Month: July 2006

Anne Applebaum tells it like it is in the current Spectator in London (sub req). Money quote:

By attending the G8 summit this month in St Petersburg, Illarionov said, Western leaders will show their approval of ‘the nationalisation of private property, destruction of the rule of law, violation of human rights and liquidation of democracy’.

She’s right, of course, as she often is (and has long been what Ramesh Ponnuru calls an "hysteric" on the Bush torture policy). But Hitch nails the Bush-Putin love-in more brutally here:

Out of a thesaurus of possible nominations, one would have to select George Bush’s remarks about Vladimir Putin as the stupidest utterance of his entire presidency. Impressed beyond words by the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix that had belonged to his mother and was thus a man of faith, our chief executive then burbled like a schoolgirl and said that he had looked into the man’s eyes and knew he was the one to trust. (I have not checked, but surely someone can discover how many times Putin has worn that crucifix since. It could be a sort of emblem of the fatuity of the "faith-based.")

Since then, Putin has been noticeable for his efforts to protect Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, the Iranian mullahs, and the Sudanese racist cleansers from any concerted action by the United Nations and has instructed his troops in Chechnya to behave in a manner that would cause a storm of international outrage if emulated by coalition forces in Iraq.

But the president looked into Putin’s soul. Why would he need actual empirical evidence after that?

(Hat tip: Iain Murray.)

A reader writes:

My reading of the court opinion you posted suggests a slightly different interpretation. I don’t think the opinion necessarily suggests that straights are more irresponsible than gays so much as that the consequences of the same irresponsible behavior (promiscuous unsafe sex) are greater when straights engage in it because it can produce children.

I certainly don’t agree with any law banning marriage between any two people, but assuming the legal point at issue was whether or not the law was overtly irrational, it appears that the court has ruled correctly. Keep in mind that by saying that, I’m not saying that the court has ruled correctly on gay marriage in general because (if my assumption is correct) they haven’t ruled on that at all. But they have presented a possible rationale for the legislation (even if it’s reasonably clear that their rationale is not the one used by most members of the legislature).

Agreed. But the ironies I mention remain. The good side of this is that it will, with luck, reorient gay activists toward the primary task of persuading people that we are right about equality in civil marriage. We need to keep arguing that allowing gays to marry in no way renders straight marriage more vulnerable (in fact supports it), and that our main goal should be persuading legislatures to pass marriage laws (as has already happened in California). If this ruling prompts gay couples and our allies toward legislative rather than judicial action, then it will be for the good. It has already done this, in fact. We have the better arguments. Let us trust the American people and get on with job of persuading them. We’ve already made great strides. And our gains will be more secure if they are achieved legislatively, rather than through courts.

Ramesh "Party of Death" Ponnuru says he opposes torture. He did and said virtually nothing for the four years it has been American policy, except cover his ass with a couple of statements, designed not to offend those whose patronage he seeks. His record of near-silence speaks for itself, and no amount of flim-flammery can now erase it. As for whether it is "hysterical" to relate the Bush administration’s policy to allow torture and abuse of military prisoners to Abu Ghraib and the dozens of other sites in Iraq and Afghanistan where torture has occurred, Ponnuru must believe that the government reports that do indeed cite a "migration" of the Gitmo torture tactics to Abu Ghraib were also "hysterical". He must also believe that the U.S. Supreme Court is "hysterical", because they too last week ruled that the Bush administration’s evasion of U.S. law and international treaties was indeed an illicit power-grab, unconstitutional and illegal, and that the endorsement of torture was thereby technically a war crime.

So on my side: the government reports and the Supreme Court. On Ponnuru’s side, the usual Republican power-brokers. Also notice Ponnuru’s "argument" about what conservatism is. For him, it suffices to say that other "serious" conservatives he knows do not count yours truly as a conservative. Is conservatism now a social clique? Or is it a philosophy worth debating and arguing over, as I try to do in my next book? For Ponnuru, conservatism is a club. For me, it’s a set of debatable ideas. If Ponnuru wants to say I am not a serious conservative, then let him make the case. The rest is schoolgirl cliquishness.

The New York Court of Appeals civil marriage decision is an innovative piece of work – and worth a few preliminary thoughts. The standard is mere rational basis, and the court has decided that a legislature is not being ipso facto irrational in denying gay couples, even with children, the same rights as straight couples without children. Money quote:

"[T]he Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement – in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits – to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

The argument, essentially, is that because straight couples are so irresponsible, can have children by accident, and have made such a hash of civil marriage, they need more incentives than gay couples to stay together – and civil marriage as an exclusive privilege for them is such an incentive. The interests of gay couples in staying together – the gains in responsibility, health, stability and the security of their own children – are dispensable. Gays are still regarded as sub-citizens. So the goals are rational, but the means are not. Still I find it quite candid of the court to argue that straights are less responsible than gays, far more capable of sexual recklessness and inherently dangerous to children. I wonder if this will be the new argument for the anti-gay forces. We have to save marriage from those responsible gays! It’s the irresponsible straights who need it most.

"And in the end, it was his desire to see things as he wished them to be, not as they really were, that was his fatal flaw. He never really had the judgment a good chairman or chief executive has to have," – Joe Nocera on George W. Bush Ken Lay, in the NYT today (TimesDelete).

"We’ve frequently observed that solely for the offense of same-sex love and sleeping together, people have been condemned to death by hanging or stoning – there have been many such executions carried out by the malicious and criminal Iranian regime … Look, you must understand that, in Iran, if a homosexual falls in love, he has committed a grave crime: here, homosexual love equals death, the gallows and stoning. So, this is a major part of what I term the ‘condemned’s’ life: he is oppressed and sinks into despair and self-hate and, in too many cases, ultimately opts for suicide… You who live serenely and comfortably on the other side of Iran’s frontiers, be aware that those who think and feel and love like you do in Iran are executed for the crime of homosexuality, are assassinated, kidnapped, and barred from working in offices. You have festivals, and they prisons. You select Mr. Gay of the Year, but they don‚Äôt even enjoy the right to have gravestones. Be fair and tell us what difference there is between us and you. Isn’t it time that all homosexuals around the world rise up and come to our defense?" – a 24-year-old gay activist in Iran, to Doug Ireland.

(Photo: the hanging of two Iranian teenage boys for being gay, July 19, 2005.)

A citizen wants to know about a rogue white helicopter pilot; and other threats to national security.

The Derb speaks:

If you look at [the blunders of Bush’s presidency], in fact, a lot of the problem seems to arise from GWB‚Äôs piety. In the 2000 campaign GWB was asked to name his favorite philosopher. He named Jesus. I don’t for a moment doubt his sincerity or his piety. Trouble is, Jesus was not a philosopher. The Bible is full of inspiration and spiritual insights, but as a handbook for conducting worldly affairs, it needs to be taken with a dash of, well, worldliness. Taking in strangers may get you robbed. Turning the other cheek may get you killed. All men may be equal in the sight of God, but it does not follow that all kids are equally capable of doing Advanced Placement Calculus.

This is the Tory version of the left’s obsession with Bush’s "stupidity." He’s not stupid. Just unwise and incurious about his unwisdom.

(Photo: Nell Redmond/Landov.)

Anchorage, Alaska, 7 am.

The hypocrisy angle is explored here. I should add: I have no interest in what Rush does with his willy outside of marriage. I just wish he felt the same way about me.