Author: Andrew Sullivan

Drum roll, please:

A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of "perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives." This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews. To conflate gay people with child-abusers is an archaic and disgusting calumny, to portray us as a "threat to children" is as dark and as vile a smear as you will find. Many of us are children, in the first place, and although there are some gay abusers, as well as straight abusers, the overwhelming majority of gays and straights love our children and nieces and nephews, would never dream of harming any child in any way, and many gay people indeed have taught and guided and reared children over the centuries, and to levels of excellence bar none. I don't doubt that a gay teacher taught Paladino once; the odds are high. And when I think of the lives of great service so many gay people live in the worlds of education, mentorship and parenting, his demonization sickens me even more.

What's even more amazing is the context of these remarks. Paladino cannot be unaware of the recent spate of gay teen suicides, or the disgusting act of torture against two gay men in the Bronx. At a time when it is the responsibility of public figures to condemn this kind of violence, to defend gay people from the rhetoric that fuels such violence, Paladino has decided to ratchet up the bigoted language in a way that will only help legitimize anti-gay violence. That he is running for governor of New York, and has this notion of responsibility and decency at this moment in time, is a low-point for even today's gay-baiting GOP. Now watch if anyone in the national Republican leadership disowns this bigotry, and disowns him. That will tell you a lot.

Lastly, he makes a case for marriage and family. Great. But in doing so he simply assumes that gay people are not part of people's families, and he ignores the fact that many have already married across this country and the world, and brought up children, and done so magnificently. He places one segment of society outside respectability, and outside the family, implying that it is a choice, and the "gay agenda" is to corrupt children to make that choice. I might add that this is not even orthodox Catholic doctrine. Even the Pope acknowledges that gay people do not choose our orientation. Even in as dismal a document as the 1986 Letter, Ratzinger wrote:

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

So this is, for a Catholic like Paladino, a kind of social scapegoating and demonization whose history is well known to every student of history. The Catholic hierarchy in New York has a moral duty to condemn this "violent malice in speech" and "disregard for others". It has no place in free and tolerant society or a free and tolerant political party.

And then, finally, the assertion that none of this means he is anti-gay or holds any animus toward gay people – just that all of us are a threat to children, that we are "brainwashing" kids into thinking gayness is ok, and that the notion that we may be "proud" of our lives sticks literally in his throat. This, mind you, in New York, the bluest of blue states. And of course, to an audience of religious fundamentalists.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the GOP has become. In 1978, Ronald Reagan took a stand in defense of openly gay school-teachers. Today, DeMint and Paladino want to cleanse us from schools because we allegedly threaten to brainwash or rape children. How much clearer can the degeneracy be than that?

Avent furrows his brow:

Ron Brownstein pointed out, over the weekend, that the Republican party is almost unique among major political parties across the world in its overwhelming skepticism of the science of global warming. As an American living in America, I counted this as one of the pieces of knowledge I held in my possession, but not one which I tended to reflect on and fully appreciate. But one needn’t spend much time in the main offices of one of the world’s top weeklies to understand the real significance of this state of affairs. It poses an enormous problem to the leaders of the world’s other major powers, and there is almost nothing they can do about it.

… Imagine the world’s major powers sitting down in the early 20th century to negotiate a treaty on the law of the sea, only to have one of America’s major political parties vow to defeat any settlement, on the grounds that the world is in fact flat.

Will Wilkinson wishes that government officials were more constrained by rules, especially when it comes time to stimulate the economy:

What I’d really like to see is much greater reliance on automatic stabilizers that deploy quickly with adequate force and retract according to well-defined recovery benchmarks. How about monetary policy? Central banking is part of our de facto constitution. I’d like its role and governing rules be set into the actual constitution. Very roughly, something like: Every n years, Congress (drawing on the advice of experts, of course) sets an inflation or NGDP growth rate target. The Fed’s job is to hit the target. There should be experts in the Fed who know how to do this…

Now, this is not a world without a treasury secretaries, central bankers, regulators, or White House economic advisors. It’s a world in which the elite economists who generally fill these positions are more pinned in by the constitutional framework. This is, I think, a world in which economists in government face fewer conflicts of interest, because there is less they and their principals can do to make or break their friends and partners in business. And this is a world of greater political equality, where the unelected cream of a few top universities don’t have political pull so radically out of proportion with typical members of the democracy.

