Month: February 2004

As usual, worth a gander. I worry that we’re morphing. Here’s his statement about whom to supoport this November:

Tavis: Do you think that President George W. Bush deserves to be reelected?
Hitchens: [sighs] Well, it’s a tough call for me. I wasn’t-I certainly wasn’t for his election the first time round. I didn’t want Albert Gore, either, and I’m glad it wasn’t Gore, by the way. One has to face that fact. I must say I’m a bit of a single issue voter on this. I want to be absolutely certain that there’s a national security team that wakes up every morning wondering how to take the war to the enemy. I don’t have that confidence about any of the Democratic candidates, but I think that a Kerry-Edwards ticket would be made up of people who have shown that they are serious on this point, yeah. So I’m not dogmatically for the reelection of the President, but I’m for applying that test as a voter.

I’m pretty close to that. But my other two big concerns are the fiscal future and civil rights. I’ll try and support whichever candidate seems to me to be more credible on righting our fiscal ship in the near and distant future. And, of course, no self-respecting gay person will be able to support president Bush if he wages war on the most basic civil right by the most devastating means possible: a constitutional amendment.

RAMESH ASKS: If I believe that marriage is a basic civil right for all, why don’t I support or want the Supreme Court to rule so? Good question. I’m running to catch a plane but my brief answer is: I don’t believe people’s basic civil rights should be up to a majority vote. That’s why we have courts at all – to check majority tyranny. (When was the last time you heard a conservative worry about democratic tyranny?) I do believe in the process of debate, winning over the public, and doing this legislatively if at all possible – because it makes the reform more stable. I don’t think I can be accused of not living up to this. I’ve never filed a suit in my life. My work has been entirely in the sphere of public debate. I’ve written reams on this, including one early and critical book on the subject, and one anthology, where I published the arguments of my opponents! I’ve debated in TV studios and colleges across the country, literally hundreds of times. I’ve lost many readers because I have become a crashing bore on the subject. So obviously, I’d be thrilled if the country now suddenly agreed with me and passed laws in every state to allow gays to wed. But that’s not how these things happen. It takes time. In a mere fifteen years, we’ve clearly made enormous progress. We have marriage in three countries – Holland, Belgium and Canada. We’ve moved public opinion dramatically in our direction. The younger generation gets it entirely. But courts have a role. I don’t believe courts should never do anything but rubber-stamp majority decisions. I think the argument for equal marriage rights is so constitutionally strong it will take a federal constitutional amendment to deny gays their rights. I suspect the religious right agrees. So we now have to see if the general public finds gay couples such a threat to their life that they will write discrimination against them in the Constitution. I have to hope and pray they won’t. But I cannot be dismayed when courts include gay people as equal citizens in this republic. That’s their job. And it’s their constitutional duty.

Of course they can. Whether they will or not is another matter. My take on the Democrats’ underlying strength.

IRAN SHIFTS: Oxblog has a compendium of stories about growing restlessness in Iran. One simple fact: the pro-democracy forces in that poor country will only gain momentum if we manage to hold a real election in Iraq. Meanwhile, even Syria sees the beginning of a democracy push. (Hat tip: Glenn.) And Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation becomes more transparent. All this is good news. Would it have happened without our resolve over Iraq? I doubt it.

THE GUARD STORY: Here’s a blog entry that serves as a guide to reporters who really should ferret out the full details of the president’s National Guard service. Why? Because it’s going to be an election issue. Because there are fuzzy parts of the story that need more focus. Because finding out the facts is what reporters are supposed to do. (Hat tip: Josh.)

THE CHURCH PILES ON: The BBC is taking it from all sides these days. But mainly from the right. And here’s another apology.

HEADS UP: I’ll be on Real Time with Bill Maher this Friday night on HBO. My fellow panelists: Carole Moseley-Braun and Rob Schneider.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s response to the Massachusetts legislature is not as groundbreaking as people are making it out to be. It’s just the logical conclusion of the Goodridge decision, a ruling the legislature decided to try and side-step. The Justices in the majority mercilessly home in on the central meaning behind so-called “civil unions” – the only defense of them is that they are a device to maintain exclusion, especially when they are substantively identical to civil marriage. In that sense – same thing, different department – they’re a text-book case of “separate but equal.” If you’re going to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain? The only answer can be: to keep the stigma in place. But stigma as such surely has no role under a constitution that affirms equal rights for all citizens. It’s not the court’s role to rule otherwise. The only judicial activism in this case would have been if the Court had decided that, in spite of the state constitution, the public’s own discomfort with a minority would be justification for maintaining that minority’s second class status. Legislatures are entitled to legislate stigma. Courts are supposed to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all, and marriage is one of the most basic civil rights there is, and gay couples can and do fulfill every requirement that straight couples can, what leeway does any Court have? I’m constantly amazed by these claims of judicial “tyranny.” Was Brown v Board of Education tyranny? It’s exactly the same principle as operates here: separate but equal won’t do.

