Month: December 2004

Evidence procured by torture is now sufficient to detain “enemy combatants” at Gitmo. Prisoners “have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court.” Slowly, we are beginning to piece together what the Bush administration has set up – with little public debate. The government can detain prisoners without naming them, it can use methods that are “inhumane,” it can use evidence procured by torture, and anyone the government deems an “enemy combatant” is beyond the recourse of constitutional protection. Some of this might be defensible, although I doubt whether I’d agree. But the lack of candor, the absence of real debate (neither Gitmo nor Abu Ghraib came up in any of the presidential debates), and the vagueness of many of the rules are surely worrying in the extreme.

BACKLASH WATCH: In South Carolina, another Republican anti-gay witch-hunt.

A GAZA KILLING: This atrocity seems unspinnable to me.

AN APNEA STORY: A first-hand account of a severe diagnosis.

DEATH BY WANKING: Just one of the theories believed by one Judith Reisman. I saw the movie, “Kinsey.” I wasn’t too thrilled by it: like many biopics, it appeared labored and strained for a real story line. But it did remind me of the appalling ignorance about sex that so many millions lived with for so long – an ignorance that is now being actively promoted by the Bush administration.

GAYS IN THE SOUTH: Here’s an email from the front lines:

I am from Louisiana and I am quite aware of Louisiana’s and the South’s public disdain for gay relationships. However, it is not as bad as you think. Even in the rural parish where I come from homosexuals are acknowledged and respected for the human beings they are. My lesbian cousin lives with her partner and her child, in a small, small town in South Louisiana and gets by fine. My Catholic family, some of whom are “anti-gay” in the voting booth, accept her and her partner with open arms, and contradict themselves by not pushing them away from family functions.
We are not New York City or Boston or Washington D.C., an urban enviroment, where queer culture thrives. Change comes slow to the countryside where people do not live in anonymity, like in the big city. In the South’s larger cities, even mid-size cities like Baton Rouge, you have an open queer culture. Lots of rainbow flags on cars and such. Sure we have Jimmy Swaggert too, but the city’s collective reaction to that guy’s hateful language was basically “watch your mouth.”
I know it’s difficult for you to see this up in the Washington, D.C. area, but freaks like Roy Moore and others have already lost the battle. It’s not much different than the death rattle of segregationists in the 60’s. Just like the Southern Manifesto was NOT a sign of the future in the South, neither are these obscure remarks or governmental acts you’re harping on.
I understand this a big deal for you, being gay, but you’ve already won and you should realize this.

Alas, I do not believe we have won – yet. And I’m struck by how this kind of email could easily have been written about the Jim Crow South. Relations between many blacks and whites were often cordial; and the cordiality depended on the implicit acknowledgment of one group’s inferiority to the other. Essentially, the position of the Republican right is now identical on the matter of homosexuals. The Bush line, essentially is: “We are not homophobes; we are happy yo live alongside gay people, as long as they recognize that they can never have the same civil rights as we do. Accept your own inferiority, and we will accept you.” That’s why this is so hard to compromise on. Because it cuts to the core of a human being’s self-worth. On this, we cannot compromise. The simple truth is that there isn’t a single civil right I would deny to an evangelical Christian. I’ve defended their freedom of religion, of association, of disassociation, and believe they should be treated with respect. I wouldn’t dream of drumming them out of the military, firing them for their faith, tearing up their relationships, or taking their children away from them. The favor, alas, is not returned.

Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway’s ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven’t been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge’s view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:

Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to $375,000 a year from Saddam.
The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper’s Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. “Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him,” said the judge. “He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published.”

Such a judgment wouldn’t stand a chance in an American court – but then Britain’s libel laws are far tougher than America’s; and there’s far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here’s the Telegraph’s official response. It’s deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

MORE ON SLEEP: How important is REM sleep? Here’s an interesting PDF piece. My CPAP machine should be delivered next week. I’ll keep you posted.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Here’s a helpful debate on proposed reforms between Frederick Rawski and Ruth Wedgwood.

There’s been a mild and partial debunking of the Waxman investigation into “abstinence-only” programs funded by the feds here. But the broader point remains. Under the guise of sex ed, the Bush administration is using public funds to spread an ill-informed, half-baked evangelical message. Your tax dollars are being spent to tell kids that “a 43-day-old fetus is a ‘thinking person,'” that “HIV can be spread via sweat and tears,” and that “condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.” This crap is bad enough. Then we find this:

Some course materials cited in Waxman’s report present as scientific fact notions about a man’s need for “admiration” and “sexual fulfillment” compared with a woman’s need for “financial support.” One book in the “Choosing Best” series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. “Moral of the story,” notes the popular text: “Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.”

