Month: May 2006

Whatever the legal and constitutional worries behind massive government data-gathering of domestic phone calls, the public, it seems, couldn’t care less. Mark Blumenthal explains.

Is Mr Gibson changing his tune? Money quote:

"The fear-mongering we depict in the film ["Apocalypto"] reminds me of President Bush and his guys".

The prime minister promises to step down and give his successor, Gordon Brown, plenty of time to prepare for an election. And yet the distrust between the two camps seems as deep as ever. The Blairites – more centrist than the Brownites – are frightened of losing the middle ground of British politics:

[The Blairite ultras] want to force Mr Brown into a declaration that he will be as new Labour as Mr Blair. Ideally, he would agree publicly on a transitional programme of policy that was full of new Labour reforms. But, in the last resort, if such an agreement cannot be achieved, some are pressing [Blair loyalist] Mr Reid to stand against him in a leadership contest: not as a quixotic attempt to win, which he wouldn’t, but as a way of ensuring that the Chancellor has to match any new Labour promises that his rival would make.

In such a contest, Mr Blair would be obliged to support Mr Brown. But his private advice to the Chancellor tallies with that of the ultras. He believes that the party’s only hope of beating David Cameron‚Äôs Tories is to be riotously new Labour, because that is where the voters are. When he goes, the only question is who will be the inheritor of new Labour. If Mr Brown does not take up the mantle, Mr Cameron surely will.

British politics just got really interesting for the first time in over a decade. Stay tuned.

(Photo: Embics/Landov for Time.)

Jonah Goldberg argues that I am more "partisan" than Ramesh Ponnuru because Ramesh is a partisan Republican and I belong to the "Party of Andrew". But isn’t that simply a definition of being an independent writer? Sure, I have my campaigns and obsessions and themes, but that’s what bloggers and columnists do. Does he mean I hold the same views always, according to my own party line? Surely not: my self-criticism over Iraq has been pretty tough. I guess he’s just saying I’m self-important. My view is that I simply write what I believe, with feeling. I’m Irish, ok?

But I should address the various "inconsistency" insinuations. Jonah writes of my blog:

One day federalism is great, when federalism helps gay marriage. The next day federalism is a hindrance to liberty and justice. One day pro-life views are the height of honor, now they are proof of Christianism.

Could Jonah substantiate that? I don’t know of any instances where I can be accused of opposing federalism (unless he means in rare circumstances, such as the Supreme Court’s striking down of inter-racial marriage bans on equal protection grounds. But I doubt Jonah would disagree on that one). I’m also pro-life, and could never approve of any abortion, but oppose the attempt to criminalize all abortions, even in the first trimester and even for rape and incest. You see: I attach some political weight to women’s liberty, and also to the genuine doubt that exists about the personhood of a first-trimester fetus. I see a distinction between religious truth for me and civil law for everyone else: you know – that old conservative idea that there might be some salient distinction between theory and practice, ideology and politics. That Oakeshottian and Aristotelian insight, which I think is the central truth of conservatism, is not very palatable to the Christianists.

Ponnuru also misrepresents my views here:

Stem-cell research that kills one-celled human embryos? Once Sullivan could think of no worse evil. The more recent Sullivan thinks it is concern about said embryos that is extreme, fanatical, etc.

Er, no. I still find embryonic stem cell research morally troubling. I merely think the attempt to deduce from such murky areas clear and absolute legal prohibitions against all abortion and all stem cell research is over-reach, and fueled by Christianist arrogance. I oppose federal funding of such research, but I would allow private entities and states to do it. Again: a distinction between the moral and civil law, that respects the freedom of those who differ from me.

I’m also well aware that same-sex marriage is not part of "mainstream Christianity," which is why I have never said such a thing and have long made a distinction between the civil law and religious doctrine in this respect, a distinction central to "Virtually Normal." And yes, I have had nuanced positions in the past. I loathed Clinton, but I came to see that the movement to impeach him was more dangerous than anything he had done or represented. I know this kind of nuance is not always emotionally satisfying, but it’s not incoherent and it was the best judgment I could come to at the time.

A reader interjects:

I agree with all the points, all of them, outlined in your Time article. But the trend in the Muslim world is of such a different magnitude to what is happening in the West as to compare a farm pond with the ocean. Yes they are both wet, but so what? The two trends are so different it is not fair to compare them.

