May 7, I linked to this gripping account of the horrifying war that has been raging in Congo for several years. I’m glad to say that my corporate overlords have devoted real space and time to the story this week. It’s their cover. It will doubtless raise awareness of the matter still further. It should.
(Photo: James Nachtwey/ VII/ for Time.)
"There is no such thing as a homosexual. We are all heterosexual. Our body was designed for the opposite sex," – Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
There is a refreshing clarity about this, because it helps remind people that the Christianist movement is not about tolerating gay people, but about insisting that they do not exist, and where they do insist in existing, describing them as liars, mentally ill, or "objectively disordered." Check out this Fred Barnes piece about the latest attempt to prevent gay couples from having any legal protections throughout America. You’ll notice one thing: nowhere is there any idea that gay people exist, that they might be a part of this debate, or that they should be treated with any respect. In fact, gay people don’t appear in an article … about gay people. To Fred, alas, gay people simply cannot exist (they’re just sinful or mentally ill heterosexuals), and so an argument is made without even an attempt to offer a proposal for including them in our national life. Nicolosi, for his part, urges theories of child therapy that have been regarded as psychological abuse by all mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists for the past thirty years. Money quote:
The audience of more than 700 sat rapt in the pews of a Fort Lauderdale church. Some held Bibles. Others took notes. Nicolosi went on to tell them that fathers could help their sons stay straight by bonding through rough-and-tumble games, such as tossing them in the air.
"Even if [the dad] drops the kid and he cracks his head, at least he’ll be heterosexual," Nicolosi said, chuckling. "A small price to pay."
Or they can be beaten into submission. Or driven to suicide. A small price to pay. And it’s paid all the time in this country and around the world.
Richford, Vermont, 1.20 pm.
Can the executive branch now enter private property without a warrant if it believes there is something going on that could faintly be related to the war on terror? Seems so. And the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger enthusiastically concurs:
The Supreme Court’s purpose in Brigham was to clear up confusions among lower courts about "the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard governing warrantless entry by law enforcement in an emergency situation." I’d call the terror war an emergency. Brigham said the Court has held that officers can make a warrantless entry "onto private property" to fight a fire, investigate its cause, prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, and engage in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Al Qaeda qualifies as all four. Yet another precedent cited for "obviating the requirement of a warrant" is "the need to protect or preserve life." That sounds like the point of the war on terror, but some may disagree.
So from now for the indefinite future, the government has "emergency" powers to violate your private property without a warrant, tap phones without a warrant, jail suspects indefinitely without due process, and even torture them? Eveyone concedes that some surrender of liberty is necessary in this new world. But the glee with which some conservatives greet the expansion of unlimited government power is truly remarkable.
Sydney, Australia, 8 am.
The Bush administration has broken all records in keeping its documents secret and classified. But one official is head and shoulders above everyone else. Money quote:
With 14 million decisions made last year to classify information, a slight decline from the 2004 record, and 29.5 million pages declassified last year — far fewer than the 100 million pages declassified in 2001. And once again, Vice President Dick Cheney, who has refused to report on his office’s classification activities since 2003, is missing from the count.
Despite an executive order signed by President Bush in 2003 requiring all agencies or “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information’’ to report on its activities, the vice president’s office maintains that it has no legal obligation to report on its classification decisions.
They’re not just insisting on the right to classify anything they like; they’re refusing even to tell us what they’re classifying. It’s bad enough that Cheney has to seek re-election every four years – the indignity! – but that he should follow the president’s instructions? Please. He’s Cheney. The "accountability moment" is over.
Brezovo, Bulgaria, 12.30 pm.
From national joke … to national savior? My thoughts on an improbable make-over.
Jersey City, New Jersey, 6 pm.
It’s George W. Bush, argues Matthew d’Ancona. The feeling is mutual, apparently. And W has laid on the charm at times:
On one visit to Downing Street, Mr Blair’s team complimented the President on his outfit. "The Lord made me wear it," said Mr Bush with a straight face. When they realised he was teasing them, everyone in the room cracked up.
A Texan with more irony than a Brit? Stereotypes are made for breaking.
The Dish 