You read about the collapse of the BBC here first. Now, even the NYT is conceding it. It’s a decent article, marred only by citing Will Hutton as some kind of objective source. He’s the British Paul Krugman. But without all that Enron money.
THE OTHER FRENCH: I’ve been criticized (and rightly, perhaps) for focusing too much on France’s reflexive anti-Americanism. But of course not all of France is that decadent or unthoughtful. A blogger elaborates. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)
GILLESPIE’S FALLACY: There’s some strange thinking going on among the social right about homosexuality, marriage and civil rights. Here’s the RNC Chair, Ed Gillespie:
This is an issue that was made an issue by the proponents of gay marriage and their advocacy of gay marriage… those in favor of gay marriage seem to indicate that tolerance is no longer defined by my accepting people for who they are… I accept people for who they are and love them. That doesn’t mean I have to agree or that I have to turn my back on the tenets of my faith and reject the tenets of my faith when it comes to homosexuality. I think when people say, well, no, that is not enough, it is not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with and condone my choice. That to me is religious bigotry and I believe that is intolerance and I think they are the ones who are crossing a line here…
But the point of equal marriage rights is not that individuals want Gillespie or anyone else to be forced to approve or condone our “evil” relationships (I use the Vatican’s adjective). It’s just that in a diverse society, there are bound to be all sorts of things of which we disapprove but which we accept because we are, well, a diverse and pluarlistic society. I don’t like arranged marriages. But I wouldn’t want to ensure that they are denied civil licenses. Gillespie, as a Catholic, presumably opposes second mariages, like that of Ronald Reagan. And yet he lives in a country where what the Vatican calls “evil” (the Reagans’ marriage) is legal and civilly valid. Because Gillespie accepts legal divorce as a citizen doesn’t mean he is being forced to approve of it as a private person or as a Catholic. Would he say that the supporters of civil divorce are religious bigots for promoting something that is anathema to the Church? I doubt it. So why the double standard for gay marriage? Hmmm. Maybe he doesn’t actually “accept people for the way they are.” Maybe if they’re gay, he thinks they have fewer civil rights and less dignity than if they’re straight.
The Dish 