We’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars to spread James Dobson’s gospel to kids in public high schools. I have no problem with abstinence education. I have no problem with churches teaching kids how to live sexual lives responsibly. But I do have a problem with spreading fear, ignorance and chauvinism with my tax dollars. But when you hand over government social policy to religious groups, what do you expect?

THEOCRACY WATCH II: I missed this quote from Alabama state rep Gerald Allen, who wants to ban public funds for any books “that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.” What of existing books by, say, Whitman or Auden or Proust, and other degenerates? We have the answer:

Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed. “I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them,” he said.

Why not burn them instead? Among the books Allen wants to “bury” are “The Color Purple,” “The Picture of Dorian Gray” and “Brideshead Revisited.” Public schools would be barred from performing “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” I used to read these kinds of stories and dismiss them. But in Karl Rove’s Republican party, how is this in any way out of place?

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Justice Brandeis, New State Ice Co. vs Liebmann, 1932. Justice Brandeis, welcome to the new Republicanism. My latest piece on the importance of federalism today can be read here.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Beinart is almost completely right, and I do think part of the problem this election year was John Kerry personally, which is another way of saying that as de facto leader of the Democratic Party he was unwilling to use the words “Iraq” and “democracy” or “Arab” and “democracy” in the same sentence, and tell the peacenik wing of the party to sit down and shut up. But I’m just plain sick and tired of trying to convince other liberals that America is now engaged in a multi-decade struggle against Islamo-fascism, and that this struggle will be the central organizing principle in American politics for years to come. Sadly, the central post-election narrative that “values” rather national security cost Democrats this election, combined with ridiculous and childish allegations of massive voter fraud in Ohio, has allowed Democrats the luxury of avoiding and denying what ails them.

But whatever.

If liberals are determined to play the role of Taft Republicans during the 1930s and 1940s, denying the threat posed by European fascism and Japanese nationalism, obsessing about freedoms lost at home during wartime, and as such remaining in the political wilderness for most of the next three decades, who am I to stop them? In fact as far as I can tell Democrats would *rather* watch the New Deal and Great Society pissed down the drain, and a hard right Supreme Court roll back the 1960s, than stepping up to the plate and committing themselves to the realization of liberty and democracy in the Muslim world. The peaceniks were allowed to destroy the party once before in the late 60s and early 70s. Will they be allowed to do it again? So far it looks like the answer is yes.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

I’m increasingly grateful to David Brooks for raising the issue of John Stott’s legacy and thought. A must-read is an email I just got from a former assistant of Stott’s. The full email is on the Letters Page. Here’s an extract:

Stott is to global evangelicalism what Cardical Ratzinger is to Opus Dei. His “Issues Facing Christians Today” is the Evangelical catechism. While his positions are relatively nuanced, moderate, and thoughtfully argued in the most exquisite English, at the end of the day, they support the fundamental elements of Evangelicalism used by less elegant ministers to justify division, bigotry, and scapegoating. The absolute uniqueness of Christ’s salvific efficacy, the substitutionary nature of the atonement, the complete and untarnished inspiration of the entire Bible, a quasi-literalist hermeneutic, traditional sexual ethics…John Stott has put his imprimatur on all of these, and his followers have followed suit (among whom are many, if not all, of the key figures in global Anglicanism who have recently used homosexuality as *the* issue on which the hinges the future unity of the church – the Bishop of Sydney and his brother, Michael Nazir-Ali, etc.)

I too find the simple assertion of the literal truth of everything in the entire Bible to be, simply, impossible to understand, let alone believe. The myriad contradictions, myths, metaphors, and stories from ancient times can be understood in many, many ways. But the idea that they are all literally true, or that sexual ethics is the non-negotiable bedrock of Christianity, is impossible to take seriously for very long.

THE VOICE OF THE DEMOCRATS: Here’s a response to Peter Beinart’s bracing essay:

Only one problem with Beinart’s thesis. People like me will not vote for the kind of Democrat he pines for. And people like me are the base of the Democratic party. I would not vote for Joe Lieberman or any Iraq-war supporting Democrat (that includes Hillary, by the way). People like me are the mirror images of the Republican right. We would rather lose than sacrifice our principles. The operative principle here is our opposition to big-foot neoconservatism which views the entire world as America’s playground. You may think we are wrong but understand this: we are the Democratic party (which is why Lieberman sank so quickly). Our model is that of the Goldwaterites. They did not change. They fought and eventually they prevailed. We will prevail too. Iraq is our trump card. And maybe Iran. The continued ascendancy of neoconservatism guarantees the triumph of neoisolationism. As George Mc Govern said, “come home, America.” The day is coming.

