Year: 2003

“President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” — New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.

“The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.” — New York Times editorial, today.

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.

“To the list of reasons you gave for the increasing extremism on the left, I would like to add one more, and arguably the primary reason. They had grown used to having a total monopoly on the information rationed out to the American people. With control of all network news and entertainment and most big-screen entertainment, the challenges to their opinions were only seen by their most conservative opponents, never by the “mainstream”. I put that work in quotes, because I mean the true center of the population, while the media has consistently used the term to mean the fairly extreme left wing.
Probably that is why they have reacted so strongly to the cancellation of The Reagans. This was an abandonment by their true heartland. It also explains the violence of their language when they talk about Fox News and talk radio. They react as OPEC would react to a new source that started selling 50 million barrels a day of petroleum at $2 per barrel.” – good point, as ever. More feedback on the Letters Page.

I got sent this letter, which appears completely legit. It recounts a story of a man stuck in Baltimore’s airport at the end of last month, as many soldiers were returning for leave from Iraq. Here’s his recollection:

In addition to all the flights that had been canceled on Sunday, the weather was terrible in Baltimore and the flights were backed up. So, there were a lot of unhappy people in the terminal trying to get home, but nobody that I saw gave the soldiers a bad time. By the afternoon, one plane to Denver had been delayed several hours. United personnel kept asking for volunteers to give up their seats and take another flight. They weren’t getting many takers. Finally, a United spokeswoman got on the PA and said this, “Folks. As you can see, there are a lot of soldiers in the waiting area. They only have 14 days of leave and we’re trying to get them where they need to go without spending any more time in an airport then they have to. We sold them all tickets, knowing we would oversell the flight. If we can, we want to get them all on this flight. We want all the soldiers to know that we respect what you’re doing, we are here for you and we love you.” At that, the entire terminal of cranky, tired, travel-weary people, a cross-section of America, broke into sustained and heart-felt applause.The soldiers looked surprised and very modest. Most of them just looked at their boots. Many of us were wiping away tears. And, yes, people lined up to take the later flight and all the soldiers went to Denver on that flight. That little moment made me proud to be an American, and also told me why we will win this war.

Amen. I still have a lump in my throat.

There’s now a contest to become Dennis Kucinich’s prospective first lady. I kid you not.

It existed in post-war Germany, as U.S. troops battled a rebellious population. That was in October 1945. Of course, the methods of terrorism – truck bombs, suicide bombers, etc. – were not yet fully perfected. But the idea that you can invade a country, topple a totalitarian dictatorship, disband the army and expect peace to break out overnight is preposterous. This is not to downplay the real problems in Iraq, but it is to put them in some kind of sane perspective.

The biggest hike in government spending in two decades – brought to you by Republicans. It’s becoming official: if you want a smaller government, then voting Republican is a completely self-defeating proposition.

How deeply divided is America these days? My take opposite.

DROP THE TARIFFS: There are two huge problems with Bush’s economic record. The first is the massive hike in domestic spending he has signed on to. One quarter of good economic growth will do nothing to address the enormous fiscal wreckage that Bush has already created and has no current plans to reverse. Long-run structural debt is not a conservative position. It’s a reckless position – especially when you’re adding a huge new federal entitlement and doing nothing – nothing – to reform entitlements. Ditto the Rove Tariffs on steel. Not even the White House can defend this attack on free trade in anything but the crudest political terms. The EU and the WTO are absolutely right to demand a reversal. If Bush sticks to his protectionist guns, he really should be pummeled by real economic conservatives.

THE BRAILLETTES!: Blog readers have now submitted another round of worst-ever music album covers. Marc Cenedella is on a roll.

IMMINENCE, ETC: I’m sure you’re all bored by this meme and fight now. But I should link to Spinsanity for another treatment that doesn’t quite side with any of us. Helpful.

KERRY’S MESS: He’s gone through more top staffers in a brief campaign than president Bush has in his entire presidency. I think that’s telling. By the way, he served in Vietnam.

