Month: March 2006

A reader writes about the unnerving Islamist sexual advance recorded below:

"I think you may have missed something about the Islamist bodyguard’s amorous invitation: while it may have simply been an example of sexual attraction, it may also have been something more disturbing. You may remember that back in the late ’80s there was a case of a young Irish woman who was in love with a Jordanian man and was pregnant with this child. He had booby-trapped her luggage with explosives, in order to blow up the airliner she was intending to board. This was discovered: the poor woman really thought this man was in love with her and cared about their child. Actually, he deliberately deceived her so in order to use her in carrying out a terrorist attack. This terrorist was willing to immolate both woman and child for this horrible end."

As I said, a close call. Maybe very close. Then, of course, there’s this.

Some moral-economic analysis from the religious left. In my view, the Randians could do better.

In the depressing State Department report on various human rights abuses across the world, I was struck by this statement about Jordan:

"The most frequently reported methods of torture included beating, sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension."

That’s a pretty solid definition of torture. It comports with U.S. domestic and military law and the U.N. Convention on torture to which the US is a signatory. But it also means – and must mean – that the president is a liar. I wonder if that was what someone in Foggy Bottom specifically wanted to point out. If so, vive la resistance.

Yep: they’re screwed up on the sexual front. Here’s a passage from a fascinating piece by Joseph Braude in TNR about his meeting with a few of the hard-core types:

"We all went out for lunch at the best seafood place in Dubai, and most of the conversation, between eight bearded clerics and a Jewish kid from Providence, was about when, not whether, I should convert to Islam. Zindani gave me the hard sell and was crushed, two hours later, that I hadn’t said the magic words: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." (Not everyone was fully on board with the Islamist message, however: Throughout the meal, Zindani’s bodyguard was giving me a look I couldn’t quite place. He pulled me aside afterward. "I love you," he said, and gave me a ring off his finger. Somehow, it felt less awkward to refuse the terrorist’s call to God than to formulate a response to this overture. He scribbled something on a piece of paper: "It’s my hotel room. Please come." Alas, I passed.)"

Alas? That was a close call.

(I garbled the first version of this post, misattributing it. Sorry. Blogging on the fly in a Starbucks in NYC…)

Check out this video from Palestinian television. And weep.

A reader writes:

"On days like this, in the midst of still unfinished resolutions on the nature of a seemingly distant God, I am comforted by your post about the Cross. Thank you for that.

Here’s a wonderful quote by George Steiner from Philip Yancey’s book, "Reaching For The Invisible God":

‘We know of that Good Friday which Christianity holds to have been that of the Cross.  But the non-Christian, the atheist, knows of it as well.  This is to say that he knows of the injustice, of the interminable suffering, of the waste, of the brute enigma of ending, which so largely make up not only the historical dimension of the human condition, but the everyday fabric of our personal lives.  We know, ineluctably, of the pain, of the failure of love, of the solitude which are our history and private fate.

We know also about Sunday.  To the Christian, that day signifies an intimation, both assured and precarious, both evident and beyond comprehension, of resurrection, of a justice and a love that conquered death … The lineaments of that Sunday carry the name of hope (there is no word less deconstructible).

But ours is the long day’s journey of the Saturday."

Critics to the right of me and to the left of me. Here’s one reader defending socialism from George W. Bush:

"I wish you’d stress how immoral he is as a socialist. Bush is a reverse Robin Hood, ensuring the largesse goes to corporations. A true socialist would do something for the poor and middle class, but not this administration. The Medicare drug benefit is a disgrace, profits to insurance companies and pharmaceuticals while leaving the poor in need. Now that they have it in place, they intend to cut Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. They also propose cuts for cancer research and general cuts to the NIH. Student loans will cost far more though they say they’re in favor of education. Understood that you’re a conservative, but at that you might want something in return for your tax dollars aside from ever increasing corporate welfare to companies which were doing splendidly before Bush came along."

I opposed the Medicare bill; but I don’t see that it doesn’t offer real benefits to many many people. But this email shows how conservatives cannot and should not out-left the left. They’re never satisfied. Every expansion of government Republicans legitimize will merely be the baseline for the left’s subsequent push to tax and spend more. Some Republicans in the grass roots acknowledge this. Here’s one:

"I live in San Diego, and Im sending you this message in response to the article I read in the Drudge report this morning. Bruce B. mentioned a lot of us being reticent about the current admin’s directions and decisions of late. I can tell you there is a ground swell here about what our current President is doing and the principles we hold as true conservatives! He is so out of touch with the mainstream party! I and a lot of my friends have sworn not to give another penny to any of the current elected party members! We dont get it? What’s with all the spending? Ten years, and I still pay more taxes, get less bene’s, and these clowns think were gonna sit by and let this happen! I can see a lot of us sitting on the sidelines in the up coming elections to send a strong signal that enough is enough! They need to wake up!"

Agreed.

The South Dakota bill that would criminalize all abortions, including those occasioned by rape and incest, is a clarifying moment in the debate. National Review favors the substantive law involved (i.e. criminalizing all abortion even in cases of rape and incest), but believes it is a strategic miscalculation for the pro-life side. It’s a miscalculation because SCOTUS will probably dispense with it abruptly. But it is also a miscalculation because it changes the subject to how exactly criminalizing abortion will be enforced. The pro-life activists don’t want to go there yet, because it alienates a lot of people. But if we’re going to go there at some point, why not discuss it now?

Those skeptical of the absolutist pro-life position should ask serious questions about this: if not a charge of first degree murder for abortion, then what? Would women and doctors be liable for criminal charges? What legal distinctions will be brought bear here? What about the use of the morning-after pill? Would that also be a criminal offense at some point? These are legitimate questions that the South Dakota bill raises. I have no real love of the Roe decision. And one of the benefits of removing it from the debate will be the beginning of more nuance. The strategy I’d prefer is not the substantive one in South Dakota. It’s one where only first trimester abortion is legal, and where technology is deployed to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancy and allow abortions as early as humanly possible. One good thing to come of the South Dakota bill might be a discussion along these lines. And it’s already starting.

(Photo of SD governor, Mike Rounds, by Charles Dharapak/AP)

Yes, there’s a connection, and a sad one. From the SI story:

"As far as supplying drugs, Anderson thought of his role as ‘middleman.’ In San Francisco he knew AIDS patients who had prescriptions for testosterone and human growth hormone and were willing to sell their drugs for cash. Anderson bought and resold them virtually at cost to clients who wanted them for their anabolic effects."

Testosterone is used for its anabolic effects for people with HIV as well – to reboot our own testosterone production to avoid weight-loss and wasting. HGH is used primarily for severely wasted men with AIDS but also a treatment for some side-effects of anti-retroviral drugs. As medications, they work well. Until I got testosterone therapy a few years ago, I dealt with insistent fatigue, and mild depression. Maybe some of the prescriptions were not really needed. But if they were, it seems a shame that some are foregoing important treatments so that others can cheat in sports.
(Photo: Mike Segar/Reuters).

Dana Milbank has a report on it here. My comment on Bush’s Christian "socialism" was in a particular context. Margaret Thatcher defined a socialist as someone who knows how to spend other people’s money. That is something George W. Bush has done his entire life. It was once his family’s money or that of foolish investors’. Now it’s yours and mine. Trillions of it.