Month: June 2004

This has been the rallying cry for many social conservatives, outraged that courts might uphold minority rights on the issue of marriage. So what are they proposing this summer in the House? Because they apparently lack the votes to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage rights (or any other legal protections) for gay couples, they are considering other options. According to
Amy Fagan, in the Washington Times yesterday, such options “include … a measure that would define marriage in the District of Columbia as being between a man and a woman.” How about the voters in the District of Columbia? The City Council has a majority that would support equal marriage rights for homosexuals. Voters probably agree. So why should Congressmen from other states dictate social policy for D.C.? As Bill Clinton might put it, because they can. Just please don’t tell me that the campaign to prevent gay couples from marrying has anything to do with genuine concern for democracy. In D.C., it’s the opposite. Why not let the people vote in DC on marriage rights? Because residents of the capital city are subjects not citizens.

He does a grand job of evisceration (and he’s not voting for Bush). I will say this: I will generally go see anything. I even sat through “The Passion of the Christ.” But I cannot bring myself to go to this piece of vile, hateful propaganda. I walked out of “Roger and Me” years ago, before Michael Moore was Michael Moore. I know who he is. I refuse to sit in a theater and subject myself to lies and hate.

A South Asian version of your favorite show. (Hat tip: Jonah.)

Is Clinton full of it about even the origins of Hillary’s name? New Zealanders want to know.

The Washington Post’s editorial on the torture memos seems to me to strike the right balance. (Just compare it to the Bush-can’t-win screed at the NYT.) It is indeed a relief to see that the president ruled out anything that violated Geneva principles, and that the defense secretary reversed, after a month, the permissibility of a variety of techniques that he previously sanctioned in Guantanamo. But there’s the rub:

The documents confirm that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a number of harsh interrogation techniques for use in Guantanamo in December 2002, including hooding, requiring nudity, placing prisoners in stress positions and using dogs. After military lawyers objected that these violated international law, Mr. Rumsfeld suspended their use a month later. But all these techniques, as well as the restricted practices now approved for Guantanamo, appeared in an interrogation policy issued for Iraq by command of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez in September 2003. Nearly word for word, the harsh methods detailed in memos signed by Mr. Rumsfeld — which even administration lawyers considered violations of the Geneva Conventions — were then distributed to interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The procedures in turn could be read to cover much of what is seen in the photographs that have scandalized the world. How did this spread of improper and illegal practices occur?

That is what we will find out.

Yep, it gets even more depressing.

ALLAWI ON ELECTIONS: He says he’d prefer them sooner than January. Shouldn’t this be a bigger story if it’s true?

THE FANATICS WE FACE: The more recent outbreak of Islamist mass murder and mayhem should stir us to remember the real enemy. Here’s a posting from a website allegedly celebrating the latest murders in Saudi Arabia. Cited in a terrific column by Aussie Andrew Bolt, it purports to be written by one Fawwaz bin Muhammad al-Nashami, a Jihadist who escaped. Its details comprt with what we know happened. Listen to him:

Al-Nashami says he and his “brothers” shot their way into an oil company compound, where, as police confirm, they killed a British worker and tied his body to their car. He says they drove on until “the infidel’s clothing was torn to shreds and he was naked in the street … and everyone watched the infidel being dragged, praise and gratitude be to Allah.” The terrorists then stormed a second compound, and found an “American infidel”.
“I shot him in the head, and his head exploded. We entered another office and found one infidel from South Africa, and our brother Hussein slit his throat. We asked Allah to accept (these pious acts) from us, and from him.” The terrorists then killed guards at a third compound, where al-Nashami says they found Johansson: “Brother Nimr cut off his head and put it at the gate, so that it would be seen by all …” They caught other workers and checked their religion.
“We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers the Mujahideen in the Philippines. We found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats, too, Allah be praised … We utilised the time for (teaching) the Koran to the Muslims who remained.”

Please don’t tell me that this is not religiously-inspired terrorism. And these people, according to the 9/11 Commisssion, remain “extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks.” We are absolutely right to hold Western governments to account for failures, abuses and incompetence. But the government is not the enemy. Neither is John Kerry. And the enemy is still out there.

