Category: Old Dish

It seems clearer and clearer that the religious right amendment to ban civil marriage rights for gays is not really intended to pass any time soon. The point is to use the issue electorally – threaten the civil rights of some Americans to get a few percentage points in a few Senate races and possibly against Kerry. And now, it seems, the Republicans are disinterring another ancient wedge issue – the flag burning constitutional amendment! Here’s the Washington Post today:

Republicans also plan a series of votes on judicial appointments and tax cuts this year that could put Kerry in tough political spots, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. Another possible wedge issue, aides in both parties say, is a long-standing proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw burning the American flag.

Flag-burning, fag-burning. Anything for a few votes. And what’s really amazing is how cynically these alleged conservatives use the Constitution itself for their partisan ends. One word: sickening.

“Although the rest of the government is running huge deficits – and never did run much of a surplus – the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program’s future for many decades after that would be modest – a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.” – Paul Krugman, New York Times, today.

“When Alan Greenspan urged Congress last week to cut future benefits in Social Security and Medicare, sending elected officials to the barricades, he was if anything understating the magnitude of the problems ahead. Today’s budget deficits are measured in the hundreds of billions, but the looming shortfalls for the two retirement programs are projected to be in the tens of trillions of dollars.” – Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times today.

A lot of what you need to know about Islamist terror was revealed today as suicide bombers killed scores in Shiite shrines. They do not represent Islam; they do not represent Iraqis; they represent nihilist murder and aspirations to totalitarianism. Maybe these explosions will help Iraqis realize that our enemies are their enemies. It is certainly hard not to be sickened by the sacrilegious nature of their atrocities.

Mickey unloads:

I admit, I’m allergic to Kerry. Something in the vibration of that deep, pompous tone he adopts–the lugubrious, narcissistic fake gravity–grates on me. Others, bizarrely, say they don’t have this problem. But few would argue that Kerry has formed a special bond with any large group of voters other than veterans. If he wins it’s likely to be because voters see him as an acceptable alternative to an unacceptable incumbent, not because he’s inspired them.

I tend to agree. Kaus’s analysis is much better and more substantive than this quote, so read it all. I don’t feel Mickey’s conflict on this one (I’m not a Democrat and don’t think I ever could be). But it’s obvious to me at least that Kerry is an extremely weak candidate. I’m beginning to believe that the most interesting question about this coming election is not who will win it, but who will manage to lose it. So far, with Kerry’s limitations and Bush’s pandering to the far right, it’s neck and neck.

Small blog this morning. I spent all last evening at an AEI lecture and dinner in honor of my old college friend, the historian Niall Ferguson. He gave a challenging talk – essentially about the implosion of Europe. Perhaps the most striking statistic he provided (and there were many) is that, on current demographic trends, there will only be 67 million Germans in 2050 – down from over 80 today and slightly more in Hitler’s day. And their average age will be close to 50. More significantly, the economic stresses on Germany, Niall argues, will make it unlikely that German subsidies can keep the EU afloat indefinitely. And that’s always been the central reality of the EU: German largess toward other member states in return for political legitimacy and economic union. He doesn’t argue that the EU will collapse (although he wonders whether the euro will survive long term as a currency). Like many other exhausted institutions, it may simply wither. The big question therefore is when and if German voters will balk at being further milked dry by their poorer neighbors. Who knows? But if their economy continues to sink into inactivity, it may be sooner rather than later.

AEI: I have to say that the American Enterprise Institute is an amazing place. There are plenty of people there with whom I’d disagree on many issues, but it’s wonderful to be in a place where ideas actually seem to matter. It confirms in my mind that Washington really is becoming an intellectual capital as well as a political one. I’ve been to many events, dinners and lunches there and never fail to be stimulated. At dinner this time I got to meet and chat with Jeane Kirkpatrick, a woman I’d never met before; as well as listening to Michael Barone, Mark Falcoff, Chris DeMuth, Geoffrey Smith, Radek Sikorski, Steve Hayward and several others. We chatted at one point about Allan Bloom. How I wish I’d had the chance to meet him – the ultimate Nietzschean conservative. The novel, Ravelstein, by Bloom’s friend, Saul Bellow, made me long to have been at some point within Bloom’s world. But hearing Kirkpatrick reminisce made it worse.

