Month: February 2006

Is it me or is this news just plain dumbfounding? The U.S. and Israel’s first response to a democratically elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories is to derail it? And not just subtly, but openly? And then we find out that "the United States and the European Union in particular want any failure of Hamas in leadership to be judged as Hamas’s failure, not one caused by Israel and the West." Maybe the reporters garbled something. But a policy of democratization in the Middle East does not exactly gain credibility when its architects try and destroy whichever government emerges from democracy. The rationale seems to be that Hamas did much better in the allocation of seats than in the wider vote. But that applies to dozens of democratically elected governments the world over. I can certainly see why the U.S. and the E.U. might want to put conditions on aid to the Palestinians. But if you want to have the worst of all worlds, insist on democracy and then insist on undermining it.

A soldier in Iraq writes:

"So – yeah – the war – I wish I could put down what I feel about it.  I mean, I feel a lot of rage over how we have fucked this thing up as if we had a play book on just how to do it wrong, step by step. Too few men on the ground (in the military sense) going in and too few to hold the land once we claimed it. I feel simultaneous pride and pity in the guys over here who came to fight terrorism – thinking that there was some link between Hussein and Bin Laden. However, we are here now. The notion of putting down a foot-hold of democracy somewhere over here is definitely the right thing to do. There is no denying how the Iraqis have welcomed at least the elections we have brought to them. But I still can’t get over how if we’d followed the advice of the senior generals and the war plans developed by years of experienced strategists – this counter-insurgency battle would not be looming over our heads as perilously as it is. But I am here now to support my fellow warriors. It’s that simple."

All I can add to that is: I’m grateful, deeply grateful, for his service, and that of so many, forced to carry the burden of a war their superiors bungled beyond belief. May they be protected; and may their mission succeed.

With endorsements, huge salaries, steroid-cheating, perjury, wife-beating, and other malefactions affecting the sports world, what a pleasant experience to watch Joey Cheek’s superb performance in speed-skating last night, and now the donation of his prize money to help the displaced kids of Darfur. Some good news, for a change. (Okay, okay, he’s hot. But now he’s even hotter.)

"Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington’s face." – Rob Corddry, last night.

Get your Cheney buckshot jokes here.

Just when you think the vice-president has created a p.r. disaster nothing could detract from, you come across a picture like this.

The military’s gay ban has cost almost $364 million since its revamp under Clinton. I’m sure there are better ways for the Pentagon to spend that money.

They just scored a quiet victory for proselytizing by military commanders.

Here’s the attempt by Ramesh Ponnuru to burnish his own conservative credentials by slighting mine:

"While Sullivan loves to write about his allegedly consistent record of opposing big government, such opposition was not at all a major theme of his writing in the 1990s. When most conservative writers fought the Clinton health plan in 1993 and 1994; when they cheered Newt Gingrich in his efforts to cut federal spending in 1995 and 1996; when they opposed the budget deal of 1997 for its spending increases; when they tried to stop the creation of the new entitlement for children’s health care; when they protested the efforts to regulate cigarettes and campaign finance: Sullivan had almost nothing to say. (Except when he came out for campaign-finance "reform.") But he now pretends that those of us who did say something at that time have less sterling records than he does."

Touched a nerve, did I? Well, for around six of the years in the 1990s, I was editing a liberal magazine. Nonetheless, I was not exactly famous for maintaining liberal orthodoxy in its pages. One of the articles I published was by Elizabeth McCaughey – an article many said did more to destroy Hillary-Care than any other piece of journalism. I can reassure Ramesh that I was not beloved by my colleagues for the piece. At TNR, I also edited many essays that pursued conservative ideas – including welfare reform, where TNR played a critical role (thanks, largely, to Mickey), intervention in the Balkans (thanks to Leon), opposition to affirmative action (me and Marty), defense of Israel (all of us), and, of course, the Bell Curve (me). Not exactly a liberal pedigree. My own writing focused more on cultural issues, but were consistently small-government conservative: for a balanced budget, against hate crimes laws, against outing, against identity politics, and for marriage. I even came out against job discrimination laws for homosexuals. Unlike Ramesh, I actually risked something for my conservative ideals – friends and some colleagues, estrangement from the gay establishment, and even my job – which is partly why, perhaps, I am more appalled by the Republicans’ betrayal of conservatism than he seems to be. I endorsed Bob Dole in 1996, for Pete’s sake. I was withering in my critique of Clinton, but stopped short of supporting impeachment. As for big government, I was thrilled by the 1990s, which did indeed see reduced government spending – and even surpluses! I can’t see how I have moved much at all. But the Republicans have. In the 1990s, they were taken over by religious fundamentalists. The Bush administration is the consequence.

I described Richard John Neuhaus as a former Marxist. I fear I am wrong. While he once said he longed for a Christian version of Marx, I’ve been told he was not a Marxist as such; just a leftist. I apologize for the error.

New York Magazine has a cover-story on the phenom. It’s a piece you’d expect from Adam Moss, the editor (and an old friend). It’s a very acute piece about status, how blogdom now has an A-list, how corporations are now in on the business, how links can build a lot of traffic, how money can be made. After reading it, I should confess to some sadness. I miss the days when it was just one dude writing his thoughts to whoever wanted to read it. I hope bloggers don’t get too entranced with traffic and ad revenues, although they are addictive in a way. It should still be fun – and a blog with a hundred readers can be just as effective in what it does as one with a million. If your goal is chasing readers and revenue, rather than just venting to whomever, you risk losing what makes blogging so fresh. Perhaps, alas, we already have.