Month: March 2006

My fiance and I had dinner Tuesday night with Jon Rauch and his boyfriend. I’ve known Jonathan for many years; he’s not just one of the most decent and principled writers I know; he’s a lovely guy. But he’s also hard to get to know, a little socially awkward at times, occasionally remote. He mentioned that one piece he had once written had proven over the years to be the most popular he’d ever had published. Here it is. Money quote:

Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice? If so, do you tell this person he is “too serious,” or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?

If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands‚ and that you aren’t caring for him properly.

No one believes me, but I think I may be one too. Jonathan has a Q and A about the article here.

"’Achievement’ is the ‘diabolical’ element in human life; and the symbol of our vulgarization of human life is our near exclusive concern with achievement. Not scientific thinking, but the ‘gifts’ of science’; the motor car, the telephone, radar, getting to the moon, anti-biotics, penicillin, telstar, the bomb. Whereas the only human value lies in the adventure and excitement of discovery. Not standing at the top of Everest, but getting there. Not the ‘conquests’ but the battles; not the ‘victory’ but the ‘play.’ It is our non-recognition of this, or our rejection of it, which makes our civilization a non-religious civilization. At least, non-Christian: Christianity is the religion of ‘non-achievement,’"  – Michael Oakeshott, in an unpublished notebook, retrieved by Paul Franco in his very useful introduction to Oakeshott’s increasingly vital thought.

It’s hard not to be troubled by a quiet ruling from the Bush administration qualifying the Clinton administration’s clear removal of sexual orientation as a barrier to security clearance. Money quote from the AP:

"The [Clinton administration] regulation stated that sexual orientation ‘may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person’s eligibility for a security clearance.’
Bush removed that categorical protection, saying instead that security clearances cannot be denied ‘solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.’
The new rules say behavior that is ‘strictly private, consensual and discreet’ could ‘mitigate security concerns.’"

Scott McClellan says nothing has changed, but he doesn’t seem to know what’s in the new regulation and his argument doesn’t add up on its face. Money quote:

"McCLELLAN: There’s no change in our policy. The language that you’re referring to reflects what is in that executive order.

Q So why take it out if there’s no change in policy?

McCLELLAN: I don’t think they took out language. I think that they updated the language to reflect exactly what was spelled out in the executive order. There’s no change in the policy.

Q But they took this language out. This is gone. It doesn’t say that anymore.

McCLELLAN: I don’t know what language you’re specifically referring to, because I think the language is very similar to what it says in the executive order and the policy remains the same."

My hope is that this language change is mere bureaucratic tinkering; or has some benign explanation. But my fear is that some within the administration made this change and did it for a reason. The new rules seem to qualify what was once a clear renunciation of sexual orientation being in any way an issue for security clearance. The protection now seems to refer to "strictly private, consensual and discreet" gayness. Could that mean that if you’re out of the closet, the government may discriminate against you in security clearances? If so, it’s bizarre logic. The only gay men and women who might have problems are precisely the closeted ones: they’re the only ones conceivably subject to some kind of blackmail; whereas openly gay people have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. So the change seems to serve no rational purpose, except, perhaps, to intimidate gay people in government service into being closeted. And the Bush people would never do something like that, now, would they?

Atwar Bahjat could have been the future of Iraq:

"She was a poet, a journalist and a feminist. She had written a book tracing her adventures as a war reporter and had begun work on a second book, examining the role of women in Iraq. She didn’t fit into either side of the mounting religious clash ‚Äî her mother was Shiite, her father Sunni.

She had the talent and connections to get out of Iraq, but she chose to stay because she was determined to see her country knit into a coherent nation.

She wore a gold pendant in the shape of Iraq as a symbol of her indignation over efforts to thwart that unity, and she argued with editors against identifying people as Sunni or Shiite in her broadcasts, friends and colleagues said. The hatred was hot enough already, she told them. She wanted to calm things down, not stoke the anger."

And so she was murdered in the "unbelievable mess" the Bush administration let grow and fester for the past three years. May she rest in peace.

I referred earlier today to a website which broadcast a call on a chat-thread to murder the tweve signatories to the anti-Islamist manifesto. The website contains many Islamist posts and has a very anti-Western, anti-Israel and anti-American slant. But it is fair to point out that many of the posters on its forums also dispute Islamists. Describing the website as Islamist is a little reductive. But check it out for yourself.

It takes a village to keep track of them. Greg Djerejian has the latest.

The editor of the Daily Illini is fired for committing journalism. As if we couldn’t see that coming. But it is important to note that those who fired him take their cues from the New York Times, CNN, Time, the Washington Post and much of the British press. The most important thing for today’s establishment journalists is not relaying the truth but avoiding offense. The student editor didn’t realize that. Now he does. And so Sharia-journalism inches forward.

David Aaronovitch recalls his own intellectual and moral evolution during the Balkan wars. And he remembers Milosevic’s intellectual and moral allies – Harold Pinter and Noam Chomsky among them.

A pertinent piece of information from the former Spanish prime minister, Jose-Maria Aznar:

Aznar’s aides refused to give Haaretz the exact quote, but mentioned an article Aznar has written in the past on his meeting with [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei.
"He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack."

The meeting was five years ago. Iran is only stronger today; and far closer to getting nukes. Khameini is still in power.

"Miss Huffington’s blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts. I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog. With my permission Miss Huffington compiled it from interviews with Larry King and The Guardian," – George Clooney. It’s a brave man who comes between Arianna and her self-promotion.