Category: Old Dish

He has a sense of what Iraqis want, according to Christopher Dickey. Top priority: order. I think it’s safe to say now that you’d be a fool to under-estimate the new Iraqi government.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “Many, if not most, Americans have reasoned that there is no overriding urgent need to act at this time. And they are right to do so. The legal definition of marriage has always been left to the states to decide, in accordance with the prevailing standards of their neighborhoods and communities. Certainly, that view has prevailed for many years in my party where we adhere to a rather stricter federalism than has always been the case in the prevailing views among our friends in the Democratic Party. Some fear that the decision in Massachusetts will ultimately result in the imposition of different views on marriage in communities where the traditional view of marriage is considered singular and sacred. But there really is insufficient reason presently to fear such a result.” – Senator John McCain, on the religious right’s Federal Marriage Amendment.

Here’s the latest bluster from the religious right as they face a potentially crippling defeat in the Senate on their anti-gay amendment:

Any senator of either party who votes against traditional marriage will be opposed for reelection by the Campaign for Working Families Political Action Committee. If a dozen or more Republican senators jump ship on this fundamental issue it will be a sad day for the Party of Lincoln and Reagan and it could go a long way to causing an electoral disaster for the party in November.

By “vote against traditional marriage,” he means vote against putting a ban on marriage for gays into the Constitution. His apparent inability to see the distinction is partly what got him into this mess. Others are getting paranoid. Here’s Senator Wayne Allard, using the kind of language often deployed when speaking of a despised minority:

“There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level.”

A “master plan?” By people who want to “destroy” the institution of marriage? Who on earth is he talking about? But few, as usual, come close to the hysteria of Senator Santorum. Again, listen to his description of those of us who fought for so long for equality in marriage:

“Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That’s what we hear.”

From whom? Certainly not from anyone I know of in the marriage movement. The only possible justification for his remarks is the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court’s description of an arbitrary bar against gays being a “stain” against the notion of equal rights in the Massachusetts constitution. But that is not the same as saying that marriage itself is somehow a stain or evil. Why do these people have to demonize and lie about their opponents? Because if they accurately described us, the hysteria and ignorance that fuel this amendment would be even plainer to see.

MBEKI AGAIN: Yes, it’s not crazy to worry about drug resistance using a monotherapy for HIV. But when you can reduce the chances of passing HIV from mother to child by fifty percent, and when other medications are not easily available, it makes no sense at all to keep nevaripine back. But that’s what the South African government is now doing. Their obtuseness in the face of a massive crisis keeps beggaring belief.

But pictures of priests having sex with each other and downloading child-porn is just a “childish prank.” The Vatican has no comment. But allowing committed gay couples to marry will cause the downfall of civilization.

The anti-Semitic attack on a woman in the Paris metro was a hoax. My apologies.

It could be worse.

“About a week ago I went to my in-laws house for dinner after work and was greeted with a petition. A petition to try and put the FMA into reality.
I told my mother-in-law that I could not sign their petition. She promptly says, “Oh, you’re one of those.” I don’t know if she meant a gay-backer or someone who doesn’t hold their wacky Christian views. I responded with “I cannot sign a petition that puts something discriminatory into the Constitution.”
She proceeded to tell me that whether I sign it or not it is going to pass. (Clearly I don’t think she pays attention to the news, but just the rhetoric of a few.) I said, “Well at least I’ll take pride in knowing that I had nothing to do with a horrible policy.”
Now I personally am indifferent if homosexuals or heterosexuals marry. I am married myself, but what one couple does is their choice and it won’t affect me either way. I have gay friends, I have worked with gays & lesbians, I have gone out with gays & lesbians, and funny… I’ve never felt like their life-style was being forced on me. Go figure, regular people…
I love my in-laws and they are truly good Christians. They help people, take care of people, all the things most Sunday-Christians DON’T DO, they do it 24×7. They are firm in their beliefs and it bothers the hell out of me that they can hold a discriminating view point. They don’t watch “Will and Grace” and turn up their nose to anything homosexual in nature, yet feel free to make gay jokes.
It really bothers me that people who live their lives in accordance with the teachings God and Jesus can’t see the flaw in what FMA means. These people also need to remember that when it comes to this great United States of America that our founding fathers, who were mostly Christian, did not want this country to become a religious nation, that is why they came here.
This may be a ‘nation of Christians,’ but not a ‘Christian Nation.’ Very different.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.