Now, they’re after Internet pills. Yes, there are some addiction issues (but, then, there always are). But why cannot the state treat citizens and doctors as grown-ups? What business is it of the government to decide whether someone cannot use a prescription medication for pleasure or relief if she decides it’s something she wants to do and a doctor is prepared to prescribe it? Ditto steroids. Frankly, the way in which the internet has broken down some of our puritanical attitudes toward the pharmaceutical revolution has been a great step forward for human freedom and medical or recreational choice. I guess the possibility that someone out there may be experiencing actual pleasure is enough to send the government into a full-scale panic. We’re used to the insane war on illegal drugs. Now they want a war on the legal ones as well. Can’t Rush Limbaugh protest this incursion of over-weening government? Oh, wait …

THE NYT AND HALLIBURTON: Oxblog is on the case of a weirdly missing quote from the NYT online. Can’t give too much credit to Halliburton for turning around Iraq’s oil production, can we? They also do a useful round-up of the surprisingly good news from Iraq.

THE THREAT OF SAMISH-SEX MARRIAGE: A new amendment proposal from the New Yorker.

PRAGER ON THE PASSION: A sage and balanced analysis.

MOORE ON MARRIAGE: The fundamentalist judge takes a stand against the religious right amendment. Yes, I just wrote that sentence.

RIGGING THE BIOETHICS COUNCIL: More evidence of the Bush administration’s catering to the anti-technological views of some on the far right. More reason for Independent voters to reconsider their support.

GENERATIONAL CLASH: Baylor University’s president lashes out at a student newspaper editorial supporting – shock – equal protection under the law. The editorial board will get a talking to. When the kids at a place like Baylor don’t get the older generation’s hostility to equal marriage rights, the culture really is changing. Nationally, the generation gap is really striking. The under-40s see the issue completely differently than the over 60s. Does it make sense to pass a constitutional amendment when the younger generation opposes it by a large margin?

Maybe I was too detailed in my response. Here’s a reader’s reply:

“David Frum’s list of hypothetical situations where one state recognizes a gay marriage, another doesn’t, reminds me of the ‘Conflict of Laws’ course I took many years ago in law school (2 credits). Despite its seemingly recondite subject matter it turned out to be useful on almost a daily basis to a practicing business lawyer, because conflicts of laws between states in fact pop up all the time on everything from property ownership to inheritance to tort liability to insurance contracts — and no field is less uniform even now than ‘family law’ governing marriage, divorce, parenthood and children. In fact courts already have “choice of law” rules to answer every question Mr. Frum poses.”

But that wouldn’t whip up enough hysteria to pass a Constitutional amendment, dummy!

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: Here’s a good point:

“You claim in your blog that ‘It looks increasingly as if anyone who cares about fiscal sanity is going to have to sit this election out.’ However, isn’t it obvious that the only way to impose some sort of fiscal sanity is to vote Kerry — resulting in a split government that can’t reach any sort of agreement as to how to spend money?
Additionally, if we are going to spend money like drunken sailors wouldn’t we rather have Kerry, who will at least tax the baby-boomer generation that is benefitting from all this spending, instead of Bush who wants to run up huge deficits and force these problems on future generations… people like ME?
As an uncatered to libertarian in my twenties, I think the answers to both of these questions are ‘yes’ and ‘yes’. I intend to vote Republican except for President, where I intend to vote a big fat ‘D’. Then I’ll sit back and pray for government gridlock.”

I think this guy is right. If you take seriously the fact that this country is headed toward fiscal catastrophe in the next decade, then restraining spending and raising some taxes in the next four years is almost as essential as tackling the entitlement crunch. Neither Bush nor Kerry wants to help. They’re both cowards (although Kerry seems to have a better grip on fiscal reality than Bush does). So gridlock is the best option. The combination of Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress was great for the country’s fiscal standing. Independents and anyone under 40 concerned with the deficit don’t need a Perot. They just need to vote for Kerry and hope the GOP retains control of at least one half of Congress.

GOD HATES SHRIMP: A new campaign for the religious right to join. Leviticus 11: 9 – 12 cannot be wrong. Boycott Long John Silver’s!

