Month: January 2006

The best of friends.

Don’t miss this fascinating piece of bloggy reporting on the administration’s FISA policy for the past few years. In June 2002, Senator Mike Dewine proposed legislation to do exactly what the administration says FISA does not allow them to do, hence their ignoring it. His bill proposed

"to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion …"

The Bush administration response was that they didn’t need the change because the PATRIOT Act was working so well. Money quote:

"This [Patriot Act] modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA’s pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats."

Read the whole thing. The Bush administration has now, I think, tied itself up in knots with its defenses of its own law-breaking. More here.

Alas, my root canal, book-writing and blogging have only given me a short time to read the new papal encyclical. A work by Benedict requires more thoughtful study, and I’ll get to it as soon as I can. But some brief, early responses. First, it’s a beautifully written document: humane, outward, subtle and exactly, in my view, what the Church needs right now. It’s a reminder of our basis as Church – in the love that Jesus brought into the world and commanded us to live. Benedict’s Augustinian realism that heaven on earth is impossible, that ideologies that pretend to solve all human suffering are lies, that we should not attempt "what God’s governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolve every problem" – all these are profound truths at the center of our faith.

I’m struck, however, by the near-complete absence in the document of the love of "amicitia," of friendship. It is far more central to the Gospel message than eros, and under-estimated in our current culture, to our great detriment. I also, obviously, share Benedict’s wonder at conjugal love. I see no conflict between the love of two homosexual men or women for each other and the mystery of heterosexual love. One day, it would be wonderful to see this doctrine of love extend to all God’s creatures. But these are brief, provisional comments. Amy Wellborn has a very insightful short essay on the Enclyclical. So does Rocco Palmo. I’d be grateful if readers sent me any other reflections on it that I could possibly post on the blog. And yes, this does surprise me somewhat. It is not as extreme or as repressive as Benedict’s well-earned reputation. It is a sign, one hopes, of a papcy that can change and grow and concentrate on the central truths, not peripheral obsessions. For that, a great sigh of relief. And, even, yes, hope …

"I certainly wouldn’t call Clinton a ‘competent, responsible, functioning adult.’ In policy matters, yes. In personal matters… If Clinton comes within a hundred yards of my daughter, I’m getting out the shotgun." – liberal economist Brad DeLong on his blog.

I was wrong. He voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001. His reason? Fiscal responsibility. Not a liberal argument, in my book. I’d have kept the tax cuts and tried to reform entitlements. So I’m more conservative than McCain in that respect. He’s also much too comfortable wielding government power for my taste. Here’s an old TNR piece by Jon Chait laying out McCain’s liberal credentials. I’m sure McCain would rather I didn’t link. Still, he did vote against the Medicare budget-buster. And he’s committed to victory in Iraq. I can’t believe he would have screwed it up as badly as the current bunch.

"The Supreme Court’s decision could be characterized as conservative, exemplifying judicial modesty in deference to policies adopted democratically. The three dissenters‚ÄîJohn Roberts and Clarence Thomas embracing Antonin Scalia’s argument‚Äîfavored striking down the law that Oregonians passed in a 1994 referendum and resoundingly reaffirmed by a 60 percent vote against a 1997 attempt to repeal it. The dissent by the three conservatives could be characterized as liberal‚Äîjudicial activism favoring the federal government’s aggrandizement of its power at the expense of federalism." – George Will, one of the very few conservatives who have kept their heads these past few years.

In the redesign, I forgot a great website that is now added to "The Daily Read." It’s called the Independent Gay Forum, and it features some of the best non-left gay writing and thinking out there. Increasingly, it features simply the best gay writing and thinking out there, period. Most of the brightest stars in gay nonfiction writing are now outside the old left-wing stable. Think of Jon Rauch or Norah Vincent or Walter Olson or Dale Carpenter or Bruce Bawer or Camille Paglia or Johann Hari or Matthew Parris or Chris Crain. One of the great paradoxes of the last decade has been the growth of the gay non-left alongside the increasing hostility to gay equality championed by the GOP and the rightwing blogosphere. Never in the field of rhetorical combat has so much conservative talent been greeted by so much Republican hostility. Too sad. But it hasn’t stopped these independent writers from a burst of intellectual energy. Check them out. Steve Miller’s blog is especially fun.

The anti-junk-food nannies are after the jolly little under-sea character as well. Here’s more on the new campaign. I’m going to McDonalds tonight just to piss them off.

He likes George Allen in 2008. The hard right has to find someone to beat McCain. McCain, who’s a strong supporter of the war on terror, against the Medicare drug disaster, pro-life, pro-tax cuts, and in favor of amending Arizona’s constitution to bar gay couples from legal protections, is not, apparently, a "conservative." How far right can the goal-posts go?

"More speech is good. But, of course, there’s no obligation for anyone to provide you with more speech on their site. I love open comments, just as I love free beer, free pizza, and other giveaway goods. But I’m not entitled to them. And those who partake, I think, owe a certain degree of civility to their hosts. In an age where there’s less control, I think that such informal measures matter more, not less," – Glenn Reynolds, full of sense, on WaPo today.