinsley nails Republican hypocrisy on deficits in Slate. Frankly, anyone who expects consistency from politicians is asking a little too much. All I worry about is the damage being done to the long-term health of the economy by the administration’s fiscal recklessness.

OKAY, OKAY: Like Glenn Reynolds, I’m besieged by people who think I’m wrong about the tone of Bush’s campaign speech last night. Fair enough. It’s a subjective judgment call, and I certainly respect those who took it otherwise. But what amazes me is the vituperative tone, and how many then accuse me of being anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-American. Me? Are politics so polarized that you have to either engage in hagiography or hatred of our leaders? Is there nothing permissible in between?

EQUALITY IN CANADA: While Republicans rally behind a man who believes private gay sex should be criminalized, the Canadian courts grant equal marriage rights. Given the enormous interaction of the two countries, the rate of immigration, the volume of travel and trade, this surely is a big deal.

I’m pretty sure it was an effective campaign speech. The president is exactly right to remind people of the war that began on September 11; he’s right to connect the liberation of Iraq to that event; he’s right to remain vigilant; and to embrace the new concept of a war that can break a regime while freeing a people with a minimum of civilian casualties. i deeply admire his determination and clarity, and felt goosebumps at certain moments. But I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the whole backdrop, including the fighter-pilot entrance, was – how do I put this politely? – hubristic. It’s one thing to arrange a beautiful and moving photo-op to commemmorate an historic event, as Reagan did so masterfully at Normandy. It’s another thing to mark the end of a liberation by addressing the military and the nation at the same time. Boisterous cheers from American troops are great; those amazing people deserve our thanks. But I’m not sure this was the occasion for that. It was an address to the nation at the conclusion of a conflict, one that shouldn’t be interrupted by foot-stomping and cheering. It made it look as if the president was using the military for partisan purposes – and that’s not right. It is probably effective politics; and great visuals. But less is often more. This president used to exemplify that kind of restraint. I hope this war hasn’t gone to his head and we see more of the old Bush self-effacement soon.

A friend’s nephew was in the Iraq war and she forwarded me this email from one Captain Jack Murphy (love the name). I liked it better than I did the president’s speech:

Because of where and what we were engaged in doing, I was extremely busy and out of contact for a while, so please forgive me for being distant. I understand there was skepticism and negativity about the war, admittedly for some clear reasons. As someone on the tip of the national policy spear, I had my own concerns about what we were getting into. I was introduced to Saddam’s devious war machine up close and personal, witnessed his campaigns of intimidation and oppression, and the vast disparity between gluttony and poverty. I was also privileged to see thousands upon thousands of newly liberated people celebrating in the streets and on the rooftops of As Asawama, the first Hajj pilgrimages to the holy cities of Karbala and An Najef in two decades, proud fathers holding up their newborn babies to me. I don’t have any doubts anymore. War cannot be antiseptic and bad things can happen to good people, but we did the right things for the right reasons. So, as I step off my soapbox …
P.S. – I got a great tan.

Persuasive, no?

MAILERMAN: “Mailer’s latest analysis of the WAM psyche reminded me of an argument I used to have with my friends in grade school – Who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman? In the end it was a completely pointless argument because they don’t exist but at least we didn’t try to turn it into our line of work. What is the white American male psyche? It’s a fiction of Norman Mailer’s mind of course, but it’s also a way for him group unique and individual people together and wag his omniscient finger in their faces and let them know how hip and with it he still is. The WAM psyche is ultimately the “NISE” (Norman Is Still Employed) delusion.” – more feedback, on the Letters Page.

There are two issues on which Bush’s disapproval ratings exceed his approval, according to the latest Washington Post poll: health insurance and the federal budget. I couldn’t help but be impressed with Alan Greenspan’s testimony Wednesday. He made the obvious point that it’s good to cut taxes if you also cut spending. Duh. This administration, alas, is one of the most spend-thrift in recent times and yet still wants massive tax cuts. Thank God for some of the saner Republicans in the Senate. At least some people haven’t forgotten that conservatism means limited government, personal privacy and fiscal responsibility, in contrast with the hard right’s big government, sex police and mounting debt.

