Month: June 2003

It’s an interesting insight into Slate’s liberal bias – to which it’s fully entitled and doesn’t really disclaim – that the two writers they pick to analyze the Supreme Court’s end-of-term decisions are both pro-racial discrimination liberals. The good news is that they’re both wonderful writers and smart as whips. Dahlia Lithwick’s strength, however, is not just her sense of humor but intellectual honesty. Here she weighs in on Sandra Day O’Connor’s complete incoherence:

Like you, I was terrified that today might have seen a thick dark cloud blot out all the good that affirmative action programs have achieved over the decades.
But intellectual honesty doesn’t let me accept O’Connor’s basic ends-justifies-the-means approach to upholding the principle. And so much of your analysis today suggests that this is what’s best about O’Connor’s opinion: She got it morally right, even where she’s logically wrong. As you put it: Powell’s opinion in Bakke is riddled with logical flaws but is nevertheless “wise.” Why? Because we need affirmative action. And so even if a program singles out only three traditionally underrepresented races, and offers them special advantages under the fiction of fostering “educational diversity,” we’ll laud it because the alternative – doing away with such programs – is intolerable to us. But then, let’s be honest. Justice Thomas is correct in his dissent when he argues that “diversity” means nothing and can’t be the cornerstone of affirmative action jurisprudence. And Justice Scalia is right when he says (or rather bellows … ) that today’s decisions in Gratz and Grutter will do nothing but further cloud and confuse the affirmative action debate for years to come.

She’s right. But why is a racially un-diverse but intellectually multi-faceted campus such a bad thing? Why is a world without racial discrimination so “intolerable”?

A reader emails:

I actually keep tabs on AIDS research and treatment (pretty much) and I didn’t realize anyone is able to take “drug holidays” (don’t know if you use that term – that’s what all the child psychiatrists call it).
You’ve lived a miracle.
We have, too, in our way. Our 16-year old autistic son is able to live with us, attend his own high school here in town, and have a life solely due to medication. In any other era he would have been “placed” long before now. Placed out of home, and in restraints.
He was one of the first autistic children in the country to take Risperdal (around the time the protease inhibitors came out, as a matter of fact) and after that everything changed. That was our miracle. He’s still autistic to beat the band, so we’re working on, and waiting for, our next miracle.
But this one gave us our son. (So-Yay, big pharma! I’m with you on that one.)
I’m happy for you, and I think I know something about your courage and strength, although I don’t yet know very much about death.
A few years ago I saw a photo of a mother, a farm woman, sitting with her grown autistic son. The son was wearing leather gloves to protect his hands because he was so self-abusive, and he was doing some nutty thing or other, with a telephone, I think. The mom had her face kind of sunk down on her hands, and she was smiling, and maybe even laughing a little, and looking straight into the camera. Naturally her son wasn’t looking anywhere near the camera; he was off in autism-space somewhere. But he looked perfectly comfortable, -sitting next to his mom.
I always thought that photo should be called, “Still here.”
That’s how I’m thinking of you today: Still here. –
Be sure to have someone take a picture!

I will. One of the weirdly wonderful things about survival is how it also connects you to people in very different circumstances who nevertheless see what you’re talking about. The story of my own spiritual, physical and emotional survival is told in my last book, “Love Undetectable.” I fear some people didn’t read it thinking it was about AIDS. It is and isn’t. It’s really a book about faith. And how friendship transcends everything. More new feedback on Hillary and Bakke on the Letters Page.

“‘When I lose control, I like it,’ ashamed scientist Bruce Banner confesses in one scene. Considering the military context of the film, it’s hard not to hear this as an expression of the public’s own collective excitement when the United States “Hulks out” at an undermatched foe, especially since the movie’s major special-effects sequence could almost be a sci-fi reimagining of Operation Desert Storm or its sequel. As one general observes: ‘There’s a lot of powerful people want in on this. There’s money to be made – lots of it.’ And yes, the desert scenes are set in the American West; but why does Danny Elfman’s music score erupt with Arabic-sounding ululations if not to make us think of the Middle East?” – John Beifuss, at gomemphis.com, equating Bush’s foreign policy with the Incredible Hulk.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “Mr. Goldberg, therefore, is not a well-intentioned Neville Chamberlain seeking to placate the implacable. At best, he is one of the traitorous Vichy French, sympathetic to the conquering invader. At worst, he is Tokyo Rose, an enemy feigning friendship and sympathy to better undermine the morale of our troops. Mr. Goldberg’s own banner is not the white flag of surrender, but the rainbow flag of multiculturalism. The homosexual movement has, indeed, made great gains in the recent past and expects even greater victories in the near future. Things look grim for the natural family in America. Yet, capitulation to a new pan-social homosexual mind-set would be cultural suicide. The homosexual movement in a society is analogous to the AIDS virus in the human body: It is not benign but destructive; it thrives at the expense of the host; and you’re most likely to get it by saying yes to sodomy. The best way to avoid it is through abstinence until lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage. Mr. Goldberg wants us all to say yes to sodomy, much as the French said yes to Nazism and for the same unprincipled reason – the desire to be on the winning side. I, for one, would rather go down fighting for what is right – namely, the protection of the critically important unit on which our society, and all societies, are built – the natural family. Viva [sic] la resistance.” – Scott Lively, attacking Jonah Goldberg in the Letters section of the Washington Times (not online).