Islam softened the harsh tribal customs of the Arabian peninsula at the time, but also codified them (guaranteeing that they would be locked into place without evolution). Christendom was during most of its history hardly Christ-like (especially in the Middle Ages) but it evolved for the better over time. Islam has not. Islam is fundamentally different than Christianity or modern Judaism. While Mohammed made the burden of proof for adultery high (four witnesses are required of the actual act) which implies a degree of tolerance, an un-married pregnant woman can even today be stoned to death. Christ avoided direct confrontation with authority and even preached a "give onto Caesar standard" which led over time to separation of church and state. 

As contemptible as Rick Santorum and Reverend Dobson are, neither is sawing the heads off living women, promoting honor killings, or doing anything close to what radical Islam allows. No mainstream Christians I am aware of supported Eric Rudolph, but millions of Muslims support bin Laden and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis support Zarqawi. Until Islam reforms itself, I resent you grouping Christian fundamentalists with Muslim fundamentalists. What we deem "extreme" Christian fundamentalism is mainstream Islam. Christianity does not tolerate a "death cult" in its midst like Islam does.

This point is well-taken, and I have made it myself. But the main difference is simply that Christianism operates in America under the Constitution, which is our main buffer, and a very good one, against the kinds of excesses we see in the Middle East. But constitutions can be amended, as they were in America to prohibit alcohol, not a century ago. And they can be weakened by non-enforcement, hence the Christianist obsession with limiting judicial power. And faiths can also mutate. The kind of politicized evangelicalism today would have been unrecognizable to Billy Graham’s generation. And the partisan appropriation of God is a particularly corrosive innovation. I take all the reader’s points; and yet I remain concerned. 

Brink Lindsey tries to look on the bright side.

They’re doomed, I tell you. Well, Bo Cowgill thinks so.

Who needs the law when you’re the King? Some of us have long been worried by the Bush administration’s contempt for the rule of law in its legitimate efforts to protect Americans from terrorism. And we’ve been dismissed and criticized for it. But the more you know, the more troubling it gets. In all this, trust in the president’s word is important. That’s gone. For good reason. You don’t abandon limited government, enable torture, declare the executive above the law, pile up countless signing statements to undermine the Congress … and then take pains to protect Americans’ privacy. This monarch, already eager to perpetuate a dynasty, needs more scrutiny. It may require voting Democrat this fall to give it to him.

(Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty.)

The results are now in for "sheep sex" (Ireland wins); "goat sex" (Pakistan); and "pornography" (Salt Lake City has the third highest global ranking). You could do this all day, and some of you are. A couple of good points along the way:

The impression I get from the Google Trends data is not that Muslims are more sex obsessed, but that they are less sophisticated in their porn searches. After a decade of experience searching for smut, I would never waste my time searching for something as broad as "sex" when I can use a more refined search, like "shaved midget twinks."

Actually, that phrase is too obscure to find anything. But "shaved" is first in Australia, "midgets" are American, and "twinks" have a big fan-base in northern England and Scotland. Don’t know what a twink is? Here. Another blogger observes:

Your posting on Google trends is something I had been noticing myself with my blog. I have been blogging for about 2 years, and I write about politics, music, pop culture, sex,and I post the occasional "hottie" picture. I have been noticing through my site stats that I have been getting enormous numbers of viewers from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and other Muslim countries. Are they looking for my take on the Mohammed cartoons or the Iraq War? Nope. They want pictures of Jenna Jameson and Jessica Simpson. I think it’s true what Bill Maher says, these Islamo-crazies just need to GET LAID!

I don’t think that point can ever be made strenuously enough.

I’m sorry, but this is pathetic:

KING: On domestics — what’s the rule — what’s the law in Virginia?

CHENEY: Actually I’m not sure what the law is in Virginia. I should know that.

KING: Does your partner have — if you’re in the hospital, god forbid, does your partner have rights?

CHENEY: My partner and I have living wills, regular wills, powers of attorney, everything that quite honestly any couple married or not should have.

I have no personal issues with Mary Cheney. But, really. She lives in a state which has gone through a wrenching debate these past few years over the rights of gay couples, and has passed the most draconian law imaginable designed to curtail and destroy all the legal documents she says she has. And she is utterly unaware of this debate, let alone attempting to do something about it. Sad.