Author: Andrew Sullivan

We’re not racist, you racists

by Dave Weigel

The backlash to the NAACP's resolution calling for the tea party movement to renounce racism ended pretty much as I expected — with the tea partiers grabbing back the megaphone as the NAACP decided not to press the issue. (Indeed, the organization isn't making the full text of the resolution public.) Mark Williams, a former spokesman for the Tea Party Express whose string of extreme statements about the president (he calls him a Muslim) only stopped being a problem when he quit to run for office, calls the NAACP a "racist organization." Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots — the latter was named one of the "Time 100" this year — go a bit further.

The NAACP has long history of liberalism and racism. If you are a conservative — including a conservative African-American — there is no room for you at the NAACP. If you have opinions that differ from the NAACP and the liberal establishment, and if you are African-American, you are an “Uncle Tom,” a “negro,” “not black enough” and “against our people.”

When I said the NAACP's move would backfire, I meant things like this would happen. I didn't mean they were wrong to go down that road. It's just that they should know that calling out a group for "racism" is pointless — whoever's been targeted will simply claim to have been attacked unfairly and had his free speech threatened. Remember what happened when Eric Holder said that America had been a "nation of cowards" in discussing race. Boom: Backlash. Anger. Debate over why he said it, but not what he meant. A year and change later we have a ridiculous national debate over whether Holder's department hates white people because it won't draw and quarter the New Black Panther Party. This stuff is what he meant, of course. But saying it isn't actually starting the debate. It's pretty obvious that the NAACP failed here.

Bombing Iran

by Patrick Appel

Joe Klein reports that it is actively being considered:

One other factor has brought the military option to a low boil: Iran's Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do it…It is also possible that this low-key saber-rattling is simply a message the U.S. is trying to send the Iranians: it's time to deal. There have been rumblings from Tehran about resuming negotiations, although the regime has very little credibility right now. The assumption — shared even by some of Iran's former friends, like the Russians — is that any Iranian offer to talk is really an offer to stall. A specific, plausible Iranian concession may be needed to get the process back on track. But it is also possible that the saber-rattling is not a bluff, that the U.S. really won't tolerate a nuclear Iran and is prepared to do something awful to stop it.

I'm reading a review copy of Hooman Majd's forthcoming book on the Iranian elections and on Iranian-American relations. Regardless what you happen to to think of Majd's political analysis (I happen to mostly agree with it), he has the most detailed and gripping reporting of the Iranian elections to date. I'll likely have more to say on the book when its release date nears, but for now I'll note that Majd convincingly argues that saber-rattling will not bring Iranians around. There was a brief moment at the beginning of the Iraq war when Iran thought the US might actually invade, and threats of military action might have won concessions at that point, but now that we are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan those threats are mostly toothless and the Iranians know it.

Iran is a proud country with an ancient history; trying to bend it to America's will through force alone is unlikely to succeed. It sees itself as an equal, as a superpower – or at least a regional superpower – in the making. However far-fetched that may seem to Americans, treating the nation like a donkey, to be controlled with carrots and sticks, is insulting to many Iranians and politically strengthens anti-American forces inside the Iranian government.

Negotiations have suffered from tone-deafness on both sides. I encourage the White House to get a copy of Majd's book. And for Dish readers to pre-order it.

China’s Roots In Africa

by Patrick Appel

Evan Osnos sits next to a Chinese scientist on his way to an agricultural project in Congo:

China has stepped up the growth of large-scale agricultural projects in Africa over the past five years. As Howard French described, in The Atlantic, in a terrific piece in May, large Chinese-run farms designed to export rice and other staples to China are one of the new and least-understood elements of China’s push into Africa. Two years ago, the Chinese government earmarked five billion dollars for farm projects in Africa, intended to ease China’s concerns about food security. But ceding land to foreigners, to manage it and claim the products, are acutely sensitive issues in Africa. In 2007, French notes, Chinese and Mozambican officials reportedly agreed to have three thousand Chinese settlers begin farming the fertile soil in Zambezi River Valley, but the news prompted an uproar, and Mozambique’s government now denies all reports of the idea.

The Gays and the Jews

by David Frum

I'm late getting to this WSJ oped by Jamie Kirchick, but it has important truths about subjects of intense interest to AndrewSullivan.com readers:

Earlier this month Madrid celebrated its annual gay pride festival, reputed to be the largest in Europe. …

The municipality of Tel Aviv had originally planned to sponsor a float in the Madrid parade. But Spain's Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transgenders and Bisexuals revoked the invitation following Israel's raid on the Gaza flotilla that ended with nine dead pro-Hamas activists.

"After what has happened, and as human rights campaigners, it seemed barbaric to us to have them taking part," the Federation's president, Antonio Poveda, explained. "We don't just defend our own little patch."

Mr. Poveda chose to ignore the video evidence supporting Israel's account of self defense. But even if Israeli soldiers were at fault, why Israeli gays should be made to answer for the actions of their government was something that Mr. Poveda never bothered to explain.  …

Like so many other democratic values, when it comes to gay rights Israel is an oasis in a sea of state-sanctioned repression, a "little patch," to use Mr. Poveda's words, that he and his comrades ought to defend. Gays serve openly in the Israeli military. While gay marriages can't be legally performed in Israel, the government grants gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual ones and recognizes same-sex unions performed abroad. Many Palestinian gays seek asylum in Israel. …

This boycott will divide two minority communities that ought to be allies. One would be hard-pressed to find a country that oppresses its gays and treats its Jews well, or vice versa. From Nazi Germany to the modern Middle East, societies that persecute Jews will get to homosexuals eventually – if they haven't been dispensed with already. This is a lesson that gays ignore at their peril.

How Politically Toxic Is Cutting Spending?