BUSH ON AIDS: He spoke movingly and powerfully yesterday. History will credit him for caring about this issue far more than his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Maybe because it was my eleventh anniversary of finding out I got HIV but I was moved by his words. Except, of course, for his usual exception in his compassionate conservatism: gay men. The president managed to give an entire speech and – again – never mentioned one of the biggest groups in the country affected by it. Amazing. How do his speech-writers do it? To a black audience, he had a chance to help them confront the homophobia that has crippled the black community’s ability to confront the epidemic. But, of course, Bush didn’t. Imagine what James Dobson would say. He also said the following:

The second part of a domestic strategy to fight AIDS is prevention. I think it’s really important for us to focus on prevention. We can learn from the experiences of other countries when it comes to a good program to prevent the spread of AIDS, like the nation of Uganda. They’ve started what they call the A-B-C approach to prevention of this deadly disease. That stands for: Abstain, be faithful in marriage, and, when appropriate, use condoms. That’s what A-B-C stands for. And it’s working. I like to call it a practical, balanced and moral message.

And yet, in one of the populations most at risk from this disease, Bush opposes any measures that would encourage marriage. In fact, he is waging a war to ban such marriages, and erase any incentives for gay men to stick together. Is Bush aware of this lacuna? If marriage cannot be a strategy for prevention among gays, then what is his prevention policy? He has none, because in order to have one, he would have to acknowledge that gay people exist – and that he is their president too. That he cannot and will not do. It’s too depressing for words.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY I: “I have not yet read Mr. Clinton’s book, but you can bet that my Judicial Watch attorneys will. I have learned that Bill Clinton has repeated his lies about me, and I am sickened by his continued disregard for the truth. Bill Clinton pretends to be contrite, but he continues to bear false witness against his neighbor. He is a national disgrace.” – Gennifer Flowers, Bill Clinton’s former long-term mistress.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “‘Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women’ … Wait a minute, that’s Conan. I stepped out of character here for a second.” – Arnold on his governing philosophy, in the New York Times. The very fact that he has set up a smoking tent in the grounds of the California legislature (smoking is banned inside) is yet another reason to love the guy. And no, he won’t be stumping for Bush.

ROMNEY AND WELD: They’re a contrast of two kinds of Republican governors – one is a Mormon dedicated to keeping gay couples marginalized; the other is a libertarian WASP who actually officiates at a wedding for his old roommate. I know which party I support.

How the U.S. beat al Sadr.

Bottom line: so far so good for the administration. I haven’t been able to peruse all the documents but I will wait for other journalists with access to summarize them in time. When I said yesterday that I was relieved that Bush had spoken out so forcefully against torture, I simply meant that I was glad that it was not now official policy. But it still isn’t clear that we have all the truly relevant memos. And Gonzalez’s statement yesterday was also troubling:

“We’re going to be aggressive in our interrogations. There’s no question about that,” Gonzales said. He insisted that the United States would not engage in torture and said the administration uses the definition of torture provided by Congress as “a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering.”

This still leaves open the possibility of the infliction of “severe physical or mental harm” if the “specific intent” is to gain information. But in general, the Rumsfeld decisions in both December 2002 and April 2003 do indeed appear to exonerate him from approving the worst options. The only technique he approved that is directly linked to the Abu Ghraib horrors is the use of dogs to terrify inmates. Bush’s decision to maintain Geneva rules is also heartening. But this story is not yet over. And more will emerge.

THE GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ: Arthur Chrenkoff offers another essential summary of where we now are. Why, one wonders, couldn’t a mainstream newspaper produce something like this?

