Is Fred Losing It?

Fred Barnes is an excellent reporter, at least he was when I worked with him. He’s also a terrific guy. But his complete capitulation to the Karl Rove Kool-Aid is beginning to make him sound, well, silly. Check out this bizarre exchange on the Diane Rehm show:

DR:  What about the president’s own service in the military?

FB:  Well, he didn’t shirk.  He joined the national guard.  At one time, it’s reported–I don’t know whether–I have not myself personally confirmed this–that he volunteered for Vietnam and was turned down.  He volunteered–

DR:  Turned down?

FB:  He was a flier.  Well, he wasn’t in a unit that would get him over there or something.  It’s been, it’s been widely reported–

DR:  Fred, where’d that come from?  I’ve never heard that before.

FB:  Oh sure.  What?  That he’d–

DR:  That he volunteered to go to Vietnam.

FB:  He volunteered for Vietnam duty and didn’t get there.  I don’t think I’m making this up.

DR:  Can you cite me some evidence on that?

FB:  I thought it was quite widely known.

DR:  Never heard that one before.

FB:  Really? Well, I’ve heard it many, many times.

Bubble, anyone? Or is there some evidence for this out there?

Understanding Disability

A reader takes me to task:

I am writing in response to the powerful irony of the tag line that runs across the top of your site and your recent postings of unthinking, dehumanizing, brief and lyrical references to disability.

I am a 30 year-old woman born with what is commonly recognized as limited mobility. Even this phrase is irksome because I have yet to meet the individual who could flap his arms and fly. I like it better because disability can mean so many things and it lacks descriptive power. This is a lesson you no doubt learned when you started getting all those questions.

More than anything else, I think, literary imagination forms public perception of the disabled. According to popular language we lead lives that are alternatively manipulative, wretched or inspirational. Everything we say or do is a function of our physical difference from the norm. The language you posted reinforces and recreates this fiction.

First off, you wrote that the disabled person was behaving as though the disability were not there. Though you have never discussed the disability, you presume to know just exactly how that physical reality impacts behavior. What this statement reveals is that you have particular expectations for disabled humans. As soon as your expectations are proved wrong, you speak of remarkable-ness and inspiration. God, the man wrote a whole article without mentioning that he is disabled, he is a saint!!!

Is everything you write a function of being gay?

The emailer who wrote of "blissful ignorance" reminds me of all the people who approach me on the street to ask if I want help, approach me on a staircase and urgently offer to escort me to the elevator, or to offer me The Lord’s Blessing for having the courage to carry on. Clearly, the sight of a person moving slowly and not in the usual way disturbs the bliss of many.

Depictions in the media typically use disabilty as a device, and in so doing, dehumanize. Forrest Gump is on TV tonight. In it you will see a scene where a young person with leg braces tries to run from a gang of boys who through rocks at him. They mean him harm. But the braces magically shatter, and low and behold he can run faster than anyone! You see, he just wasn’t trying hard enough.

A few nights ago, there was an episode of Law and Order CSI where the murderer was in a wheelchair, but he wasn’t really wheelchair-bound, he was just using that to get pity. Remember Seinfeld? George gave all his officemates the opportunity to show off their excellent manners by pretending to require use of a scooter.

In closing I will leave you with this thought. In my own house with no company, my disability is a non-issue. It is beyond my imagination to think that my life would be so very much better were I able to move differently. It is only when the outside world starts demanding that each and every task must be completed in only one way that a different physical experience of the world becomes a disability, becomes a true limitation.

Since it will no doubt be on your mind, if you have ever seen E.R., I use a cane just like the one Carrie Weaver uses. And just in passing, that no one ever leaps in front of her to open a door before she can get to it is a fiction, too."

I’m grateful for the email.

Getting Their Wives II

Friday, I linked to a disturbing story about the U.S. military’s Bush-approved post-Geneva rules of engagement. The U.S., under this president, now allows soldiers to kidnap the wives, girlfriends and even children of suspected insurgents in order to flush out the enemy. We saw some of this at Abu Ghraib, where relatives of alleged terrorists and insurgents were raped, abused and photographed to get them to lean on people outside the jail, or to blackmail them once they had left. A reader reminds me that kidnapping of wives and the use of blackmail have been openly conceded in the past. Money quote from a 2003 Washington Post piece:

"Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: ‘If you want your family released, turn yourself in.’ Such tactics are justified, he said, because, ‘It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.’ They would have been released in due course, he added later. The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered."

I’m reminded of Fred Barnes’ description of president Bush’s leadership methods in his new book. All he cares about, Fred assures us, are the results, not the means. Fred thinks that’s a good thing. When torture, illegal wire-tapping, kidnapping, rape and murder of defenseless prisoners are the means, I beg to differ. I’m also reminded of the following astonishing piece of dialogue, recorded recently at Notre Dame. In it, John Yoo, Dick Cheney’s favorite legal protege, explains the Bush administration’s view of the legal limits of the president’s power:

"Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that…"

Just a reminder of the moral universe in which this administration and its enablers live.

Quote for the Day II

"Palestinians have delivered their next generation to Moloch, to a movement whose religious pageants include parading children dressed as suicide bombers. The celebration of mass murderers as religious martyrs and educational role models, promoted by both Fatah and Hamas, has now reached its inevitable conclusion in the national suicide of the Palestinian people," – Yossi Klein Halevi, in the New Republic (behind the subscriber firewall, alas).

Quote for the Day

"Whenever faced with a problem, an American tends to ask a couple of specific questions. Can I fix it? And if not, who can I sue?" – yours truly on the legal fight against fat. While I’m shamelessly self-promoting, my Time essay of two weeks ago, "We Don’t Need A New King George," is still among the most emailed stories on the Time website. You can read it here. Pass it along.

His Worst Ratings

Not a great poll summary for the president. I’m just relieved that people do seem to grasp his fiscal recklessness. His disapproval rating on the deficit – 64 percent – is his highest. The generic party numbers look terrifying for the Republicans. Democrats lead them by 51 to 37 percent. In the history of the polling, the party gap has rarely been so large.

The Opus Dei Senator

I hadn’t realized that Father McCloskey had added another power-broker to the Opus Dei cult in Washington: Senator Sam Brownback. This profile is a must-read about the shifts within Republicanism over the past decade or so. There are plenty of interesting nuggets – not least of which:

"Pat got me elected," [Brownback] says, referring to Robertson’s network of Christian-right organizations.

Off-message, Sam. Money quote from the profile:

[Brownback] tells a story about a chaplain who challenged a group of senators to reconsider their conception of democracy. "How many constituents do you have?" the chaplain asked. The senators answered: 4 million, 9 million, 12 million. "May I suggest," the chaplain replied, "that you have only one constituent?"

Brownback pauses. That moment, he declares, changed his life. "This" – being senator, running for president, waving the flag of a Christian nation – "is about serving one constituent." He raises a hand and points above him.

And so conservatism slowly dies in America, replaced by religious fanaticism.