Month: May 2006

One small step for a man; one giant leap for the media. Jeff Jarvis writes an appreciation of Iraqi blogger, Zeyad. Zeyad’s indispensable blog can be found here.

Like a fish in a very small barrel. Even Russert can do it.

Kevin Drum lays out a policy list lefty bloggers might generally agree on. Chait kick-started this latest round of debate. Atrios carried it forward. Read the manifesto. Some proposals I like (scaling down the war on drugs, supporting marriage, bringing back the estate tax, backing states’ rights). Most I dislike (progressive taxation, clumsy statist enivronmental policy, indexing the minimum wage, ending abstinence education, making Medicare even more costly). But it’s a useful Rorschach test for our new ideologically fluid polity.

(Update: I misread Kevin’s post. He wrote "abstinence-only education." I too disagree with sex education that only includes abstinence counseling. But I see no reason why such counseling shouldn’t be part of such an education.)

A reader objects to another reader’s email:

You take the point of the emailer in "Something Else About Mary" – but the (understandably) emotional response highlights part of the problem: Republicans who are welcoming, loving and tolerant of homosexuality get stripped of it by association, while the Democrats have done nothing real on a national level to promote understanding. As a vet, I was ashamed and angry when Clinton instituted "don’t ask, don’t tell" — Clinton, who had the opportunity as executive to make the military get realistic, caved. He signed DOMA into law. It’s shameful that the Democrats get credit for something that they, on a national level, have done NOTHING to fix. The Cheneys and the Rudy Giulianis and anyone else, from any party, who is willing to stand up for their gay friends and family members should be encouraged, not vilified and not found guilty by party association.

I agree. And so do many gay Democrats.

The media keeps saying that Iraq is getting more lethal for British troops. The statistics tell another story.

The Jihadists are panicking that they’re losing control of Iraq. At least, that’s what this document implies. Here’s hoping. But we need to keep an eye on who therefore is winning control of Iraq. The threat may be shifting from al Qaeda-type Sunni elements to Iran-controlled Shiite ones, infiltrated into the police forces. Still, it’s great news that Qaeda is feeling heat. Triumphalism can be read here. I’d be less complacent, but I’m certainly heartened, especially by the possibility that al Qaeda may be losing the media war in Iraq. If you kill hundreds of innocent Muslims, maybe Muslims will end up disliking you. Did that ever occur to you, Mr Zarqawi?

Greg Djerejian is looking for some foreign policy grown-ups in the Republican party.

Pro-life theocon, Mark Stricherz, reviews Ramesh Ponnuru’s book, "Party of Death," and confirms what I suspected:

The chief intellectual weakness of [the pro-life] movement is no longer rhetorical. If anything, it’s political. The cause is too often linked with that of conservatism and the Republican Party. "The Party of Death" is an interesting example of this phenomenon. Though its style has wide appeal, the book is structured as a conservative polemic. It contains virtually no criticisms of the Republican Party, let alone social conservatives.

The fig leaf just fell off, methinks.

Emily Yoffe discovers the pleasures of testosterone on a firing range.

Thanks for your emails. Here’s one point that needs addressing:

You decry the intolerance of those you call Christianists, but why? I agree that intolerance is wrong, but that’s my moral belief. If it is yours, too (and what else could it be?), then why should our moral belief be given precedence over another? You seem to be in a battle over morals and insist on taking the position that your moral values are better and deserve more respect because they’re … well, not moral values at all, and besides, they’re more moral.  I find this more fascinating than anything else, and sometimes even amusing.
Your moral values are consistent with your religious beliefs, of course, and you believe that intolerance is one of the big sins. That’s fine. But doesn’t that make you a Christianist, too, since you are trying to impose that set of moral values on others?

I’m glad to get this email because it offers me a chance to clarify something. My issue with Christianism is not "intolerance." In a free society, I’m quite happy to live among people who are intolerant of me, who decide not to associate with me, and generally disapprove of me, for whatever reason they decide. My point is that such intolerance not be enforced by the civil law; and that the civil law be restricted to reflect non-sectarian moral arguments that can be assessed and debated by Christian and non-Christian, Jew or Muslim, Mormon or atheist alike. If we can achieve a broad moral consensus, good. If we cannot, especially over divisive religious disagreements, then neutrality is the better option. And neutrality exists. A law that allows legal abortion or gay marriage as well as adoption and straight marriage is neutral with respect to its citizens’ choices. It is not biased in favor of any one of them. If you have a moral objection, persuade and proselytize, don’t legislate.

My belief in this boundary for political debate is not based on morality as such. It’s based on a political judgment. That judgment is that in a society where so many people differ on so many vital, irresolvable issues – especially the meaning of life, the fate of our souls, the morality of sex, the salience of gender, the true beginning and end of life – we should keep the law as neutral as possible, so it does not become oppressive of people’s freedom to decide for themselves what is true or untrue, right or wrong. This requires certain virtues – the ability to tolerate immorality in one’s neighbors, moderation, restraint, openness to debate. Just as Christianists want to obliterate distinctions between civil law and God’s law, so they want to describe such virtues of restraint as acquiescence to sin. And yes, in religious terms, they are. But acquiescence to others’ sins is another way of saying political toleration. And it is political toleration that is under threat in America right now. It’s time Christians and conservatives brushed up on their John Locke and came to its defense.

(Photo of Howard and Roberta Ahmanson by Thomas Michael Alleman for Time.)