Month: February 2010

Ambinder points out a polling discrepancy:

59% of Americans agree that "homosexuals" ought to be able to serve in the U.S. military. But 70 percent believe that "gays and lesbians" ought to be able to serve in the military. So what are we to make of these confused Americans? "Homosexual" has become a pejorative term, too clinical, associated with a medical condition. But "gays and lesbians" are our friends — all around us, part of the community. That's my guess.

Ivins, Utah, 8.05 am

NRO's Mike Potemra voices his support:

Sullivan is in many ways a complicated case: On some issues, he is basically right; on others, he is a complete crank; on many, of both kinds, he has an emotional tendency to lose perspective. But in the case of the anti-Semitism charge, I don’t think it’s complicated at all.

I'm grateful. I have not gone out of my way over the years to make friends in the blogosphere, to put it mildly. I think it's more honest and healthy to be an equal opportunity offender. I don't blame liberals for never forgiving me for certain conservative positions in the past and present; and I don't blame many on the right for finding my sometimes brutal rhetoric offensive.

But I'm not in this game to make friends. I have my friends and their friendship is not about politics or argument, but about life and love and present laughter. In my personal life, I always try to be civil. On the blog, I write more like a British parliamentary debater – and anyone who has watched Prime Minister's Question Time can see how brutal the rhetoric can become. That's how I was trained. It's how I love to fight.

But I also try to ensure that the arguments of those I attack are also represented on this blog; I post real dissents; I admit errors when necessary; I engage in more introspection than some online; and I link to a wider variety of other writers from different perspectives – known and unknown – than many other bloggers. That's how I try and balance my Irish bluster.

But my anger – which is different than hatred – is also genuine and real, not contrived.

I am incensed by the way in which this country adopted torture and much of the MSM and the Congress let it slide; by how conservatism has been abused by the GOP; by how alleged conservatives bankrupted this country and now blame it on others; by how most neoconservatives have preferred power to honesty in grappling with their failures; by how religion has been cynically used as a tool by Rove; by the way in which gay people and their dignity has been cruelly maligned. And I remain very firmly of the belief that in due course many of my points will be vindicated, even as they have often been written off as the rants of a crank. I think that my view of Palin in all its particulars – mocked by many – will also stand the test of time.

Does this sound arrogant? Maybe. I prefer to see it as sincere. I have made some glaring errors – the McCaughey piece which I didn't fight hard enough to edit as it should have been, and the excess of my rhetoric after 9/11. But I am not apologetic about wading into troubled waters in my career – marriage equality in the 1980s, Serbian genocide in the 1990s, Clinton's shamelessness, Ken Starr's repulsiveness, Serbia's genocide, Christanism's relentless rise, Islamism's unique danger, Obama's unique promise, the data and debate on racial IQ, torture under Cheney, the end of the plague in 1996, the biological differences between men and women, corruption and evil in the Catholic hierarchy, the evil of Saddam, the injustice of affirmative action, the idiocy of hate crime laws, the cowardice of the MSM, the brutality of the Tehran junta, the moral slide of Israel, the power of AIPAC, and the clinical derangement of Sarah Palin.

I love blogging because the only people I really have to answer to are you – not my DC peers or editors or publishers or colleagues or even friends. I remain committed to that, and my conscience and the truth as I can best see it. I am grateful for the large amount of support. But in the end, what matters is whether I'm right or wrong. And all I know is that you never fail to point out when I screw up.

So keep it coming. From all sides.

"When you assume that people would be uncomfortable and quit you are insulting soldiers in the most treacherous way. I can't believe there are people that are saying a soldier would quit. You want to insult a soldier in the worst way? Tell him he's going to quit. Tell him he's a quitter," – LT Dan Choi.

Paul Campos criticizes the Obamas’ new campaign against obesity:

First, numerous studies indicate that, just as with adults, improving children’s nutrition and activity levels is beneficial to their health, but usually produces little or no weight loss (which is all the more reason to focus on health rather than weight).

Nor are thin children in any less need of good food and healthy activities than fat ones. Indeed, over the past 20 years, extensive research has demonstrated that, when studies control for factors such as physical activity levels, weight simply ceases to have any meaningful correlation with health.

Second, a rich literature on stigmatization shows that the health costs of social stigma are high. I don’t believe Michelle Obama wants to stigmatize fat kids, but a campaign dedicated to eliminating them is guaranteed to do so in a profound way.

Amber’s take here.

Julian Sanchez warns:

She’s playing exactly the same game she’s been playing since her big debut at the Republican National Convention: Making herself an irresistible target of “elite” scorn so that everyone who identifies with her feels equally attacked. This is not exactly a subtle strategy, but for some reason, high-level Dems who are supposed to be deeply media savvy keep getting suckered.

I know many of you disagreed with me on Gibbs, but I stick to my guns. I should add I think he's a truly awful press secretary as far as watching him on television is concerned. Such a total mediocrity, inarticulate, smug, insidery and on and on. I don't have much interaction with the Obama press staff but what interaction I have had has only deepened the impression that they are part of what's wrong with Washington, not part of what's right. Incompetent and aloof for the most part as well.

(Cartoon by Ted McCagg)

The latest WAPO/ABC poll is Xanax for the soul. The American people are not that stupid:

Just one in four (26 percent) of those polled said she is qualified to be president while a whopping 71 percent said she wasn't up to the job. (Even among self identified Republicans, just 46 percent believe Palin is qualified to be president while 52 percent say she isn't.)

My concern is the remarkable lack of talent in GOP ranks at a possible presidential level, and the unknowable economic future, in which populism could surprise us all. I mean: Romney?

Huckabee? Gingrich? She has a quality and charisma that simply blows these guys out of the water – and Huckabee's record on pardons and fiscal liberalism will kill him in a GOP primary race. Maybe the GOP will try and find someone – Jeb? Scott Brown? – and fend her off. But then she could become a third party candidate.

She believes God has chosen her. So do her millions of supporters.

The Dish posted on the Linker-Dreher debate over open marriages among gay men. The study that sparked the debate was incorrectly reported:

The Gay Couples Study does reveal valuable information about the formation of sexual agreements among gay couples. For example, it reveals that gay men almost universally talk about monogamy and fidelity and define the rules of their relationship. This seems true regardless of the structure, length, or investment into the relationship. And research into breached agreements and how it impacts HIV transmission is essential to targeting prevention efforts.

But in my opinion, Scott James’ statement that “New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area” may be among the most irresponsible reporting I’ve ever seen.

The study says nothing whatsoever about lesbians and it tells us little about “just how common open relationships are” among anyone. It’s pure sensationalism and shoddy journalism.

But the real culprits are those who saw this study and decided that it says something about, for example, gay couples marrying in Iowa or New Hampshire. This was either lazy response or a deliberate attempt to fraudulently demonize gay couples for political gain.

Imagine that.