A guilty pleasure: "Hot Guys On Judge Judy.com". Yeah, most of them are douchebags.

It's being packaged that way by a company that asserts it's better than the bottled stuff:

The startup, which calls itself Boxed Water Is Better, distributes water in milk cartons under the premise that paper packaging is gentler on the earth than standard-issue PET plastic bottles. Seventy-six percent of each carton comes from green-certified trees; it's then shipped flat to the water supplier, cutting back on transportation waste. The cartons can be recycled. And 20 percent of the profits go toward tree and water relief organizations — though, it should be noted, that that hasn't happened yet because, as the company says, "we're still paying for our start-up costs."

But there are caveats:

…cartons are unlikely to replace bottles in terms of practicality. Imagine jogging with a milk carton or trying to put it in your purse after you've already opened it. You might as well stick a hose in there. The best that boxed water could hope for is to replace tap water — and tap water is kinder to the environment than any packaging out there, whether plastic, glass, or paper.

Aaron Carroll explodes a talking point:

I’m not denying that some people with means might come to the United States for care.  If I needed a heart/lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather be.  But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.  You shouldn’t use the anecdote to describe things at a population level.  This study showed you three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them, all showing that this meme is mostly apocryphal.

Says Nicole at Postbourgie:

I don’t like the term “illegals.”  If you’re going to call people “illegals”, let’s be fair and apply it to everyone who has ever done anything illegal.  That would include me, you, Lou Dobbs, jaywalkers, underage drinkers, and almost everyone I know over the age of 10.

But “illegal immigrant”?  The simple fact is that if one immigrates without a visa, or stays after the visa expires, that is illegal.  I’m not saying there aren’t justifiable reasons for doing so, but that doesn’t make it any less against the law.

Adam Serwer agrees. They're both pushing back against a campaign by Colorlines to "drop the I word."

[Re-posted from last night]

Chris, Patrick and Zoe have asked many of my fellow bloggers out there to “toast or roast” the Dish’s tenth anniversary tomorrow. And it is traditional to respond to such a chorus with some brief remarks. Because I am an easily embarrassed type and actually not very comfortable at parties, I thought I’d just write a post with some brief reflections on the last ten years of doing this – before I read what is to come tomorrow.

I’m a Catholic, so let me start with the things I am sorry for and even, in some cases, ashamed of. When you blog in real time, day by day, hour by hour, emotions can get the better of you. The blogosphere is awash in examples of invective, abuse, cruelty, accusations of bad faith, or just bluster – in part because blogging is so much more like speaking than writing and also because it addresses people in the abstract, not face to face. I am not innocent in this, and wish I could take back a few barbs, especially in the early days, when we were all discovering what this medium could do. As a pioneer – and in 2000, there was Mickey and me, basically, in the political blogosphere – I have been, for better or worse, an early adopter of the best and the worst. My only defense is that I have tried to learn from this as I have gone along, to improve on these moments of weakness and rhetorical excess by a more stringent tone, and by constantly and increasingly publishing real dissents, corrections and a much wider diversity of views than just my own, for balance, for fairness. I don’t think a blog would be the same without the occasional unjust jibe or angry outburst – because it would lose its vital, fallible human quality – and doubtless I will pop off again from time to time. But the Dish in 2010 is more mature in many ways than it was in 2000.