For some reason, Ramesh Ponnuru’s full account of the morass of the proposed “Federal Marriage Amendment” isn’t online yet. It’s in the coming issue of National Review. I’ve read it several times now and even someone like me who has studied this in some depth finds it hard going at times. (That’s not Ramesh’s fault. It’s the amendment’s.) The bottom line is that my and others’ criticisms of the proposed amendment – that it would go further than banning gay marriage and would deny gay citizens any benefits whatever – seem to have struck home. The far right knows that its attempt to disenfranchise gay citizens for ever and to trample states’ rights in the process is an extremist non-starter. So this is what they have apparently done. They’ve added a third clause to the FMA. Here’s how Ramesh describes the new far right consensus:

It fell to Chuck Colson, the leader of Prison Fellowship and perhaps the most unifying figure among social conservatives today, to find a solution. On October 15, he succeeded in getting more than 20 groups to come up with a common position. They agreed that the amendment would prohibit gay marriage. It would also prohibit the states and the federal government, including both the courts and the legislatures, from providing any benefits to people that were contingent on their being involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. The amendment would, however, allow state legislators to extend the particular privileges of marriage to gay couples — just not as gay couples. People not in gay relationships would also have to be eligible.

Re-read the penultimate sentence: “The amendment would, however, allow state legislators to extend the particular privileges of marriage to gay couples — just not as gay couples.” Huh? I think this means that the social right is now offering semi-marital benefits to anyone – gay or straight – so long as they’re celibate in the relationship or pretend they’re straight or act as if they’re as intimate as most law partners. I don’t know how any sane person could conclude that this isn’t ridiculous. How could the government tell who’s celibate and who’s not, or who’s gay and who’s straight, or who’s doing unmentionable things in their own bedrooms? Is a gay couple supposed to put on some act like they’re bachelor buddies in some 1950s movie and the minute they’re “presumed” gay, all their rights disappear? Or are we going to have federal videocams in the bedroom?Beats me. And this exquisite piece of precious social maneuvring belongs in the Constitution! So once you’ve trashed states’ rights, deconstructed marriage and alienated gays and their families, what else does the religious right want to accomplish? Except give everyone else in the country a long, hard burst of the giggles?

THE RIGHT VERSUS MARRIAGE: Ramesh elaborates:

Whether the amendment agreed upon by the groups at Colson’s meeting would ban “civil unions,” then, is not a yes-no question. It would allow civil unions so long as eligibility for them is not based, even in part, on the fact, supposition, or presumption that the people involved are having sex. The amendment would thus make it theoretically possible for gay couples — and cohabiting straight couples — to have any of the benefits of marriage, except for governmental recognition of their relationships as equivalent to those of married people.

Huh? This is dizzyingly confusing. And the way in which it empowers government to arbiter the minutiae of people’s sex lives should be abhorrent to anyone to the left of the Taliban. What’s more, it’s a far more direct attack on marriage than anything that has yet been invented by the social right’s opponents. The real problem with civil unions or domestic partnerships is that they provide an easy way-station for straight couples other than marriage. They don’t demand the same kind of responsibility and commitment that marriage entails, and thus they weaken the important role of marriage in contributing to social stability. That’s why I’ve long proposed cutting through the entire domestic partnership racket (I’d happily abolish all of it) and including gays in marriage, period – as the most conservative measure available. It still is. But the far right’s loathing of gay people has forced them to adopt the most radical of the left’s proposals – the deconstruction of marriage altogether into a meaningless French-style array of benefits for anyone and anything. Except they’ve added a new unenforceable twist – that these new benefits are conditioned on celibacy! And that celibacy applies to straights as well as gays. So this amendment will actually now threaten any straight couple in a domestic partnership or civil union – and demand that they stop having sex or have their benefits removed! If I had to come up with an Onion-style parody of the religious right, I couldn’t do better than this. I’ll leave you with the new improved amendment as it now stands. It is more eloquent than anything I could say about it:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights, or immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships.

This is graffiti on a sacred document. The founders of this country would be horrified.

Yep, we’ve made the oldest of old media, the Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2004. (Hat tip: the Elder.)