Month: February 2006

Islamists in Gaza threaten the lives of European civilians if their governments don’t apologize for supporting freedom of the press. The courageous editor of France-Soir has been fired. It would be hard to illustrate the core issue of our time more vividly: freedom versus religious extremism. From the threat to Salman Rushdie through 9/11 to the murderous thuggery of Zarqawi in Iraq, the line is a straight one. And it must not be appeased.

The Mickster is still obsessing about gay sheep-herders. The movie has already made more then $50 million and it’s well into profitability, and it isn’t being rejected by mainstream audiences … so now his point is that it’s left-wing:

"The Best Picture nominees are four left-messaged political films, plus a movie about Truman Capote!"

I can see the left-wing message in some of the movies, but I fail to see it in "Brokeback." The movie is about two men in a star-crossed relationship. It’s about impossible love and the limits of human happiness. Yes, it clearly aims for the two to be happy – but the pursuit of happiness is now "left-messaged"? Is "Romeo and Juliet" "left-messaged"? Is "Much Ado"? The two men are in love with each other, that’s all. Love – even same-sex love – is not political. It’s personal. There’s no call for marriage rights or any political change or agenda in the movie (although I’d also question whether promoting marriage for gay couples is somehow "left-messaged" anyway). It’s just a story about reality. Tackling reality – complex emotional reality – is not a political project. Ang Lee’s movies have always transcended that kind of trap. But when Mickey sees "gay," he sees "left." Actually, when Mickey sees gay, he can’t see anything but his own panic. Hence the notion that a movie about Truman Capote is also somehow politically suspect. Huh? Happily, Mickey knows he has a problem, and has written an email to Slate’s own advice columnist. He should take her advice to heart.

They were Bush’s flavor of the month in his 2003 SOTU. Here’s the latest report on the program’s progress.

Here’s a plausible theory for how the Bush administration has tied itself up in knots. Yep: it’s John "Waterboard" Yoo again. And here’s a great quote from Jack Balkin, that pretty much sums up my own view of the matter:

"The rule of law … is a political value as well as a legal value. It is a political value of restraint that we take upon ourselves so that we can demand the same restraint from others when the power of the state rests in their hands. The rule of law can be, and has been, used to perpetrate or apologize for many injustices in human history. But it has one saving grace – that it offers us a place to stand when we object to the aggrandizement of power by those who are utterly convinced that they come to us as saviors. For many years conservatives warned us about would-be saviors of the left, who would sweep away legal restraints to pursue their vision of a just society. It is time to stand up to the would-be saviors of the right, who seek to concentrate unaccountable power in order to pursue their vision of national security."

Or as Margaret Thatcher once put it, with her usual bluntness: "Where law ends, tyranny begins."

A column Bill Safire will never write; and JPod will never read.

The meme won’t quit.

The administration clarifies its position on Mid-East oil imports.

To Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young. Good. Wearing a t-shirt is not a crime. Nor is political speech. There’s something deeply creepy about the way in which the president is routinely secluded from hecklers, demonstrators or even hostile t-shirts. He’s not a monarch. Even this one.

Don’t worry about the government tracking your Internet surfing. You’re fine. For proof, click here.

The shift of Republicanism from a small government, "leave-us-alone" coalition to big government religious fundamentalism has accelerated in recent years. I don’t think the trend can be reversed until the traditional conservatives fight back not just on the political but also on the religious front. The key issue is not just the role of religion in politics but the kind of religion we believe in. There’s a big spectrum within Christianity, and there’s an holy alliance between an uncomprehending left and a fundamentalist right to define "Christian" as something represented entirely by people like James Dobson and Rick Santorum. There are many other varieties of sincere Christianity and Catholicism: less overtly political, less imbued with a sense of certainty, more tolerant of others, and more humble about what any of us can really know for sure. The most important thing about John Danforth is that his own faith represents this eclipsed, but critical, Christianity. And only a more unapologetic defense of it can hold back the fundamentalist and sectarian take-over.