Month: December 2004

I’m afraid Ann Coulter cannot be considered. No one else would stand a chance. But her abuse is more original than Malkin’s.

That’s what is now happening in … Massachusetts. No, not some right-wing plot to attack gay couples; but a natural and simple response to the fact that gay couples now have the right to civil marriage:

Large employers terminating or phasing out domestic-partner benefits for some or all Massachusetts workers include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center, Baystate Health System, and The New York Times Co., which owns The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. “We’re saying if you’re a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you,” said Larry Emerson, Baystate’s vice president of human resources.

Amen. My first piece on marriage rights for gays – fifteen years ago – was written precisely because I was worried that the plethora of domestic partnerships arrangements, civil unions, etc. was bound to weaken civil marriage as a social norm. Give ’em marriage! And once gays have marriage, you can and should then dismantle all other civil arrangements. At the time, this was theory. But now we see it happening in practice: clear proof that letting gays marry can strengthen, rather than undermine, the existing institution. Gay activists should quit their whining. Religious right activists should reconsider their opposition. Gay marriage really is the best option for all of us.

THE MALKIN AWARD: Every now and again, you have to hand it to a polemicist. Here’s one single sentence from Michelle Malkin’s latest column:

Perhaps too much drug-addled ’60s nostalgia has burnt out the bleeding-hearts pacifists’ brain cells.

One sentence; four cliche-ridden, playground insults. Can you beat it? Contestants can be nominated from either right or left; but the sentence must be entirely devised to insult; it should be completely devoid of originality; it must have at least two hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and it must assume that readers already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra points. Nominations for the Malkin Award are now open.

Many readers keep cavilling that the evidence of torture and prisoner abuse committed by U.S. forces is non-existent. They are tragically wrong. Recall this part of the Taguba report, the official investigation at Abu Ghraib. Here’s some of what happened:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall of his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There is incontrovertible evidence of actual rapes and murders. Prisoners under U.S. command have been killed. Now we hear the following:

The memorandum said that the Defense Intelligence Agency officials saw prisoners being brought in to a detention center with burn marks on their backs and complaining about sore kidneys.

This was after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light. Some Defense Intelligence Agency officials witnessed one officer “punch a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention.” And part of the response to the complaints was to threaten the investigators. Just put it all together. We have a problem here.

“To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion – that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas – any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness – and the other represents oppression.” – Rowan Atkinson, AKA Mr Bean, opposing the latest liberal attempt to criminalize speech in Britain.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “The van Gogh murder is a little bit like our 9-11. The degree to which the United States had changed after 9-11 was hard to fathom in Europe. Now, this one murder seems to be having a similar effect on my fellow Dutch nationals. In Europe we have experienced our own homegrown terrorism for years, so although Dutch people felt enormous solidarity with Americans after 9-11, many asked, “Aren’t Americans a bit too focused on themselves when they keep saying that 9-11 was some huge paradigm shift?” The Netherlands, right now, is undergoing a similar sort of attitudinal change. It will be interesting to watch whether this change sparks a shift in Europeans’ generally hostile attitude towards George W. Bush’s aggressive foreign policy and his “axis of evil” style approach to the world.” – Marc Chavannes, Washington corresopndent for NRC Handelsblad, in the American Prospect.

A skeptical look at the Middle East Studies Association Conference.

CREATIONISM WATCH: The Grand Canyon National Park bookstore is the latest victim.

So when John Kerry says his aim is to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq within four years, he is merely aiding and abetting the enemy. But when Donald Rumseld says it, no one notices. And Rumsfeld, so he tells us, has no say over troop levels in Iraq. None whatsoever. The generals decide everything. And prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and in Afghanistan and with the Nay Seals has nothing to do with memos letting people know they could push the envelope. Nah. After all, that’s what Rumsfeld is known for – a completely hands-off approach to running the military. Tom Toles captures the Bush-Rumsfeld dynamic perfectly here.

There are, I think, more reasons to be cheerful than depressed right now. Just. My reassesssment is up at TNR. And it’s free if you use this link.

Buchanan cannot, I think, be described as a conservative. He’s an economic leftist with social fascist tendencies. Hence his preference for Putin’s power-grab over Yushchenko’s electoral victory. This column is as fascinating as it is revealing.

Here’s s philosophical tangle that gets to the heart of the debate about steroids:

[W]e see it as perfectly justified when someone with a good natural singing voice takes pride in his performance, although we’re aware that his singing has more to do with talent than with effort and training. If, however, I were to improve my singing by the use of a drug, I would be denied the same recognition (unless I had put a lot of effort into inventing the drug in question before testing it on myself). The point is that both hard work and natural talent are considered ‘part of me’, while using a drug is ‘artificial’ enhancement because it is a form of external manipulation. Which brings us back to the same problem: once we know that my ‘natural talent’ depends on the levels of certain chemicals in my brain, does it matter, morally, whether I acquired it from outside or have possessed it from birth? To further complicate matters, it’s possible that my willingness to accept discipline and work hard itself depends on certain chemicals. What if, in order to win a quiz, I don’t take a drug which enhances my memory but one which ‘merely’ strengthens my resolve? Is this still ‘cheating’?”

If we’re all chemicals, why prefer the ones we have by chance rather than those we have by design? Slavoj Zizek elaborates.

“To the extent that the left is still vibrant, I am suggesting that it has mutated into something else. If what used to be known as the Communist International has any rough contemporary equivalent, it is the global media. The global media’s demand for peace and justice, which flows subliminally like an intravenous solution through its reporting, is – much like the Communist International’s rousing demand for workers’ rights – moralistic rather than moral. Peace and justice are such general and self-evident principles that it is enough merely to invoke them. Any and all toxic substances can flourish within them, or manipulate them, provided that the proper rhetoric is adopted. For moralizers these principles are a question of manners, not of substance. To wit, Kofi Annan can never be wrong.” – Robert Kaplan, “The Media and Medievalism,” Policy Review.

THE PRICE OF DEFICITS: “Deficits don’t matter,” Dick Cheney casually remarked not so long ago. Well, maybe they do. This sobering piece from the Economist explains a simple truth:

The dollar has been the leading international currency for as long as most people can remember. But its dominant role can no longer be taken for granted. If America keeps on spending and borrowing at its present pace, the dollar will eventually lose its mighty status in international finance. And that would hurt: the privilege of being able to print the world’s reserve currency, a privilege which is now at risk, allows America to borrow cheaply, and thus to spend much more than it earns, on far better terms than are available to others. Imagine you could write cheques that were accepted as payment but never cashed. That is what it amounts to. If you had been granted that ability, you might take care to hang on to it. America is taking no such care, and may come to regret it.

The chances of a serious dollar collapse and a big spike in interest rates are by no means minimal.