Author: Andrew Sullivan

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Your reader is absolutely incorrect when he or she writes, "Mehlman is in a position to knock some folks back in their chairs and rethink their positions on gay people – and their civil rights." Twenty-five years ago, I would have (barely) agreed with that statement. But not these days. Stonewall was in 1969. The AIDS plague and Silence=Death began in the '80s and '90s. Will and Grace ended … well, not soon enough, but a few years ago.  We already have SSM in some states and in a large part of the Western World. We are now Post-Visibility.

I no longer believe this canard that a person must personally know someone to believe in his rights or that he is, in fact, a human being. I also believe that I don't need to have a Muslim women in my personal circle to understand that stoning her is wrong. I do not believe in the theory of geography – whether land or personal space – as a way to dismiss bigotry. "He's from a small town so he doesn't know better. He's never met one so he just doesn't know better."  My homestate of North Dakota – where there are about 20 black people – got on board with civil rights a lot quicker than Mississippi. Did Cheney and Rove and Bush and Clinton  – who all know gays and have gay family members – help in any way the cause of gay freedom?

These people whose hearts and minds will supposedly be changed because Mehlman confirmed an open secret already know gays and work with gays. They live in friggin' Washington, DC for God's sake, which is only slightly more gay than Mehlman's new hometown of Chelsea, Manhattan. No – those people are looking at him and thinking, "Well of course he's for gay rights; he's one of them now."

Maybe Mehlman should have remained "straight."  A straight man in a position of power and admired by his straight colleagues who comes out as a believer in gay rights goes a long way towards identifying with others and changing minds.

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

A parallel to Stephen Budiansky quoted here is the response of WWII veterans in the US.  There was no memorial in DC until somebody thought it a good idea in the 1990’s.   Small towns had memorials to all of their war dead typically a remnant of the Civil War memorials.  Universities have a notable memorial to the WWII vets.  Almost to a campus Student Unions after WWII were built as Memorials to the dead comrades that soldiers had left behind.  Until remodeled recently the Memorial Union at the University of Arizona had a prominent plaque displaying all of the University’s war dead by conflict.  This plaque was at the main entrance to the union.  As others have noted the “Greatest Generation”  sought to memorialize their dead family and friends by living a great life and building a great nation.  Would that our current times had such an intent?  I must imagine that the WTC dead would want a vibrant finance, trade and cultural center to rise form the ashes.  Which in many ways is what is being built at ground zero.  Memorials should not be sterile they should be filled with life, drama and laughter.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Black Sabbath, “After Forever”

No, really.

You will need the lyrics in text form (this is Ozzy, after all):

Have you ever thought about your soul – can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead you just stay in your grave
Is God just a thought within your head or is he a part of you?
Is Christ just a name that you read in a book when you were in school?

When you think about death do you lose your breath or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope – do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth, yes I've seen the light and I've changed my ways
And I'll be prepared when you're lonely and scared at the end of our days

Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believe in God above?
They should realize before they criticize
that God is the only way to love

Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

I think it was true it was people like you that crucified Christ
I think it is sad the opinion you had was the only one voiced
Will you be so sure when your day is near, say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down, now you can't retrieve

Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead and gone
Open your eyes, just realize that he's the one
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate
Or will you still jeer at all you hear? Yes! I think it's too late.

From the Wikipedia page, "Christianity in mainstream metal":

During times when accused for supposed devil worhipping, Black Sabbath wanted to distance themselves from the subject, and wrote the song ”After Forever” (from Master of Reality, 1971), which talks about life after death from Christian point of view. Taking it a step further, Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal singer and ex-Black Sabbath member, shows God in a positive light through his lyrics (despite his controversial past and his false reputation as a Satanist), and on a radio interview in 1983 stated that he was a member of the Anglican Church of England. Ozzy's former guitarist, Zakk Wylde, however, has identified himself as an Irish Catholic.

by Conor Friedersdorf

Over at Democracy in America, another liberal speaks up for part of the liberty agenda:

My colleague noted the other day the discussion Matthew Yglesias has been having with his readers over whether liberals and libertarians can agree on some regulations they both hate. So, here's a regulation I hate: you're not allowed to swim across the lake anymore in Massachusetts state parks. You have to stay inside the dinky little waist-deep swimming areas, with their bobbing lines of white buoys. There you are, under a deep blue New England summer sky, the lake laid out like a mirror in front of you and the rocks on the far shore gleaming under a bristling comb of red pine; you plunge in, strike out across the water, and tweet! A parks official blows his whistle and shouts after you. "Sir! Sir! Get back inside the swimming area!" What is this, summer camp? Henry David Thoreau never had to put up with this. It offends the dignity of man and nature. You want to shout, with Andy Samberg: "I'm an adult!"

Indeed. I feel the same way about Orange County's recent prohibition against climbing on the rocks at the beach.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I'm a little put off by the oddly petty criticism of a Christian who is at least taking one step towards a rational point of view. My only question to those who make issue of t-shirts being sold, or some vague sense of hubris coming from Marin, is this: would you prefer him to shut up? Would you prefer to be left with Pat Robertson? Positive steps are positive steps.