WORSE THAN EASON JORDAN: Which journalist do you think would strike up an intense personal friendship with Saddam’s head propagandist? Who do you think would write letters to such an odious figure with sentences like: “After promising and promising to have dinner with you for such a long time – we finally did it. Alhamdullilah!!!!! For me, this was the main achievement of my visit.” Would you believe the BBC’s chief correspondent, Rageh Omaar? Once again, the British papers seem to have done a better job than Americans in digging through stacks of documents left in Baghdad. As the Times of London reports today,

[t]he tactic seemed to work. A note in Arabic on the letter suggests that it be forwarded to the visa department. Before another assignment, Mr Omaar wrote: “It’s been such a long time since we last saw each other, and I would really like to see you again. As you once said to me: Once you have tasted the waters of the Tigris, you can never forget Baghdad!!!”

Yes, some journalists in totalitarian countries have to make some adjustments to avoid being thrown out. But this kind of up-sucking? I can’t imagine John Burns doing it, can you?

An email from a gay lefty in San Francisco points out the customary blindness of some alleged “progressives” about the totalitarian regime in Cuba. He’d just come out of a movie theater and saw a long line of people waiting to see the next screening, of Oliver Stone’s cinematic hagiography of Fidel:

A few leftist organizations tonight had set up two tables of literature and buttons supporting the Cuban revolution in general, and progressive causes around the globe. There were leftist activists chatting up people trying to buy tickets to “Commandante,” the film by Stone. I couldn’t find a single piece of literature about Castro’s latest crackdown on, and killing, of Cuban dissidents. I had something to say about this to my fellow lefties. “Why don’t you tell Castro to stop killing his people because they disagree with him? He should be condemned for executing the boat hijackers,” I said. A woman in her late 40’s asked if I wanted a copy of The Militant. “Does it have a strong disapproval anywhere in the issue denouncing Castro’s violation of human rights activists? If it does, then I want an issue,” I replied to her. “I want Castro to stop killing dissidents.” “Are you a Republican, or something? Bush is also killing innocent civilians. We’re more concerned about his crimes,” the woman said. With pride, I pointed to my ever-present dark green button reading, “Vote Nader/LaDuke 2000.” “No, I’m not GOP, at all. Just one queer leftist who thinks we need more criticism leveled against Castro, especially from the left,” I said.

Good for him. This is especially awful given Castro’s persecution of homosexuals and people with HIV. Do these leftists have no memory? Or no conscience? Between these people on the left and Rick Santorum on the right, it’s enough to drive you nuts.

ONE MAN’S TESTIMONY: This blogger movingly explains why he’s still angry about the social right’s embrace of Santorum.

Viewers have been complaining – are you sitting down? – that it has been too pro-Israel.

SARS AND HIV: Fascinating new nugget. In one major Chinese hospital, AIDS patients were separated from SARS patients. But doctors and nurses, some of whom contracted SARS, freely went from one ward to another. The AIDS patients didn’t even wear masks. But not a single person with AIDS got infected with SARS. How could that be – especially since people with AIDS have suppressed immune systems? Here’s one theory, presented by Laurie Garrett:

Some scientists speculate the virus doesn’t actually kill human cells – that the immune system’s overreaction actually precipitates destruction of cells of the lung and other parts of the body, precipitating the acute pneumonia that is the disease’s hallmark. In theory, they say, death may be the result of an aberrant or overly sensitive immune response. If that is proved correct, it’s possible HIV patients may actually be at lower risk for SARS precisely because they lack strong immune responses.

Just when you thought you couldn’t be surprised, you are. I’ll try and keep track of whether this story pans out. Let me know if you see anything.

Responsibility for the terrorist suicide murders in Tel Aviv lies with two British citizens, we now know. More evidence that it’s increasingly impossible to separate one brand of Islamist terror (al Qaeda) from others (Hamas):

It was not disclosed if the men also held Palestinian identity cards, of if they used their British passports to cross the boundary fence enclosing Gaza. Hamas and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a group linked to the Fatah faction of Mr. Abbas and Yasir Arafat, claimed responsibility for the attack.