A reader writes:

The single best thing you can do to reduce federal spending is to refuse to link to articles that claim it would be easy, especially politically easy that don't actually specify any specific cuts. For almost 50 years, we've heard exactly the same thing, we can cut spending by cutting unspecified waste, fraud and abuse, it will be easy and we'll get to it when we get into power. For 50 years, you've gotten no cuts in spending at all.

Politicians really do have a good sense of what will be politically feasible. There was a Medicare fight in the 1980s that probably gave control of the Senate to Democrats. There was a Medicare fight in the 1990's that probably stopped the Gingrich revolution. The arguments about health care reform that cut where arguments about Medicare cuts and death panels and that argument may doom Democrats in Congress. Maybe cutting spending is worth it, but it will be hard.

I agree that cutting spending will be hard, and I should have said as much. But refusing to link to articles you disagree with is no way to refute them.

Chart Of The Day, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I'm not bisexual, but the logic of this statement seems faulty:

"This suggests that bisexuality is often either a hedge for gay people or a label adopted by straights to appear more sexually adventurous to their (straight) matches. "

What the chart suggests is that a bisexual person often is searching for a relationship with one particular sex. That is all. It does not say that the person is not attracted to the another sex. This is a subtlety that I think is often missed, but that I have heard expressed with some frustration. Being bisexual does not mean that you don't have a preference at a given time. I think you should make this point, since you are posting a dubious assumption. Let us assume that a bisexual person has a particular preference at the time they use this message board. I would expect their messages to reflect this.

A bisexual OkCupid user provides a more detailed answer:

I just read the post with the chart about bisexuals on OkCupid messaging only one gender.  As a bisexual, and one who uses that site on and off, I thought I would share my experience.

I believe human relationships can go in many different ways, and sexuality can be more complex than we wish.  I'm not anti-label, but I feel labels should be descriptive, not prescriptive, and we should recognize one label can mean a great many things.

When I am asked about my orientation, I simply say 'bisexual.'  It rings true to me.  Having said that, I am more attracted to masculinity, so I usually end up talking much more often to men on OkCupid, but there is the occasional masculine woman.  I have bisexual friends who say their attractions across genders are evenly split, and other who are like myself, where there is a preference, but we acknowledge there are exceptions, whether we've dated people outside our preference or not.  I know some other bisexuals who may be romantically inclined to one gender, and more sexually inclined to another.   For example, when I first started the process of coming out, a friend confided in me she was bisexual as well.  She never dated another woman before, but it was such a big part of who she was, she felt the need to come out to her parents about it.  She's happily married to a man.

I'll also note that as a female to male transsexual who is open to the world about my past, I've noticed people tend to feel more comfortable telling me things about their sexuality they may be more hesitant to say otherwise, for whatever reason.  I'm guessing it's because being a transsexual is such a personal thing to be open about, it helps people open up some: my gender identity stands out a lot more than my sexual orientation, as I'm usually perceived to be straight, as in an attraction to women.  It's amazing how many people have come up to me and confided in their bisexuality.  These people have been seen in society as nelly gay men, happily married straight women, nerdy straight guys, even some family of mine.   I ultimately don't care what my partners identify as, but I usually feel more comfortable dating other bisexuals because bisexuals tend to face a lot more misconceptions in society, and there's a lot less to explain to another bisexual.  There's an attitude out in the world that says to 'pick a side,' so I feel a lot of people who are bisexual don't usually show it.  I've heard a old bad joke which I feel is still a common attitude: 'If you're bi, you're by yourself."  In the end, regardless if we have a strong preference or not, I think people who identify as bisexual want to acknowledge that in the end, gender isn't as big of a deal in our partners.

Your mileage may vary, of course.  These are my own thoughts on the topic, and though I do identify as bisexual, I believe there's so much diversity in that label, another bisexual's experience may be totally different from mine.

South Park Macho, Ctd

TeamAmerica

by Patrick Appel

Ambinder provides more evidence of the military's fondness for Trey Parker and Matt Stone:

Not only is Hastings' vignette [during his profile of McChrystal] true, but the "collection" of people who identified themselves with Team America had a special patch made for their service. (It was created for them by a small company somewhere in  Missouri.)   Here, for the first time, is an image of the patch that cemented the camaraderie of Team McChrystal.

The Daily Wrap

Today on the Dish, BP finally stopped the leak and Argentina became the tenth nation to legalize same-sex marriage. Sharron Angle showed her cards on her media strategy, Jean Howard-Hill called out the GOP for blank-checking the Tea Party, and TNC sided with the NAACP.  Patrick compared two new polls on Palin, Litbrit rebutted Weigel over Trig, readers piled on, and Chris Rovzar saw everything work out for Bristol.

Weigel examined the comparison between militias and the New Black Panthers, checked in on Alvin Greene, looked at how Hayek is making a comeback, downplayed the Mama Grizzlies video, broke down the polling on Al Gore, scratched his head over Politico's coverage of him, and filed another dispatch from Unalaska. Frum received kindergarten insults from Mark Levin.

Eli Lake reported on how US espionage delays Iran from getting a bomb, Elizabeth Weingarten observed the decline of polygamy in Saudi Arabia, Veronique de Rugy argued the political upside to spending cuts, Andrew Gelman reviewed the politics of stimulus, and James Capretta scrutinized Obamacare over the cost curve. Dana Goldstein and Tracy Clark-Flory wondered if we're getting free birth control, Julian Sanchez mulled over liberaltarianism, Erik Voeten covered nudges, and Ryan Avent followed up on manufacturing.

The monogamy thread continued here, here, and here. Other readers sounded off on eating habits and another on budget cuts. OKCupid exposed faux bisexuality. Xeni Jardin found some tragically comic illustrations on DADT. Incredible parking garage here. Cool ads here and here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

— C.B.