NOTICING EVIL: David Frum parses Mel Gibson’s verbal non-committal on whether the Holocaust really took place as we know it did. Bill Safire is unnerved as well. Gradually, conservatives are cottoning on to the real agenda behind “The Passion of the Christ.”

Maggie Gallagher shows her cards today. She is not only opposed to civil marriage for gay couples but is also opposed to Massachusetts’ deciding to have civil unions as a separate but equal category in their Constitution. Fair enough. But it behooves the social right to be clear about where they stand: against all benefits and protections for gay couples and against any notion that gay and straight relationships are equal. Then she raises various bogeymen:

It will be open season on the Catholic Church and other religious groups and organizations that sustain a different vision of human sexual ethics. Hate-speech codes, yanking of broadcasting licenses, and termination of the tax-exempt status of traditional organizations – just a few of the legal threats looming. Far-fetched? In Europe and Canada it is already happening.

Puh-lease. There is something called the First Amendment in this country; and it protects freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If Fred Phelps’ constitutional rights are protected, then the much milder public doctrines of the Catholic hierarchy will be as well. And that is only right and proper. I have no interest in persuading people to approve of my life and relationship. To be honest, I couldn’t care less what others think about it. As long as I am treated equally under the law, I’m happy to be described as a pervert, an instrument of Satan, or even a Democrat. Bring it on! But don’t confuse your constitutional right to condemn me with your constitutional right to deny me equal protection of the laws.

If it could happen to Churchill… could it befall Bush? Why a wartime leader’s success can be his electoral downfall. My latest Time column is up.

CASUALTIES FALL: Good news from Iraq on two fronts. The U.S. military casualties in February amounted to 23 – half the previous month’s. It’s the lowest monthly number since the invasion and represents a very steep drop-off from the 110 casualties last November. The number of wounded has also hit a new post-war low. Credit goes to those trying to control the Sunni insurgency. There are front page stories when soliders are killed (and rightly so). But there should also be front-page stories when we make real progress. And that’s why it’s also good to see the New York Times trumpet Iraq’s rebound in oil production and revenues. Well ahead of schedule. When you put all this together with Ayatollah Sistani’s acquiescence to end-of-year elections and the new cooperation of the United Nations, you have the architecture of real success. Fingers crossed. I have, naturally, a question about this success. Could Halliburton have had anything to do with it?

Those mullahs so beloved of the Europeans are at it again. Having decimated the already powerless opposition to Islamist theocracy in their recent “elections,” they are trying to undermine Gaddafi’s policy of WMD disarmament. From the Telegraph:

Western intelligence specialists have learned from interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects, captured close to Afghanistan’s border with Iran, that a militant group of Libyan extremists is being protected and trained by terrorism experts from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Hmm. What a surprise: al Qaeda in league with Iran.

BUMILLER LOST: Wonkette has the best reaction to the last Democratic debate. For my part, it confirmed something I’ve suspected for a while. John Kerry is highly unlikely to put John Edwards on his ticket. And his spending plans make even George Bush look fiscally responsible. A must-read this week: the Washington Post’s analysis of Kerry’s big spending budget plans. It looks increasingly as if anyone who cares about fiscal sanity is going to have to sit this election out.

THE GOODS ON NADER: A liberal argues that Ralph Nader has not suddenly become a bane to pragmatic liberalism. He’s always been a vain, monomaniacal enemy of liberal reform. Jon Chait is on a roll.

AGAINST THE AMENDMENT: One site has accumulated evidence that 48 senators are now on record as either against or very cool to the religious right amendment to the constitution.

SCHRODER ON THE ROPES: He wasn’t just beaten in the Hamburg elections. His party was buried. The best blog on German politics also catches up on Der Spiegel.

GIBSON ON NON-CATHOLICS: They’re all going to hell. That includes all those evangelicals who are flocking to his movie and even his wife.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “The Constitution says that all men are created equal, and it doesn’t say that all men are created equal except for gays. Just like everyone else who is born in this country, gays are endowed by their creator, God, with inalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At birth, whether your are born in Russia, Cuba, South America, or New York, you are born equal. The difference is that our [American] babies grow up to live free.” – Barry Goldwater, my kind of Republican.