A NEW DYNAMIC: But there is a new dynamic at work. First, the White House is smart enough to know that this issue is dangerous for all involved. If the president makes marriage equality an issue in this election, he must know that John Kerry will not allow him to be more against gay marriage than Kerry is. Kerry is strongly opposed to allowing gay people to enjoy the same civil insititution he has used himself twice, and yesterday he reiterated that. So the issue for the voters becomes: do you support Bush who wants to amend the constitution to strip gay couples of marriage rights, civil unions, domestic partnerships and any civil recognition at all; or do you support a man who opposes gay marriage but backs civil unions for gays, a state-by-state solution, and no constitutional amendment? Not such a slam dunk for Bush. In fact: advantage Kerry. But before anything can happen, we will have actual, real, living marriages in America that are between two people of the same sex. So the debate will then become how these people’s marriages can be undone, revoked, retroactively extinguished. The religious right and the Catholic bishops will be on a mission to expand … divorce!

ANOTHER VIEW: I know you’re all sick of me on this topic, so let me point you to another person’s view, a heterosexual, who may persuade you better than I can. After all, my life, my relationship, my friends, my family, are involved. And it’s always good to have another view.

“John Kerry’s long, angular face has something of the abstraction of a tribal mask. The features are at once stark and exaggerated, and, with the exception of his mouth, none of the parts appear to move.” – Philip Gourevitch, the New Yorker. My italics. The evidence mounts …

ANONYBLOGGERS: Anonyblogger Atrios recently called the New York Times’ Nick Kristof “human scum.” Welcome to the pond, Nick! Of course, Atrios is immune from personal attacks because he’s anonymous. Salon picks up on the double standards here.

MARRIAGE IN MASS: I’ll be commenting in tomorrow’s blog. Swamped right now. Bottom line: great news.

Interesting story that suggests I am actually wrong about the Hajj. It’s even more death-seeking than I believed:

The death of 251 Muslims in a stampede shocked no one, with many pilgrims certain that those who die on the hajj enter paradise and the Saudi authorities pointing to the “will of God”.
“I wish I was among the pilgrims who died on Sunday,” Kamal Shahada, an Egyptian pilgrim, said.
“I would have gone to heaven, because dying in these holy sites of Islam would assure one a place in heaven,” he said, echoing a widespread conviction in the Islamic world.

Of course, this is the sign of a certain kind of real faith. There is a huge difference between seeking holy death or being indifferent to death as a spiritual matter, and suicide bombing. Christ, after all, chose death when he could have stayed alive. Martyrdom is not a uniquely Muslim concept. But it is useful to remember that Western liberalism’s attachment to life faces here an ancient and powerful enemy. If harnessed to a political movement, the indifference to death is the biggest and most potent weapon of mass destruction the world knows. Because it cannot be deterred.

It’s now between the two of them – which is much to Edwards’ benefit. Kerry should have tried to destroy Edwards in South Carolina. The 15 point loss is big news – and means Edwards can get some traction. So does Edwards’ win over Kerry in Oklahoma. That’s especially true because it brings up the deeper question of whether Kerry can mount a truly national campaign (not that he has to). The candidate I most agree with on the issues – Joe Lieberman – is outta here. Nice guy, right instincts, not presidential timber. Dean will fight on – and I hope he does, if only to keep this thing interesting and alive. Obviously, Kerry is now the overwhelming favorite. But I’m not willing to say it’s over when the vast majority of delegates have still to be picked and when the front-runner is so obviously flawed.

SPINNING THE HAJJ: Glenn Reynolds thinks that the constant mass deaths that accompany the annual Muslim Hajj is more to do with bad organization than with a “death-cult.” He has a point. I don’t believe all those victims chose to die and others glorified it. But there’s something weird going on here. If, say, 244 people had been killed at the Vatican in Holy Week, do you think that we would have moved on from the story by now? People would have been held accountable; journalists would have gone over the catastrophe in excruciating detail; relatives of the dead would be interviewed; and on and on. But in Saudi Arabia? It’s just God’s will. May happen next year as well. Next subject. And my email in-tray is full of outrage that I should worry about this. Here’s a column backing me up a little. Money quote:

I fear Madani’s excuse will be greeted by the pious with a complacency bordering on indifference, the same complacency that has allowed all the previous catastrophies at the Haj to pass with minimal comment.
The main reason for this, I suspect, is that the west is in no way responsible for these deaths – which in the past 25 years of the Haj run into the thousands. Thus, unlike, say, the victims of the war in Iraq, they are without political significance and therefore moral weight. At the same time, no one else is interested in bringing attention to this recurring carnage because western governments – some of whose citizens are part of the pilgrimage – are afraid of offending the Saudis. And most westerners probably dismiss the whole thing as the strange workings of religious fanaticism… God’s intentions are not an explanation for incidents such as … the stampede on Sunday. They are an excuse. Similarly, to hold the Saudis to account for these deaths is not an act of a racism. But it is a form of racism to ignore them.

