Category: Old Dish

The NYC blog party was photographed. See Glenn giggle! See Ana gape. See me, er, drunk. And there’s a gallery here. Yeah, I was laughing almost the whole time.

“I don’t support an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. I think it’s a matter that should be left to the states. As a conservative, I don’t support constitutional amendments generally unless the cause is clear and evident. The issue here, of course, is that some people think a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to preserve the rights of the states. I happen not to come down on that side of the issue and, indeed, there are many Republicans who do [not]. I think if you looked at our national convention, for example, among the prominent speakers — Gov. Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani — feel the same way. It’s not an issue that sets the Republican Party apart in one great mass. It’s an issue upon which people differ.” – Lynne Cheney, on NPR’s Fresh Air, February 9. Thanks, Mrs Cheney. Thanks.

HEADS UP: The Charlie Rose show on blogging with me, Wonkette, Instapundit and Joe Trippi will air tonight. I thought it was a great conversation. Check it out.

Don’t miss this wonderful little take-down of Jay Bybee’s horrifying 2002 torture memo, essentially defining torture out of existence. Those who seem to believe that no one in the upper reaches of the Bush administration ever wanted to expand the use of torture should read the Bybee memo. Its plain meaning – its obvious intent – was to provide legal justification for cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees. And it worked.

A pretty amazing piece of dialogue at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting where CIA operative and author of “Imperial Hubris,” Michael Scheuer, let rip on Israel’s alleged “clandestine” influence on American politics:

SCHEUER: I always have thought that there’s nothing too dangerous to talk about in America, that there shouldn’t be anything. And it happens that Israel is the one thing that seems to be too dangerous to talk about. And I wrote in my book that I congratulate them. It’s probably the most successful covert action program in the history of man to control–the important political debate in a country of 270 million people is an extraordinary accomplishment. I wish our clandestine service could do as well. The point I would make–the point I try to make basically in the book is we just cannot–we can no longer afford to be seen as the dog that’s led by the tail. I’ve tried to be very clear in saying we have an alliance with the Israelis. We have a moral obligation to try to work through this issue, if we can. But I don’t think we can afford to be led around, or at least appear to be led around by them. And I certainly, as an American, find it unbearable to think there’s something in this country you can’t talk about. That’s really my spiel I guess on that, sir.

LEMANN: Gary?

SCHEUER: It was interesting to see the sheet suggested ways to review “Imperial Hubris” that came out from AIPAC [the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee]. [Laughter]

QUESTIONER: I’m curious–Gary Rosen from Commentary magazine. If you could just elaborate a little bit on the clandestine ways in which Israel and presumably Jews have managed to so control debate over this fundamental foreign policy question.

UNKNOWN: All you have to do is look at this landscape of American politics and see how many people who have raised this issue of the Israeli relationship.

SCHEUER: Well, the clandestine aspect is that, clearly, the ability to influence the Congress–that’s a clandestine activity, a covert activity. You know to some extent, the idea that the Holocaust Museum here in our country is another great ability to somehow make people feel guilty about being the people who did the most to try to end the Holocaust. I find–I just find the whole debate in the United States unbearably restricted with the inability to factually discuss what goes on between our two countries.

It’s a covert activity to lobby Congress? Or is it only covert when Jews do it?

When the Internet can give you this? Warning: Put down your coffee.

Had a great time on the Charlie Rose show with Ana, Glenn and Joe Trippi. (Not sure when it’s gonna air. Glenn will keep you posted.) Even better time at Nick Denton’s bash in Glenn’s honor afterwards in a fabu Soho loft. Glenn is as shy and charming in person as in pixels. I was curious about his accent. It’s faint. Why don’t I move here? Because it’s more fun to visit. I’m a little toasted now – hey, now I’m only blogging occasionally, I can try inebriated blogging. Ana does it all the time, I’m told. CPAP time now.

LIE OF THE WEEK: “Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” – president Bush, in a simple lie. Jane Mayer has more details on what this administration is doing to terror suspects – handing them over to be tortured by regimes this president then calls on to democratize! The most chilling quote in the piece comes from John Yoo, the man who helped end the United States’ prohibition on torture:

[Yoo] went on to suggest that President Bush’s victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was “proof that the debate is over.” He said, “The issue is dying out. The public has had its referendum.”