Long ago, I argued that the Federal Marriage Amendment could become a wedge issue – for the Democrats. It unites the Dems in defense of civil rights and the constitution and has already worsened the splits among Republicans between the Santorum theocrats and the old-school conservatives. I’ve also long pointed out that the amendment as introduced would clearly make civil unions and domestic partnerships unconstitutional – and that is indeed one of the reasons the Allard version might not even get a simple majority. It’s not over yet, but the signs are ominous for the religious right:

Republicans apparently were taken by surprise when Democrats, sensing a huge victory, offered to lift their own objections and proceed to direct consideration of the measure. As many as a dozen Republicans, various aides and lobbyists said, might bolt from their party on the issue. Many Republicans have long been wary of federal intrusion on what has always been a state domain, believing an amendment would violate their basic principle of keeping the federal government out of state matters. Many also have expressed concern that the current wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment also would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships that are considered legal alternatives to marriage.

Could Bush have destroyed the relationship between gays and the GOP, and wrecked what reputation he has left as a uniter rather than divider for … nothing?

“I have been slow to recognize the bigger issues that are just killing this market in part because I wanted to believe that the current President Bush is smarter than he sounds or looks. I wanted to believe that he could articulate correctly why we went to war in some foreign land where a thousand guys have died and billions have been spent. But he hasn’t. He had terrible intelligence and bad homework, stuff I fire people for regularly and always have.
What we see now in the market is a gradual realization that Bush will be forced out in November and a new man will be president, a man who may not be better for the stock market but one who arguably may not be worse if simply because a gridlocked government is better than the drunken spending and the no-vision team we have in now.” – Jim Cramer, market analyst and investor, of CNBC’s Kudlow and Cramer, in his pay-only column on his website. I wonder if Jim would consider making this column available for free.

I take on his radio address on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

THE VACCINE DREAM: Having studied this subject for over a decade, I cannot say I’m surprised that a vaccine for a super-sophisticated, constantly evolving retro-virus is still elusive. Better to focus on treatment – making it simpler, more powerful and cheaper.

Yet another sickening anti-Semitic attack in France, and the usual blathering from Chirac about it. When Chirac actually criticizes his favorite Arab states for fomenting anti-Semitism, then I’ll take him seriously. Meanwhile, we get the following veiled threat from Deutsche Welle:

Since the territories before the Six Day War in 1967 weren’t part of a sovereign state, one couldn’t speak of an “occupation,” therefore the Geneva Convention wasn’t applicable, the argument went. But out of “generosity,” Israel said it was prepared to follow parts of the convention. But after the ruling in The Hague, the days of such selective generosity should be over. Now, it’s official: Israel is an occupying force, and does have to abide by international law if it doesn’t wish to be treated as a pariah.

How about finding a way to defend itself from terror? Or do murdered Jews no longer concern the Germans?

BUY HITCH A DRINK: I’m not sure this is the best idea, but who am I to object? Instead of paying our favorite writers, why not reward them with Johnny Walker Red?

DEATH BY HAIR-DRYER: No, this is not a new device invented by drag queens to torture Trent Lott, it’s apparently an al Qaeda dream:

Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed] boasts that while the Americans possess nuclear weapons, he has seen “something in the form of a hair dryer” that causes “the most horrible death possible” by suffocation.

Does anyone know what he’s referring to? And I don’t mean this.

OKRENT AND KELLER: Jeff Jarvis has some interesting things to say about how well the new NYT ombudsman is doing. I must say I thought his piece on the Tony Hendra affair was brilliantly nuanced and intelligent (full disclosure: I chatted with him about it but didn’t come up with the resolution he did). I also think he’s been doing a pretty good job – independent without being too snarky, and clear about how he reaches his judgments even if you disagree with him. Pity the NYT doesn’t seem to agree.