REAGAN’S HUMOR: Here’s a classic from a wonderful essay by Edmund Morris in the new New Yorker:

Perhaps the best of Reagan’s one-liners came after he attended his last ceremonial dinner, with the Knights of Malta in New York City on January 13, 1989. The evening’s m.c., a prominent lay Catholic, was rendered so emotional by wine that he waved aside protocol and followed the President’s speech with a rather slurry one of his own. It was to the effect that Ronald Reagan, a defender of the rights of the unborn, knew that all human beings begin life as “feces.” The speaker cited Cardinal John O’Connor (sitting aghast nearby) as “a fece” who had gone on to greater things. “You, too, Mr. President – you were once a fece!”
En route back to Washington on Air Force One, Reagan twinklingly joined his aides in the main cabin. “Well,” he said, “that’s the first time I’ve flown to New York in formal attire to be told I was a piece of shit.”

LOL.

Why was it conducted with the least reliable sample method? Captain Ed wants to know. UPDATE: Another reader points out that although the sample method was dubious for the entire poll, they did parse many questions using a registered voters criterion. And even by that count, Kerry still had an eight point lead.

THE BBC ON THE BEHEADING: Never averse to presenting the other side in dealing with terrorists who behead innocent civilians, the BBC had this to say about South Koreans’ views of yesterday’s atrocity and the policy implications:

The South Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq are due to be involved in humanitarian and rebuilding work, and the area they are to be based in, near Kurdish-controlled Irbil, has been largely peaceful. But the BBC’s Charles Scanlon in Seoul says that internet chat sites suggest a majority of Koreans believe their troops should not be taking part in what they see as an immoral occupation.

Ah the scientific polling of the BBC. Anything to promote the idea that a war against terror and fascism is futile.

ANOTHER MOORE LIE: This one on Bush’s vacations. Of course, the premise is wrong as well. The effectiveness of a president does not inhere in his ability to work non-stop round the clock. It’s what he does when he works. Vacations and sleep are integral to a healthy mind and body. Americans need to do more of them, not less. Good for Bush for setting an example.

THAT LIBERAL MEDIA: It’s worth downloading and reading this study on media bias. Its merit is that it tries to find an objective measure of right/left positioning by checking citations of various think tanks. This is somewhat limiting, but not nuts. The authors see which think-tanks are cited by which newspapers and media outlets and they compare them with citations by members of Congress. In a very closely divided House, this makes some sense. And the results are that the press isn’t just slightly to the left of the American middle – but wildly out of sync. (Drudge, by the way, comes out a centrist not because of his own page’s text, but due to the text of all the links he cites. But it shows he cites outlets of all persuasions, even if some, presumably, are linked in order to mock them). Then there’s this arresting passage:

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, more than triple the rate of journalists. In the 14th California district, which includes Palo Alto, 26 percent voted for Bush, more than four times the rate of journalists.

Of course, what the author doesn’t realize is that journalists are uniquely virtuous individuals and never let their internal views dictate the content, placement or subject-matter of stories. Never happens.

It’s a striking phrase, coined in the Weekly Standard, to describe what Reagan vanquished. Or did he? Roger Kimball ponders its relevance to today.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Someone’s probably already passed this along to you, but in the back of this year’s ‘Official Magazine of San Francisco Pride’ program, there’s a short interview with Al Franken.
He’s asked ‘Best Kisser: Andrew Sullivan or Matt Drudge?’ to which he replies ‘Andrew, I would think.’ Just thought you’d like to know.” For the record, despite fantasies of becoming a real princess at long last, I have not and almost certainly never will kiss Al Franken.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I am not new to my conservative principles. No one has ever tried to accuse me of being a liberal Republican or a moderate Republican; I have only been a conservative Republican. And, as a conservative Republican, I have never compromised my basic principles – limited government, the free market, steadfast adherence to civil liberties including the right to keep and bear arms and the rights of the states – in the search for higher office. I appear before you today in that spirit of consistency with conservative ideals… I, along with many other conservative opinion leaders and lawmakers, strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment for three main reasons. First, by moving what has traditionally been a state prerogative – local marriage laws — to the federal government, it is in direct violation of the principles of federalism. Second, in treating the Constitution as an appropriate place to impose publicly contested social policies, it would cheapen the sacrosanct nature of that document, opening the door to future meddling by liberals and conservatives. Third, it is unnecessary so long as DOMA is in force.” – former congressman Bob Barr, testifying on the Hill yesterday against the Federal Marriage Amendment.