So who were these people really? How much did Arafat know? And how credible is Abbas’ claim to renounce violence? We’ll soon find out. His original statement, as even Bill Safire concedes today, amounted to “brave words,” undermined by savage violence. Abbas, for Israel’s sake as well as the Palestinians’, should surely be given a fair chance to exert new authority. On this issue, like a few others, president Bush will soon have to show his real intentions. One “Israeli official” tells James Bennet of the New York Times that

Mr. Bush was acting on the plan because he ‘owed it to Tony Blair,’ Britain’s prime minister. This official said Mr. Bush also wanted to ‘to encourage the new Palestinian government.’

But mere introduction of the plan won’t be enough to please Blair, will it? Count me at worst as an incurable optimist. And at best, as someone who symathizes with what these guys are saying.

ONE BY ONE: The president slowly does the job we most need him for. The number of terrorist attacks went down to 199 in 2002, from 355 in 2001. No reason for any complacency. But surely some credit where it’s due.

LOSERS, SQUARED: John Major defends Prince Charles. That’s like Walter Mondale supporting Al Gore. But in fact, Major’s argument, when it isn’t simply banal, is almost touching. And, largely, right.

JERRY SPRINGER, THE OPERA: Only in London, I suppose. Money review quote:

I never thought I would find a man who wants to poo in his pants touching, but somehow, in this gaudy context, it is. And the first act finale, featuring a chorus of tap-dancing Ku Klux Klansmen is a riot of bad taste worthy of Mel Brooks. The level of energy and invention dips in the second half, when Jerry finds himself in hell and is required to settle the differences between God and the Devil under pain of punishment too horrible to describe in a family newspaper. The jokes aren’t as funny, and I found myself coming over a touch prudish about the blasphemy. But this is a show designed to provoke as well as entertain, and the climactic deus ex machina appearance of God is a real coup de theatre, as is the grand finale, in which the whole cast reappear as Jerry Springer clones.

Jerry Springer clones? Tap dancing KKKers? Book me a flight.

WHERE ARE THEY? Does it matter that we haven’t yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The answer is obviously: no. Would it matter if we never find such evidence? The answer, equally obviously, is: yes. As regular readers will have noticed, I experienced an evolution in my views about this war. I never stinted in supporting it, but my concern about weapons of mass destruction was eventually overtaken by my moral concern with the sheer evil of Saddam’s regime. But that doesn’t mean the WMDs are irrelevant, as Tom Friedman weirdly suggested. I don’t believe the administration lied. I don’t believe Tony Blair lied. But equally, the notion that a few missiles with “chemicals” written on them will some day be found under a rock – and that this kind of thing is necessary for the war to be justified – is silly. We’re talking about a whole system designed to give Saddam a biological and chemical capacity. We need to interview scientists, piece together documents, investigate sites that might have been destroyed to remove evidence just before the war, and so on. This takes time and expertise and patience. I’m happy to wait until a real assessment is possible and credible evidence put together into a coherent whole. Then, we’ll see. But it’s way too soon for some to start crowing that the threat was a sham or a hype. We have as yet no solid evidence for that either.

MAY DAY: Time to celebrate global capitalism, “humanity’s most benign creation.” Anatole Kaletsky rightly blames Europe and Japan for global economic blues, but remains optimistic. I hope he’s right.

ON THE ROAD: Grueling but rewarding speaking tour here. Home later today. I have to say that amid all the emotionally draining debates about homosexuality, religion, and politics, one thing keeps me going: the next generation. The gay students today – I met a bunch at Boston College and the University of Delaware – are coming out at much younger ages than in the past. They have a self-confidence and composure that I never had in college, let alone high school. (I met one today who told his parents at the age of seven.) They span the gamut politically – although more than you might expect are passionate conservatives and Republicans (and tell me how wounded they were by their party’s response to the Santorum affair). But they seem to take it in stride. They know who they are. They appear to have good relationships with their straight peers; and even in their occasional struggles, know they own the future. It’s strange to be in the middle of such social change. I’ll never know what it’s like to grow up in a more accepting age, not to have the torments that so many in my generation went through (let alone the poor souls older then me), but the results in these youngsters’ lives are truly inspiring. They lift me up and cheer me on. With each generation, the psychological damage and pain recedes a little. And the pursuit of happiness begins again. Some of these kids think of me as a mentor. How do I tell them that they are actually mentors to me?