Amen. It seems to me that this kind of indifference to human life is part of the problem we are dealing with in fanatical Islam – and Saudi Arabia is a central part of that “cult of death.” The Saudis handed over the Haj to the nutjobs decades ago, the same nutjobs who train generations to kill Jews and Westerners. Until and unless we challenge these people, nothing will change over there. And if we don’t challenge them when their victims are Muslims, we will have much less credibility when the victims are us.

Here’s a useful primer. Not much there.

WHY NO FOLLOW-UP? John Ellis asks an important question. Why has there been no major follow-up to the ABC News story of massive bribes from Saddam to Western and non-Western Saddamites? Even a French priest was in on the act. And, of course, our old friend, George Galloway. So where’s the outrage? And where are the follow-ups?

THE OTHER OPTION: One thing seems to me to have gotten a little lost in the debate over Bush and Kerry/Dean/Edwards. This election is not going to be simply about which one of these candidates you believe in, trust more, agree with more, and so on. The broader question is: given that the House and Senate are almost certainly going to stay Republican, do you want one-party government or divided government? Recent history suggests that the best option for people of my polyglot persuasion is a Republican Congress and a moderate Democrat in the White House. With any luck, you get gridlock, the Congress restrains spending, and you don’t get wackos on the courts. The big exception this time around, of course, is war. Can we trust a Democratic president to defend the country adequately enough? Toughie. So far, none of the Dems has even begun to make the sale to my satisfaction. But, again, that has to be weighed against whether the country can live with bankrupt big government Nixonism as a price for national security. Second toughie.

IN DEFENSE OF BUSH: “I am as conservative as can be. Not a paleo, not a neo, but bedrock social and fiscal conservative Catholic. I read your piece and numerous other wailing articles about Bush’s non-conservatism and have the following comments:
GWB is not Reagan. He did not campaign on the “goverment isn’t the solution, it’s the problem” platform. He did, however, campaign on his ability to form bi-partisan agreements to address problems. He stressed this over and over in 2000. He also said he would get a Medicare drug benefit passed (which congress had been jaw-boning for 15 years), address illegal immigration with a no-amnesty worker program, appoint constitutionalist judges, push for a ban on partial birth abortion, not pass additional gun restrictions, allow faith based groups to be eligible for federal funds, hold Saddam and other rogues accountable, pursue missile defenses, modernize NASA, restore dignified behavior to the White House, require testing for students, and have across the board tax cuts.
On each and every one of these issues, he has either achieved legislation or is currently working towards the stated goal. Considering he inherited a tanking stock market, corporate scandals, Clinton’s phony economic forecasts, and a recession; its a damn miracle that he was able to stick to his agenda as well as he has. Many conservatives are bitching and moaning about some of the legislation, some of the compromises, and lack of spending control; and some criticism is definitely warranted. But one cannot bitch about the agenda, since he laid it out on the table as clear as day when campaigning.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.

A NEW DATING SITE: For political wonks.

GOOD ADVICE FOR KERRY: From Ruy Teixeira. Drop the faux-populism. Learn something from Clinton.

Not content with howling, one little critter now blasts the car horn. Very beagle.

Tony Kushner “bravely” takes on Laura Bush in – shock, horror – Cambridge, Massachusetts. What a hero of pushing the envelope! What daring! What artistic courage! Here’s how Alex Beam puts it:

Welcome to Kushnerworld – Pulitzer Prize-winning “Angels in America” Kushnerworld – where heterosexuals are repressed homosexuals trapped in loveless relationships, gays are generally noble and capable of spiritual enlightenment, religion is soul-suffocating bunkum, and Republicans occupy a moral plane similar to that of the Nazis. “You’re nice. I can’t believe you voted for Reagan,” Louis tells Joe, the repressed Mormon gay man in “Angels.”
The men and women who glean their news from NPR and the Guardian newspaper are always startled to learn that 48 million Americans voted for Reagan. Many of them must be the same yahoos and rubes who – gosh – voted for George Bush in 2000.

You can hear more Pulitzers coming down the pike for this one, can’t you?

That’s looking like the Bush campaign’s strategy this year. I feared as much.

SPENT ARGUMENT: David Frum protests too much in his excuses for George W. Bush’s failings.