Category: Old Dish

Sorry to those who think I’m making too much of this. But it seems to me that the G.O.P. has zero credibility on racial matters until they get rid of this man as Senate Majority Leader. When I’m in agreement with the Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay group, you know something’s got to give. Last night’s revelation – that Lott had said almost identical things over twenty years ago – clinches in my mind that this was not a poor choice of words. It was a classic political gaffe – where the politician in question accidentally says what he truly believes. And no, I don’t think bringing up Robert Byrd, another old bigot, is a satisfactory response. It’s a sign that you cannot defend someone when you respond by attacking someone else. Lott had a chance to repudiate his words and he chose to side-step the issue. He’s flirted with racists before. He’s said the same things before. It seems to me that president Bush now has his Sister Souljah opportunity. Just as Clinton secured centrist backing when he repudiated the anti-white racism of Sister Souljah, so Bush needs to repudiate the anti-black racism of Lott publicly, clearly and irrevocably. If he doesn’t, then I’m afraid he will lose any black support indefinitely and the respect of many decent voters who aren’t black as well. Lott’s remarks are, in fact, a direct insult to black members of the administration and the Republican Party. Mr. President, we’re waiting for you to say something.

RAINES AWARD NOMINEE: This is how the Washington Times spins the Trent Lott story today: “Black lawmakers upset with Daschle.” At least Howell Raines has some sophistication.

PAY-UP WEEK UPDATE:Alas, we’re still in the dark about a truly accurate up-to-the-moment tally. Amex reports things late and the mailbag won’t reveal its truths for a while yet. But the good news is: yesterday looks almost as good as Monday. We’re close to 3,000 paid-up subscribers to the site, which represents a stunning step forward for the blogosphere, and for this blog. I’m really, really grateful. But we’re still short of our goal. If you’ve paid up already, my eternal thanks. If you read this blog regularly, and haven’t paid yet, please do your part in keeping it alive. We’re asking $20 for the year (including the past two years, if you’re counting), which is about as good a media deal as you’re likely to find anywhere. The money will pay me a decent salary, allow me to hire help, and spend more time on the blog. So please, make Paul Krugman’s day. Click here to give a little back to the site.

THE AXIS OF EVIL I: Remember all those people who derided president Bush’s inclusion of North Korea in his “axis of evil?” Remember all those who said there was no logical connection between them? I wonder what they’ll say about the interception of North Korean scuds bound for some party in the Middle East? Particularly appropriate on the day when the uber-appeaser Jimmy Carter got the Nobel “Peace” Prize, don’t you think?

THE AXIS OF EVIL II: Have you been following the news from Iran? It’s a little hard since the major media seems intent on burying news from this country that could be on the brink of a world-changing revolution. But this story in yesterday’s Times caught my eye. Why, I wonder, wasn’t it on the front page?

HOW TOUGH IS THIS FORD? Plenty, it seems. I enjoyed this piece by Time’s Jack E. White. I was unaware of the racist, Uncle Tom rhetoric used against Congressman Harold Ford by the Congressional Black Caucus. But given the state of racial rhetoric on the left these days, I’m not surprised. If he plays his cards right, Ford could become a post-racial politician for the next generation. I certainly hope so.

THE TIMES’ MATH: Jacob Levy does a simple math job on a recent, completely bogus story in the New York Times on an alleged collapse in the advancement of minorities in higher education. As usual, the Times doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a purely ideological piece.

THE TIMES’ CLUELESSNESS: A while back, the New York Times ran a glowing profile of an Indian guru, Sai Baba. Check out MSNBC’s cursory investigation into the story. The guru is an alleged serial pedophile, with complaints against him for abusing children well-reported in the Daily Telegraph and India Today. UNESCO dropped participation in a conference with Baba for the same reason. But nowhere in the Times piece is there even a reference to the charges. Why? Don’t they have Google over there?

MY GAY PASSION: Just a word in response to some emails that have been telling me I’m all reason when it comes to most subjects but all emotion when it comes to homosexuality. I think you’ll find, if you read my work on the gay topic over the years, that I have done more than most to channel my natural emotions on this subject into reasonable discourse. Many who disagree with me on this topic have been kind enough to concede this. But undoubtedly my feelings run high on the topic; it’s close to home; it affects my loved ones – living and dead. It affects my own life directly every day. So when I hear arguments that essentially assume that gay people are somehow depraved or sick or vile or embarrassing, it’s hard not to respond with passion. I’m actually proud of that. Maintaining my liberal principles – on issues like hate crime laws – has led me to become a pariah in some gay circles, an object of scorn and hatred. Equally, maintaining my Catholic – yes, Catholic – principles about the inherent dignity and equality of gay people – on issues like marriage and military service – has alienated many on the other side. All I can say is that I have learned to do without much support on this issue but try daily to balance reason with emotion, to make sure I don’t confuse feelings for an argument. Most of the time I succeed. Sometimes, I don’t. I’m only human. But when your own identity is being raised as something up for discussion, it’s hard to stay cool. And at times, I think anger is thoroughly justified. It’s obviously not my only passion – on terrorism, on the Church, on the nihilist left, I can be just as energized. But it is one passion, for which I do not apologize. All I can say in defense is this: imagine if you had to defend your heterosexual marriage from charges that it will debase civilization and is one step away from child abuse. Imagine that it had no standing in law. Imagine that some civilized people you respect and who otherwise respect you nonetheless feel contempt for the love you have for another human being, and believe deep down that you are mentally or psychologically disordered. Now try not to be angry and hurt. It’s difficult. I’m not playing the victim card here. I’m just trying to explain.