Still here, ten years to the day after finding out I was HIV-positive. When I got the news, it was conventional wisdom that very few lasted a decade. My close friend, who got the same diagnosis weeks before I did, died in front of me two years later. I went into work the next day wondering if I could last in my job for much longer, and then, when the meds kicked in, spent a couple hours a day barely conscious in my office. A year later, I lost five friends under the age of 30. But then, through the years of debilitating medication regimens, things slowly got better. My then-boyfriend found out in the same year and is also still around. We talked the other night, like two wacko Vietnam vets, recounting fears and terrors and guilt – and, yes, shame at getting infected in the first place – alien to others who didn’t live through them. Many, many more spend their own anniversaries in a slight air of bewilderment, while others look at us and fail to understand why we can’t just move on. Well, we have moved on; but we cannot and must not forget. Thanks to my amazing docs, a peerless shrink, a loving family, dedicated friends, and the love of a compassionate God, I feel much better today than in most of those early years. My immune system is faring so well that I have been off my meds for two years now with no serious deterioration (although I doubt that will last much longer). Many days, I don’t even think of my virus any more (and people wonder why I don’t support demonizing the drug companies). You feel some guilt about this – because of all those who died and all those who right now have this disease around the world without access to the treatments that could save them. But, like others whose terminal illness is in remission or, for some reason, benign, you also feel the need to live a little more boldly, merrily, fearlessly. I’m taking a bike ride this afternoon. Small gestures of living and loving matter. If only it hadn’t taken a fatal disease to get me to realize that. But I take it as an example of my Savior’s mysterious but all-powerful grace that I now do.

Am I an extremist to be disappointed that SCOTUS didn’t just strike down both Michigan Law School’s racist entrance policies and the undergraduate admissions scheme? In terms of what might happen to the racial make-up in higher education, perhaps I am. But I still don’t believe that discrimination as a means is justified by diversity as an end. And I think that kind of squeamishness is integral to liberalism as a political philosophy. It’s part of the long American story: how race has always been the greatest solvent for political liberalism; and still is.

It appears that some documents implicating British anti-war campaigner George Galloway in pay-offs from Saddam were forged. But the same expert who determined that the Christian Science Monitor’s docs were phony still believes that the Daily Telegraph docs are legit. Galloway – revealingly – still hasn’t made good on his promise to sue the Daily Telegraph. The Guardian has a decent story summing up the state of play.

I think we’ve all learned by now not to credit early reports from Iraq. But there seems little doubt that we’re closing in on Saddam. The possible consequences? An immeasurable piece of military closure for Bush-Blair. A new lease of life for reconstruction in Iraq. More encouragement to the democrats in Iran. Not bad, huh? On the other hand, if we haven’t gotten him: another post-war downer, that could add to the Saddam myth. Here’s hoping.

BITTER, PARTY OF ONE: David Brooks homes in on the Democratic trap – letting their current powerlessness fuel their anger rather than increase their discipline. One crucial disadvantage of the opposition today is that they seem, well, merely against everything. Some of this is inevitable when you’re out of power. But if you do not balance it with a proactive agenda, it can turn into Michael Moore-ism pretty quickly. Specifically: cavilling constantly about the war on terror without proposing a coherent alternative. David is also right to notice how unconservative this White House can be: spending at a rate not seen since LBJ, creating a new bank-breaking drug-entitlement, slapping tariffs on favored industries, subsidizing big agriculture, and on and on. But the Dems don’t see this. And so their critique – crude and Krugmanian – doesn’t convince as many as it could.

EMERSON AND BLOGGERS: Chris Lydon, who won legions of fans with his Boston-based NPR talk-show, now has a blog. And he has an idea: that the blogosphere is an essentially Emersonian enterprise:

Melancholy and enthusiasm are contrasting strands through all Emerson, but there is no summing up this man who disagreed with himself and both perplexed and dazzled his friends.- Walt Whitman loved it that nobody could tag Emerson’s thinking: “no province, no clique, no church.”- Whitman felt “a flood of light” about Emerson, an impression of pure being.- Hawthorne said Emerson “wore a sunbeam in his face.”
In the booming energy of blog world, we are glimpsing the fulfillment of an Emersonian vision: this democracy of outspoken individuals.-
“Trust thyself,” was Emerson’s refrain.-“Every heart vibrates to that string.”-
Speak your own convictions, and your own contradictions, he urged. Claim your own ideas before someone else does.-“I hate quotations,” begins another of the famous aphorisms.-“Tell me what you know.” Which is what the great bloggers keep doing.