No one is suggesting that by supporting Marin's gesture of apology, you therefore support everything else he does. There seems to be a great deal of forest-tree confusion going on here. Lastly it should be remembered that Marin is not the sole person in his organization. It is allegedly filled with numerous Christians who are willing and eager to apologize to the LGBT community about the wrongs committed by their church. Being an atheist and having no sway within the church, I can only say I'm thrilled that such a gesture is dared to be made at all.

Another writes:

I wanted to weigh in on your post on Andrew Marin, since I had the chance to meet him in person on a couple occasions. Savage's piece on him is rather cynical, but it seems very far removed from the person I met and read. I met Marin while he was teaching a class during Sunday school at Uptown Baptist Church in Chicago. For someone that is supposedly profiting selfishly on the GLBT community, it seems strange that he would spend hours of his time for several weeks teaching in a moderately sized church for free, never once mentioning anything for sale. The class dealt with material similar to his book that came out a year or two later, Love is an Orientation, which discussed the controversial Bible verses regarding homosexuality attempting to unearth principles beyond deciding "right or wrong", but mostly how to reach out to GLBT loved ones without condemnation. I can say that he definitely challenged the evangelical crowd there to change a lot of assumptions and I believe accomplished quite a bit.

During that time he was also quite candid about the Foundation, how blessed he felt to receive the grants and donations that made it possible, and that it existed because of the research angle. Again, since he was able to do what he's doing by doing research into the religious lives of those in the GLBT community, I really struggle to see the egotism in the name rather than a neutral starting point.

I'll admit that I like his message, so I may be biased. But Savage's main point is that he claimed Marin called homosexuality a sin (by anecdote, I might add) and he doubts he has changed. The basis of Marin's message, however, is that there are better conversations than whether it is sin, and he accepts the spiritual validity of those who say it is not. He clearly gets burned by both sides by refusing to say one way or another. Both sides will accuse him of being a sheep in wolves' clothing. While there seems to be plenty of careers in choosing either polemical side, he's taking a third, much more difficult way. For every person saying that he's not liberal enough, there are Christians out there claiming that he's not a real Christian. So whether one believes him or not, I think that deserves at least a nod of respect.

P.S. These "Can Church be Hip?" conversations have been like taking a tour through my iTunes collection.

by Chris Bodenner

Josh Green gives props to Conor:

I first became acquainted with this effort when he posted his "Best Pieces of 2009" at the sadly departed True/Slant. But I'm glad he's kept it up on an a la carte basis over at the Daily Dish, where he's flagged a number of great pieces, including this one and this one. Google reveals that he also did a "best" list for 2008, which you can find here, and to which I will be devoting a good part of my weekend.

My two cents: Kurt Eichenwald's piece on webcam predators and Daniel Coyle's profile of an ultra-endurance athlete.  (And find Josh's own long-form collection from The Atlantic here.)

by Patrick Appel

Wilkinson points his finger:

If you ask me, the ultimate culprit in the financial crisis was the American cult of homeownership. There are many ways to help poorer Americans accumulate wealth, such as channeling payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. But we don't do that. Instead, because we consider it a humiliating indignity not to have a room or ten of our own, we subsidise home-buying six ways to Sunday and tell banks they won't have to suffer the downside of loans offered to bad credit risks. I think it's safe to say that this hasn't turned out to be the best scheme for helping poorer Americans into the ownership class.

Chart via Daniel Indiviglio:

This is a pretty fascinating picture. First, it shows just how incredibly absurd the housing boom was. Beginning in the 1940s, inflation-adjusted homes prices have settled around the 110 value according to the Case-Shiller index. Yet, the index value exceeded 200 in 2006. Prices began a descent when housing collapsed, but as of May the index remained well above the natural value of 110.

Eyeing the chart, the value looks to have hit around 147 in May. For it to drop back down to 110, home prices would have to decline another 25%. That's still a pretty long way to fall.

Reid goes negative:

Sargent analyzes:

What's interesting is that even though Angle did say all these things, and even though Reid has widely disseminated her comments throughout the state, the race is still very close. It's a measure of how stiff a headwind Reid faces.

Meanwhile, Ed Kilgore looks at Joe Miller's platform:

I'd say the abolition of Medicaid and the total privatization of Medicare and Social Security qualify as positions that remain controversial in much of the GOP, though a lot less than was the case quite recently, when George W. Bush's SocSec partial privatization proposal sent Republicans running for the hills.

At what point, though, do such positions stop be treated as outliers? When five Republican Senators espouse them? Ten? Twenty?

by Conor Friedersdorf

Alan Jacobs compares Infinite Jest to Ulysses, and writes that "I am coming more and more to suspect that Infinite Jest would be a great book at half its current length." I agree with that judgment, though I very much enjoyed Infinite Jest.

I also enjoyed A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, but Ulysses is the single novel that I've started and been unable to finish. Even as I came across delightful turns of phrase, I hated the it, despite usually loving long, ambitious, unorthodox novels from Don Quixote on down. Given the opportunity to study it under Professor Jacobs, I'd give it another try.