One reason for this is my greatest failure by far in these ten years – and that was giving in to my legitimate but far-too-powerful emotions after 9/11 and cheer-leading for a war in Iraq that remains one of the most disgraceful, disastrous and murderous episodes in the history of American foreign policy. I was wrong – but more than wrong, I was dismissive of those who turned out to be right. Some of those I mocked I did so for the right reasons. But some I didn’t listen to when I should have. All I can say is that the great virtue of this blog is that it gave me nowhere to hide. And if you read the archives, you can see my mind and soul twisting slowly in the wind of reality, as illusion after illusion fell from my eyes, until the knowledge that the president I had trusted and the noble project I thought I had supported … ended up in secret torture chambers and mass sectarian murders and chaos and the empowerment of the very forces we were trying to defeat. That knowledge changed me as a human being and as a writer. I am not preening in that (how can a writer safe in his blog-cave ever preen in the face of a beheaded victim of anarchy or a child buried in rubble?); but I did in the end face up to it. In the glare of public scrutiny. In many ways, you forced me. You demanded that I hold myself responsible for my errors and, yes, sins. And we did this together, you and I, in a way that no form of media had achieved before. So in the shame and error, there was some kind of achievement. At its best, that is what blogging can do.

I began the decade a conservative and I end it as one. Chastened – as conservatives who dare to dream of a better world always should be – but conservative nonetheless. The rightwing blogosphere – who once championed and celebrated my righteous (and sometimes self-righteous) challenges to the MSM – dismissed me as a turncoat leftist years ago. I remain insistent that they have changed far more than I have; and that they may have mistaken my support for the war after 9/11 for a brand of conservatism I had never truly shared, and had, indeed, spent much of the 1990s excoriating.

I did not discover the cynicism of Bill Kristol or the cant of Robby George or the white-knuckled fear of Joseph Ratzinger in the last decade. I was an Oakeshottian supporter of marriage equality for gays and marijuana legalization in the 1980s. I wrote the case for green conservatism for Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in 1985. I was never a supply-sider and always a fiscal conservative, who believed in balanced budgets, welfare reform, simple taxation as flat as possible, and the counter-productive hubris of affirmative action and political correctness. I was against hate crimes law then and now. As a gay man, I bear the scars of taking on the left in a time of great pain and fear. I remain deeply skeptical of government’s ability to solve most human problems, but have never denied its necessity or importance in tackling the profound questions of the common good no other institution can replace. I’m a Whiggish Tory, not a pure libertarian.

But the dialogue this blog forced upon me also helped me much better understand my own positions, and abandon some when the power of the counter-argument in these pages overwhelmed me. I have moved to a more pro-choice position than I once had, and the emails from women who had had late-term abortions did not just move my heart, they changed my mind. Watching the national security state achieve more and more power and less and less accountability, observing the sheer horror of counter-insurgencies in places we could never understand or master, seeing how the absolute evil of torture could not just enter the heart of American government, but be defended by so many, enabled by the media’s cowardice and entrenched by a refusal to prosecute it or even call it by its proper name … well, these events have indeed radicalized me. I have become an instinctually anti-war conservative, rather than an instinctually pro-war one. I do not understand how anyone who has lived and breathed this last decade could not reach a similar conclusion. Which is why I have also been unstinting in my criticism of a key ally, Israel, and its dogmatic American cheer-leaders, for failing to understand this, and to gamble not only with Israel’s own future with diplomatic brinkmanship, collective punishment of Palestinians, and more pre-emptive war – but our own future as well.

What I have tried to do, however, is balance this radicalization with a clear and prudent reminder that we are still at war with enemies of a brutal and dark and very dangerous kind. This re-balancing has not been easy, and you and I have made this journey together, and I don’t think any of us quite yet know where we will find ourselves in the years ahead. Our debate last week is a reminder of how difficult this is. But my dismay at those conservatives and neoconservatives who have doubled down on their own fantastic failures and refused to reflect one iota on the consequences of their own illusions has indeed turned to contempt. In that sense, I think the populist GOP and its neoconservative foreign policy remains one of the most dangerous forces in the world today, and why this blog will continue to expose, attack and rebut it until a saner, calmer conservatism can emerge from the ashes of this grotesquery.