Yes, Chris is onto something. Read the whole thing.

BARRY ON JOURNALISTS: “I think the public is genuinely unhappy with us. Lately, when I tell people I work for a newspaper, I’ve detected the subtle signs of disapproval – the dirty looks; the snide remarks; the severed animal heads in my bed. How did we get into this situation? Without pointing the finger of blame at any one institution, I would say it is entirely the fault of The New York Times.” – Dave Barry, hilarious as usual, Miami Herald.

ASHCROFT WATCH: My worries about the way in which the Justice Department is using secret service regulations to suppress anti-Bush protestors is shared by the Economist.

NYT AND GEOGRAPHY: No prizes for catching this howler in the NYT yesterday. It’s about the Pope’s visit to Bosnia:

But it was the pope’s presence here that spoke volumes. His arrival comes as the broken pieces of the Baltic states are desperately trying to prove that they have made progress toward unity and deserve a first step toward admission into the European Union.

Balkans. Baltics. Whatever.

WHY ISRAEL IS DIFFERENT: This wouldn’t be allowed in any Arab state.

Here’s the latest from the New York Times. Why buried on page three? And even more hard to find on the website? Mercifully, blogs are taking up the slack – because we actually want democracy in Iran. Here’s a good round-up of the good work of the blogosphere so far. Have I plugged Hoder.com enough lately?

SHAMELESS PLUG: Same-sex marriage is a hot topic again. I wrote a book-length defense of it in 1995, “Virtually Normal,” and edited one of the definitive guides to the subject – pro and con – a couple years later. If you’re interested, you can buy them.

ANOTHER PROFILE IN COURAGE: Hillary Rodham Clinton has a reputation as a principled liberal – at least that’s what her base and her enemies seem to think. In practice, of course, she has always been a Clinton – a waffler, prevaricator, straddler. So it’s no surprise to hear her complete non-answer on the question of same-sex marriage. Here’s a transcript of a June 18 interview with Senator Clinton on the Brian Lehrer WNYC show in New York City:

Lehrer: The lead story in the New York Times today is about Canada’s decision to fully legalize gay marriage. do you think the United States should do that?

Clinton: Well, obviously in our system it is unlikely ever to be a national decision. It is a state-by-state decision because of the way our federal system operates, where states define what the conditions for marriage, or domestic partnership, or civil union might be, so I don’t think that we will ever face it. In fact there is a law on the books, passed before I was in the congress, the Defense of Marriage Act, which goes so far as to say that even if one state does it, other states under our full faith and credit clause of the constitution don’t have to recognize it.

Lehrer: But is Canada setting a good example, on that you’d like to see spread through the states here?

Clinton: Well, I have long advocated domestic partnership laws and civil unions, to me…

Lehrer: That’s different from marriage.

Clinton: Well, marriage means something different. you know, marriage has a meaning that I… I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is.

Lehrer: But not with the context of marriage.

Clinton: Yeah, I, I think that is, you know… First of all, I think that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to be something nationally accepted in our country, but I also think that we can realize the same results for may committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.

So there you have it. The Senator from New York State is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. And that’s one thing both the right and left will be reluctant to broadcast.

Jeff Jarvis has an excellent and multi-sourced round-up.

Sorry. I got the link wrong yesterday. But here’s one to Jonah’s grown-up column. Money quote:

Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly tried to cancel a scheduled Gay Pride Month celebration at the Department of Justice for lesbian and gay employees. He failed. Despite pressure from social conservative activists, DOJ reversed course in the face of protests from gay groups and a sympathetic media (and, probably, pressure from the White House). When the most famous and powerful member of the Religious Right in the U.S. government can’t stop a gay pride event in his own office building, held by his own employees, you know that social conservatives are losing this fight.

He calls for magnanimity in victory from the gay side. I agree. But victory still isn’t here in the sense of formal legal equality. It’s approaching, I think. And certainly the generational trends suggest that the future belongs to gay integration. But until marriage rights are achieved, and military service is allowed, full citizenship will still be elusive for gay Americans. But here’s a promise: once that equality is achieved, I’ll shut up. No, I won’t go silent on my sexual orientation when it seems appropriate. But I can’t wait to take yes for an answer, to make sexual orientation a non-issue, to move on to other issues, and get on with our lives. I want to shut the gay civil rights movement down. Just not before equality. But the second afterwards. Deal?