Month: May 2006

It is encouraging to see the extreme abstraction of theoconservatism beginning to collide with the reality we all live in. The Pope has commissioned a study to see whether, in a serodiscordant marriage, condoms are morally a lesser evil than infecting your spouse with a serious virus. Yes, they actually need a study to figure that one out. Nick Kristof (TimesDelete) also makes the very important point that in secular, liberal, post-Communist Germany, the abortion rate is a fraction of America’s. Hmmm. That couldn’t have anything to do with much better contraception availability, counseling and over-the-counter availability of the morning after pill, could it? The great tragedy of the extremism of the current pro-life forces is that they have become de facto pro-death. They allow for the early deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the developing world by opposing condoms in a health emergency; and they add to the number of abortions in America by making emergency contraception hard to find. In their theological abstraction, the logic is perfect and circular. On the ground, they are abetting death. They need to get a better grip on their own good intentions and see how their extremism has led them astray.

His government is reeling from a near-perfect storm of scandals two days ahead of local elections. The odds of his remaining at Number 10, Downing Street, for more than a few more months strike me as much longer than they were a week ago.

It’s three years since the president’s victory speech on an aircraft carrier. I got a lot wrong back then and still trusted the president to make the right decisions in wartime. But something about that speech unnerved me, and for the first time, I used the H-word:

I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the whole backdrop, including the fighter-pilot entrance, was – how do I put this politely? – hubristic … It was an address to the nation at the conclusion of a conflict, one that shouldn’t be interrupted by foot-stomping and cheering. It made it look as if the president was using the military for partisan purposes – and that’s not right.

"Conclusion of a conflict"? If only I’d known. But a couple of weeks later, I was writing the following:

Iraq needs order. We’ll get criticized for being too heavy-handed whatever we do. So why aren’t American troops in large numbers being deployed to keep the peace, restore order and exercise credible authority? If we do not show our commitment now to the country, what message are we sending a future Iraqi government about our commitment to a stable and long-lasting democracy?

I fear we were sending the message Rumsfeld always intended to send: you’re on your own now. Rummy never wanted nation-building; and he feared that Iraq would disprove his theories about a smaller, more high-tech military. So he refused to budge. And we are where we now are.

It exists! Reading your emails and the blogospheric response, it seems the humor is not really the issue. Colbert has become a popular hero simply for sticking it to the president in public. One emailer writes:

Colbert said what he said to the president’s face.  That’s the significance of it.  And it’s significant because the president never stands for criticism from anyone.

Others are more paranoid:

Do you think that maybe the media was once again protecting the president from humiliation? I think it was supposed to be a light and humorous night and Colbert cut a bit too deep for the image that the press (and the administration) wanted to give. Whether you believe he bombed or not does not matter. Colbert went up there and told president Bush to his face what he thought, and the fact that so many bloggers are cheering him on suggests that this is a sentiment that people around the country (world) have. If nothing else the press should report that someone had the courage to speak for the way a large group of people feel, even if the comedy bombed. That is newsworthy! People want this to be news but news outlets are not providing it as news. There is an imbalance whether you think it deserves press or not.

I think Colbert played the role of the court jester. That’s an important and significant role. Watching part of the routine online, I can see the point. A British reader adds:

I’ve seen the video. He didn’t misfire – he punctured a bubble. If only for a moment. Good on him.

I concur.

New reports from Iraq the Model. Omar is impressed with Maliki’s first moves. Mohammed notes new seriousness in Baghdad about tackling the militias’ power in the Interior Ministry. There may even be a woman in the cabinet. As the Israelis keep saying, "Know Hope."

I remember once causing a ruckus at a Harvard lunchtable by getting up and moving when someone sat down next to me wearing a Chairman Mao t-shirt. If someone feels that’s a fashion statement, I don’t want to associate with them. I’m still amazed that people use the symbols of communist totalitarianism – CCCP t-shirts, Che Guevara ballcaps, and so on – as if they were just cultural bric-a-brac. If someone had worn a swastika to lunch, others would have moved too, no? Jeff Jacoby, it appears, has noticed the same thing. On May Day, the evil of communism needs to be remembered; and its millions of victims mourned and recalled.

Chicago’s highest-paid TV news personality sues a construction company for allegedly shoddy work on her $3 million mansion. She claims

the company "intended to take advantage" of [her and her husband] because they are black. They accuse the company of seeing a black couple as being "gullible and inexperienced in construction matters," so it could "deceive and take advantage of and defraud" them.

This victim of racism earns $2 million a year.

Some of you have asked me what I thought of Stephen Colbert’s speech at the WHCA. Sorry. I’m one of those people who leave before the dinner. I took a friend from England for the cocktails part; and then scarpered for a dinner with other friends, winding up on the couch falling asleep watching Chevy Chase’s "European Vacation". The fiance, fresh back from London, wanted to acquaint me with this important cultural artefact. So no review from me. But here’s Noam Scheiber:

My sense is that the blogosphere response is more evidence of a new Stalinist aesthetic on the left–until recently more common on the right–wherein the political content of a performance or work of art is actually more important than its entertainment value. Jon Stewart often says he hates when his audience cheers; he wants them to laugh. My sense is that, had most of the bloggers complaining about the WHCD been around Saturday night, there would have been lots of cheering but not much more laughing.

I love Colbert; but perhaps he misfired. It happens.

It’s in decline; but people have been saying that for a very long time. What is it? Here’s a rough definition, drawn from describing the way Huck Finn conversed with Jim:

Both participants listen attentively to each other; neither tries to promote himself by pleasing the other; both are obviously enjoying an intellectual workout; neither spoils the evening’s peaceable air by making a speech or letting disagreement flare into anger; they do not make tedious attempts to be witty. They observe classic conversational etiquette with a self-discipline that would have pleased Michel de Montaigne, Samuel Johnson, or any of a dozen other old masters of good talk whom Miller cites as authorities.

This etiquette, Miller says, is essential if conversation is to rise to the level of—well, "good conversation." The etiquette is hard on hotheads, egomaniacs, windbags, clowns, politicians, and zealots. The good conversationalist must never go purple with rage, like people on talk radio; never tell a long-winded story, like Joseph Conrad; and never boast that his views enjoy divine approval, like a former neighbor of mine whose car bumper declared, "God Said It, I Believe It, And That Settles It."

This is taken from Russell Baker’s engaging review of a new book on the subject by Stephen Miller. Conversation is Oakeshott’s metaphor for free association; Michael Totten sees it as the antidote to terror on the Israel-Lebanon border. I’d say it’s a practice integral to liberal democracy. Which is why the more open-minded parts of the blogosphere have an important part to play in reviving it.

The president proclaims "Law Day." This year, the theme is: "Liberty Under Law: Separate Branches, Balanced Powers." Take it away, Mr Umansky!