I remain very proud of a few things: of my early recognition of the anti-conservative nature of the Bush administration in almost every respect – fiscal, constitutional, social – and the fact that I did not hesitate to call it out, even though I was a Bushie at the deeply divisive start and tried, perhaps for far too long, to give him the benefit of the doubt. I remain proud of the part this blog has played in pioneering the equality of gay people in marriage and military service; of being among the first to recognize the potential of Barack Obama and being an integral and early part of his viral rise to the presidency, and to elaborating the core conservative and reformist rationales for his pragmatic presidency. I am also proud to have been among the first to see the deeply dangerous phoniness and authoritarianism behind the Palin cult, and to insist that her constant lies be exposed and that the core symbol of appeal to the base – the disgusting political abuse of a child with Down Syndrome – be subject to the same media skepticism that should be applied to every other aspect of her fraudulent and farcical candidacy for vice-president and now president. I remain proud that I did not flinch in exposing and writing about the hideous crimes of the Vatican hierarchy and my own church in the rape and abuse of countless children, and the refusal again of anyone truly to take  responsibility and be accountable. I am proud of that extraordinary June in 2009 when this little blog became fused night and day with a young revolution in a distant country whose people demanded the freedom this medium gave them, however briefly, however tragically. And I cannot  tell you how proud I am of the young men and women, from Reihan to Jessie and Patrick and Chris and Conor and Zoe, who pioneered this with the same spirit with which I founded it.

This all sounds very serious. We have lived in serious times. But I’d be remiss if I did not also say how much fun we have had as well. From ’80s music video contests to our now constant Mental Health Breaks; from mischief and blasphemy and black humor, from Road Runner videos to ghetto mashups, the Dish has always had an anarchic streak, what Bodenner calls “Dishness”. The sardonic awards; the reader threads that became riveting – the “cannabis closet” which will soon be a book; the wonder of that simple idea – The View From Your Window – that then became a weekly puzzle; the dialogue with Sam Harris on faith and reason; the countless faces of the day that can convey things no words ever can; the Poseur Alerts; the randomness of bear culture, beard disasters, straight anal sex, South Park out-takes, Hathos Red Alerts, baby panda sneezes … we’ve created an institution here that remains alive because we really don’t know what the fuck we are going to do next. And yes, I used the word “fuck”. Because I fucking well can, if I want to.

That was the original appeal, of course: the dream every writer has ever had since history began. To be able to write directly to other human beings, with no editor or publisher, no censor or commercial pressure, to open the mind to other open minds, to speak with as little fear as possible and to see what happens. I saw that potential in this new miraculous medium the first instant this blog was born; I see it now more clearly than ever. But I never dreamed all those years ago that in a decade, there would be a million of you each month, from all over the world, from every perspective, telling the truth as you saw it and see it, and informing me and thereby each other of facts and ideas and news and passions none of us would ever have found on our own.

It has taken its toll – the sheer exhaustion of doing this every day for ten years is impossible to convey. But I started this blog with undetectable viral load and I end it with undetectable viral load – and the tantalizing final prospect of a green card that might actually give me the kind of security – a stable home – that has long been my dream for a quarter of a century. I have more hair on my chin and less on my head, and more friends out there – actual real friends – than any human being deserves. It really has felt like a friendship and I know when I meet a stranger who just calls me “Andrew” – not Mr Sullivan, or, God forbid Dr Sullivan – but “Andrew”, that he or she is a Dish reader. And in some strange way, we are on first name terms. Because we’ve been through a lot you and me; and I don’t know how else to express that but friendship.

I also started this blog after years of what often seemed like quixotic marriage activism and end it legally married to a man who has had to share his husband with this blog and all of you, and has done so with such grace and poise and humor and love and support that I cannot properly thank him. Oh, and the dogs, of course. But they’re asleep right now and don’t give a shit anyway.

It’s still knackering though, as we English like to say, beyond knackering, to do this every day – because I find I cannot phone it in and live with myself and cannot walk away and live with myself either. So better to say, perhaps, that, in the end, it is possible to sustain this day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, for ten years, because of the sheer exhilaration that this kind of freedom provides, and its potential for good as well as evil, and the knowledge that as long as we live and breathe in the West as we know it, this freedom is ours for the taking.

So I took it.

A reader writes:

Am I the only one who finds this story of the Dish's birth a bit unbelievable?  Did anyone see Andrew pregnant with the Dish prior to this supposed decade?  Are we to believe that on a moment's notice, he flew from Provincetown to create this blog in D.C. rather than use the perfectly good Pentium II machine in Massachusetts?  He's already admitted the dog was not even a beagle.  What else did he lie about?