“My grandfather emigrated to the United States from Greece in about 1905, at the age of 10 – alone on a ship going to meet his father and brother (coming in through Ellis Island, and looking, I’m sure, quite like the young Vito Corleone in New York Harbour in the “Godfather” flashback scenes – though his future was more peaceful).
Before settling down, to become a railroad worker and early union organizer, he spent a couple of years (from age 15) “hobo-ing” around the western United States. He was very adamant that this was an honorable pastime. A hobo, he said, is not a bum. He goes from place to place and looks for honest work to earn his food and a place to sleep – he is NOT looking for a hand-out.
This is probably not an important distinction for those who are homeless anymore, but when I read your use of the word “hobo” to describe Saddam Hussein, I couldn’t help but remember my grandfather, and I thought “Saddam should be so lucky as to be a hobo – he could wish for so much dignity.” My grandfather achieved a third grade education and spent his life as a mechanic. He raised four sons, three of whom were old enough to volunteer for WWII. The four earned two Master’s and two Ph.D.’s, and produced 15 grandchildren who have done no less. One of the more than 15 great-grandchildren is in the Naval Academy, and one is a Marine. This is the legacy of a hobo. Saddam, master of the palaces and father of the lion-cubs, is just a bum.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.
MY MAN, DENNIS: He used to be too snarky for my taste. But his chutzpah in talking openly about the defense of civilization has won me over. He’s the kind of conservative who doesn’t think the world will end if two guys want to commit to one another for life but who thinks our own world might very well end if we don’t get a grip on Islamist terrorists with WMDs. In other words, he has the right priorities. I should have linked to this already, but better late than never. Money quote: “I will say this, I feel more politically engaged than I’ve ever felt in my life because I do think we live in dangerous times, and anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss – I can’t buy that anymore.” Amen.
HELL ON EARTH: Just when you thought Malaysia couldn’t get scarier, they propose mass chopping off of foreskins. It will apparently bring people together. Couldn’t they just hold hands?
ANGELS DROOPS: The most brilliant, ground-breaking, revolutionary work of art since, er, Frank Rich started writing for the New York Times slipped again in the ratings last week. Its first audience of 4.2 million slipped to 2.9 million for the finale, according to Hollywood Reporter. A reader’s defense of ‘Angels’ can be read here.
DEAN UNDER FIRE: Now, the center-left Spinsanity is having a whack. The best Dean critique i’ve read so far is this devastating editorial in the Washington Post from yesterday. A couple of days ago, Joe Klein told me he thought Dean had peaked. Maybe. But it’s one hell of a peak.
MORSE’S BLIND-SPOT: Jennifer Roback Morse has a beautiful little essay in the current National Review Online. It’s about her marriage, what marriage is, and her own experience of infertility, adoption, childbirth and all sorts of complicated, conflicted experiences to be had in the modern world. It’s a subtle piece, so I won’t try to summarize it, but one of its points is that marriage is about letting go of control, of letting another person’s life become your own, of building a little platoon of intimacy that is deeper than any single or particular end – a baby, a home, a career. What I simply don’t understand is why a woman as obviously as sensitive and humane as Morse nevertheless believes that excluding loving gay couples from such an experience is not only a good thing but a vital thing for people already in such marriages. Are gay people not also human? Can they not also put a joint life before personal gratification? Why does Morse simply assume that homosexuality is about “self-centeredness”? Morse doesn’t actually provide any such arguments. She just seems to take it for granted that this is a zero-sum game, that including gay people in the profound experience of self-giving is somehow destructive of her own relationship. I don’t get it. I don’t see it. And her utter indifference to the actual lives, loves and relationships of gay people – does she know any, I wonder? – undermines her otherwise compelling moral sense. That’s a shame. Gay and straight people have a common ground of understanding when it comes to marriage: we are all human. We all need and benefit from the experience of love and self-giving. It ennobles, sanctifies, elevates. Why does someone like Morse insist that gay people cannot be a part of this?
The Dish 