It’s flattering, I guess, to be subjected to a nativist slur by that bilious old snob, Gore Vidal. That he casts such an aspersion having spent much of the last few decades sunning in Italy adds spice to the whole thing, doesn’t it? But I’ve learned there’s no point in responding at any length to people who dismiss your arguments because of where you’re from. It’s the cheapest of anti-immigrant shots, more reminiscent of the reactionary snobbism of Vidal’s beloved Europe than the new world.
THE ONION ON BLOGS: It was inevitable. Enjoy.
SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: “Indeed, today’s Washington has a whiff of Soviet ways; suffocating internal discipline, resentment of even reasoned, moderate opposition, and a refusal to admit even the tiniest error. For imperialists, read “evildoers”. With their condescending “we know best” attitude, Messrs Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest offer as close an impersonation of the Politburo as you will find. As was said of the pre-glasnost Kremlin then, so with the White House now: you know nothing, but understand everything.” – Rupert Cornwell, the Independent. From all reports, the hatred of George W. Bush is now at fever pitch in London. All sorts of vicious tyrants have met the Queen for state visits – but none will recieve the outpouring of hate that will await Bush. Heads up: this will be a big deal. Hundreds of thousands will likely turn up to protest; the capital city is on the verge of shutting down; there will be demonstrations in Trafalgar Square in which an effigy will be toppled in mimickry of the defeat of Saddam. All this is designed to make the demonstrators to feel good but also to show Americans that even their closest ally despises the president and wants him defeated, humiliated, removed. Even if it means supporting the forces of terrorism in the Middle East. That’s how inflamed and irrational this has become.
MORE THOUGHTS ON THE FMA: Thanks for your many emails. I may have over-interpreted the new clause. Here is one thought on this latest wrinkle that helps clarify some things for me:
FMA-sanctioned civil unions would entitle gay couples to all the rights and privileges of traditional marriage, including the right to be sexual active with one’s partner. But by virtue of the fact that sexual activity is not a prerequisite, they enable fundamentalists to believe that the law is not “endorsing” homosexual activity. An FMA civil union permits homosexual sex, but does not legally require it, and I guess there’s enough distinction there to satisfy some fundamentalists that the law isn’t “promoting” homosexuality. Since sex is only an option, rather than a requirement, the fundamentalists are mollified by the fact that the civil union law is not “encouraging” anyone to have homosexual sex in order to take advantage of the law. I apologize for the long-winded response, and for what its worth, in the end I largely agree with you. Civil unions under the FMA can confer federal benefits on couples who may have no real bond with each other, and it seems to me that opens the door to all kinds of fraud. If you leave the sexual/romantic prerequisite in, you uphold traditional marriage values. Take it out, and I think you replace traditional notions of marital relationships with a cold, impersonal business partnership.
To re-cap: The new amendment would therefore allow any kind of non-sexual relationship in the same household to be a civil union or domestic partnership. Two brothers; aunt and niece; co-workers; law partners; college room-mates; etc etc. The privileges of marriage would thereby be extended to almost anyone in French-style fashion. (This model, by the way, was considered and soundly rejected in Vermont and California and seems far more fitting as a piece of elaborate, social-engineering legislation than as an amendment to the Constitution). The only exception to this would be any gay couples who presented themselves as gay couples, i.e. loving, intimate and occasionally sexual partners, like straight married couples. And the rationale for this is to “protect” the institution of marriage. But the more you think about it, the clearer it is that it does the opposite. It wrecks the special status of marriage in ways only the far left alone would support – by extending its benefits to almost anyone in even the most formal or casual relationship. Straight couples would be able to shack up easily and get benefits without any of the full responsibilities of marriage – exactly what the social right purports to oppose. But it does achieve one thing: it ensures that gay people get no social recognition at all for their relationships. I think this is the firmest evidence that the religious right is not primarily motivated by a desire to protect marriage as such; the movement is now fueled entirely by a desire to deny any social recognition to gay people. It is designed purely for discrimination and stigmatization. It serves no other purpose. They are, alas, lost in their own fears. They would undermine the very institution they claim to support in order to marginalize a group of people they despise. Sad and so un-Christian.
FIFTH COLUMN WATCH: How can one express adequate horror at Ted Rall’s latest rationalization for murdering U.S. and allied troops. Check out this column, written as a memo to Baathists and terrorists now killing Americans – and published on Veterans’ Day:
It is no easy thing to shoot or blow up young men and women because they wear American uniforms. Indeed, the soldiers are themselves oppressed members of America’s vast underclass. Many don’t want to be here; joining America’s mercenary army is the only way they can afford to attend university. Others, because they are poor and uneducated, do not understand that they are being used as pawns in Dick Cheney (news – web sites)’s cynical oil war. Unfortunately, we can’t help these innocent U.S. soldiers. They are victims, like ourselves, of the bandits in Washington. Nor can we disabuse them of the propaganda that an occupier isn’t always an oppressor. We regret their deaths, but we must continue to kill them until the last one has gone home to America… In this vein we must also take action against our own Iraqi citizens who choose to collaborate with the enemy. Bush wants to put an “Iraqi face” on the occupation. If we allow the Americans to corrupt our friends and neighbors by turning them into puppet policemen and sellouts, our independence will be lost forever. If someone you know is considering taking a job with the Americans, tell him that he is engaging in treason and encourage him to seek honest work instead. If he refuses, you must kill him as a warning to other weak-minded individuals… To victory!
After 9/11, I was roundly criticized for daring to suggest that there were some people in America who wanted the terrorists to win. But if you read Ted Rall and others, there can be no mistake. There is a virulent strain of anti-Americanism in this country. Some, like Rall, are now urging the murder of American troops in defense of Islamist terrorists and the acolytes of one of the most brutal dictators in history. Ann Coulter couldn’t invent something this depraved. That’s where parts of the left have now come to reside. It’s as sad as it is sickening.
The Dish 