Can’t describe the problem more accurately than that, can you?

More evidence of the new, inclusive South. In Louisiana, a child was sent to the principal and had to sign a sad “Student Behavior Contract.” His sin? Explaining to another student who asked why he didn’t have a father that his mother was gay. The kid is 7. On the contract, he explains what his duty now is: “What I did: ‘I sed bad wurds.’ What I should have done: ‘Cep my mouth shut.'” His punishment has been upheld, the school supported. Words fail me.

“I have no sympathy for the insurgency. With a view toward my own preservation, I wish they would all cut it out. But apart from pure self-interest, I think that every mortar, whether it hits or misses, every burst of gunfire or roadside bomb is a dismal impediment to what can only be called progress. The wisdom and righteousness of our going to war are uncomfortable questions. But the insurgents rest on a justification that only the most ardent relativism could withstand. There’s nothing noble about them. They’re the Sopranos East.” – Matthew Doherty, in a revealing memoir of journeying through liberated Iraq, in, of all places, Poetry Magazine.

Here’s the essay we’ve been waiting for. What the Democrats need is a new commitment to fighting totalitarianism – of the Jihadist variety. They should keep their commitment to America’s minorities, to universal healthcare, gay equality, and abortion rights. But they need to convince Americans that they are serious about this new war. Actually, they need first to convince themselves. Purging the Michael Moore wing would help. Peter Beinart lays it all out here.

ONLY MARRIAGE: Yes, we’re beginning to see the real agenda of the religious right. State workers in Michigan will now have their same-sex domestic partner benefits stripped from them. Congratulations are due to Matt Daniels, Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz and all those who have dedicated so much time to making sure same-sex couples can have have no legal protections.

STRAUSS AND NIETZSCHE: Peter Berokowitz had a great review essay that dealt with this topic a few years ago. Check it out.

Finally, we’re getting more serious. Kudos to the Bush administration for finally cottoning on. But, of course, it’s an indictment of our military strategy that we can only boost the troop strength by delaying transfers and keeping some soldiers in the field long after they should get a break. Isn’t it obvious that we need to beef up our conventional forces? The public would be more than prepared to do so; the stakes are high; a draft should be avoided at all costs. At some point, the president is going to have to ask himself if we really do have all the tools to finish this job. The sooner the better.

HERE’S THE AD: It’s from the United Church of Christ – and CBS and NBC are refusing to run it because it’s too “controversial.” Decide for yourself. Josh has tracked down the lame network reasoning.

SPONG ON STOTT: Here’s a rather harsh take on John Stott’s evangelicalism from one of his arch opponents, John Shelby Spong. And here’s a useful guide to the heterogeneity of views among evangelical Christians – a diversity not represented by the political leaders of the religious right.

There’s been a diverting conversation over at NRO about the influence of Nietzsche on modern conservatives. Pejman fingers Richard Posner as a Nietzschean. There’s not much doubt that Allan Bloom was, as well. (I’ve often marveled at all those true-believers who read the thoroughly atheist “The Closing of the American Mind,” and didn’t notice a thing.) But if you include the category “influenced by Nietzsche” the answer has to be anyone worth reading. Nietzsche’s central role in our understanding of modernity means that no serious thumb-sucker, conservative, liberal or label-free, can fail to be influenced by him. A more interesting issue in the current moment, of course, is who among leading conservatives are atheists. Leo Strauss was, with a big dose of skepticism. Which is why, of course, when you think of the fact that Paul Wolfowitz owes his power to creationist voters, you can’t help but crack a smile. But who else is an atheist among the conservative punditariat? Or are they all keeping their heads down? Any atheists at National Review or the Weekly Standard? Just asking.

GONZALES AND TORTURE: The new revelations from the Red Cross about Guantanamo certainly add to the questions that need to be posed to Alberto Gonzales in his Senate confirmation hearings. If you want to pile on by emailing your senators, here’s a handy site from “End Torture Now.” If we are going to have an attorney general who devised new legal ways to abuse prisoners and besmirch the reputation of the United States, he should at least be grilled about it first.

FABRICATED DISSENT: An anti-Bush clothing company apologizes to the French.