Ah, the accountability moment. I had no idea that a vote for Bush was a vote for torture. But now we know, don’t we? According to Yoo, the president has the constitutional right to over-rule all laws and treaties against torture and the only remedy is impeachment.

CYBER-LOVE: This Jordanian tale of Internet love has to be read to be believed.

Alan Keyes’ daughter is a lesbian. Surprise! How many more virulent anti-gay politicians and activists have gay offspring? Still, she showed her family loyalty by campaigning with her dad. And her dad’s compassionate conservative approach to this news? He has apparently cut her off. Pro-family? More here.

BABYDADDY: Who wouldn’t want to be compared to the Scissor Sisters? Alas, it’s hard in DC. I had a blast Saturday night at “Blow Off,” Bob Mould’s and Rich Morel’s basement disco/bear/slacker/facial hair bi-weekly gathering downstairs at the 9.30 Club. And then I noticed what the bouncer was reading. A text-book on international trade issues. Only in DC. Only in DC.

“27. (Respect for the human person). Turning to practical and urgent consequences, the [Second Vatican Council] stresses respect for human beings such that individuals look upon each neighbor without exception as another self, paying particular attention to his and her life and what they need in order to live it in a worthy manner, so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for poor Lazarus.

Today particularly there is a pressing obligation on us to be a neighbour to every single individual and to take steps to serve each individual whom we encounter, whether she or he be old and abandoned, or a foreign worker unjustly despised, or an exile, or an illegitimate child innocently suffering for the sin of others, or a hungry person appealing to our conscience with the Lord’s words: “as you did it to one of the least of my brothers or sister, you did it to me” (Mt 25,40).

Moreover, whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in woman and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the creator.” – “Pastoral constitution on the church in the world of today,” – Second Vatian Council, December 7, 1965. My italics. How the Catholic theoconservatives who are so close to this administration have remained largely quiet about America’s new policy of torture is simply beyond my comprehension.

Those interested in the New York City marriage rights case – where a judge has ruled that the city must grant civil marriage licenses to qualified gay couples within thirty days barring an appeal – should check this piece out. It’s a very thorough and interesting analysis. One small detail: the parents of one of the plaintiffs had to move from Texas to California to get married. Texas banned inter-racial marriage at the time. This year may also see legislative support for marriage rights in Canada and Massachusetts. If the Massachusetts legislature decides to punt on a state amendment, the national situation changes dramatically. We will then have one state that has decided through legislative, democratic means to keep marriage rights for all its citizens. Any federal amendment would then be geared directly to thwarting an individual state’s right to choose what marriage is for itself. And the evolution of the GOP into an anti-states’ rights, big federal government party will be complete. (More interesting legal discussion here.)

It would be extremely churlish of me not to offer some praise for at least the aspirations of Bush’s new budget. Cutting non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending by one percent in real terms is admirable. The question, however, is: how much of this is grandstanding? The biggest problems are obviously Medicare (which Bush has made far, far worse), Medicaid, and Social Security. Give Bush credit for at least raising the odds of some benefit cuts in the latter (regardless of the personal accounts debate, why the hell not peg future benefits to prices rather than wages?) But the underlying picture is still one of growing debt and future big tax hikes. The tax hikes will be Bush’s legacy – whenever they come. Or as one commentator put it today: “President Bush would never admit this, but he has transformed the party into the party of permanent big deficits.” You can say that again. I’ll take the president truly seriously if he vetoes any spending bill that ducks his farm subsidy cuts, and if he raises the cap on payroll taxes for social security reform. That’s one very telling marker for his earnestness. For my part I simply don’t believe in Bush’s conviction on this. He has never spoken passionately about shrinking government; he has rarely attacked the idea that government itself shouldn’t be the cure for everyone’s problems; he has never vetoed a spending bill. I’d like to trust him, but after four years of fiscal abandon, why should anyone? So: distrust and verify.