My piece opposite responds to some of the fears fanned by Stanley Kurtz in recent articles on National Review Onine. One amendment to the piece: I wrote, “Read [Stanley Kurtz’s] original piece, “The Right Balance,” in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and try and find a mention of equal protection. Good luck.” With a bit of luck, you can, in fact, find a reference. My bad. There is one sentence at the end of a paragraph where he mentions it. It’s a little easy to miss since almost the entire argument is devoted to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. My point remains, however. Kurtz once first fanned the flames of hysteria, by saying that the FFC would nationalize gay marriage. Now he says that equal protection arguments will nationalize it. The first is almost impossible; the second extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. But Kurtz wants to amend the U.S. Constitution right now even to avoid the remote possibility of gay citizens enjoying equal rights under the law at some time in the future.

“Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about heightened alarms over terrorism in Europe misstated the location of a bombing in Tunisia last spring that killed 21 people, including 14 German tourists. It was at a synagogue, not a mosque.” – The New York Times today. Does it get any more priceless than that?

How far out there on the far right is Douglas Kmiec? Waaaay out there. If you’re worried about the erosion of the separation between church and state, you should start panicking. If you believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees individual rights against the state rather than, in Kmiec’s view, representing Catholic natural law that can mould citizens’ souls, then be afraid. Worse than that, Kmiec is a supporter of the discredited Church hierarchy in its attempt to cover up its own tolerance of child-abusers and just penned an op-ed against California’s attempt to find a way to allow victims to sue in civil court for the abuses that occurred long ago. Earlier this year, he blamed the Church crisis on homosexuals and opposes the current Court’s decision, giving some limited protection for gay citizens, in Romer vs Evans. If the president chooses this man for the federal appeals court, he will be sending a clear signal. He will be saying that he supports the Catholic right’s political and social agenda, and wants to see its influence spread through the judiciary. He will be telling gay voters and their families that he is not their ally or friend but supports those who would continue scapegoating gays and denying them even a modicum of legal protection. A great week for compassionate conservatism: the Senate majority leader says he regrets desegregation and the administration floats the idea of nominating a far-right social conservative to the federal appeals court. Ah, yes. Hubris in the White House. Suddenly the Democrats seem more palatable, don’t they?

THE BLOGOSPHERE AND LOTT: Howie Kurtz notices how much quicker on the draw the blogosphere was on the matter of Trent Lott’s declared regrets for the passing of Jim Crow. I’m still stunned at how little the New York Times made of it (although Krugman seems to have drawn from lots of blogosphere arguments for his column today). Why this discrepancy? I don’t really know. One thought I have is that the media bigwigs really do operate socially in Washington and find it hard to pounce on people they know, like, respect or need as a source. That’s one reason I try hard to remain pretty socially reclusive in DC; and why I think occasional periods away from town actually helps you be a better journalist. The way in which people like David Broder or Bob Novak simply brushed this one aside is a sign, I think, less of their craven politics than of their DC socialization. Another advantage for the blogosphere. We don’t give a damn. And by and large, we say what we believe.

As always, you match generosity with wit:

“Pledge Week?” Is it possible that you want to subliminally associate yourself with NPR? Why not post a picture of Daniel Schorr or Loren Jenkins? Call it anything but Pledge Week. Money Week, Payment Week, Shakedown Week, Gimme Week, Gotcha Week, Greed Week, Goodies Week, Dollar Week, Howell Raines Week, Pain In The Ass Week, Party Week, Orgy Week, Eagles Week….

Fair enough. And you’re right about my misplaced use of the term “begging.” I’m not begging. I’m asking to get paid. As to the results, we’re a little in the dark, since we don’t know what’s in the mail; and some of the Amex reporting has yet to come in. But Robert’s rough estimate puts the current tally – as of this posting – at payments from around 1,800 people. Thanks so much. I’m really grateful for your support. But, alas, we’re not there yet. Our goal was to have a core supporting readership of around 5,000 or more. If we get that, we can make this a professional enterprise, pay our expenses, hire an intern, and pay me a real salary. After a mere 14 hours, we’re close to the halfway point, which is real encouraging. My heartfelt thanks to all of you who’ve given so far. But if you’re one of the 98 percent of our weekly readers who hasn’t chipped in yet, we’re relying on you. It’s only $20 a year. And you’ll keep this site alive. If you enjoy it, or visit it regularly, please realize that it takes time, effort and money to keep going. We need your support. Click here to contribute. We’ve got four more days to reach the target. Help us get there.

WHAT IS FRIEDMAN TALKING ABOUT? What loopiness masquerading as hard truths in Tom Friedman’s column today. How on earth does rescinding future tax cuts help us win the war against Islamism, Saddam and al Qaeda? How on earth does firing Karl Rove help that either? Or cutting farm subsidies? Friedman has largely managed to absorb the idea that we are at war and that we need to win. good for him. But because there’s not a Democratic president, he’s conflicted. So he’s telling Bush to adopt Democratic policies at home in order to win abroad. Run that by me again, would you? It’s not that I disagree with Friedman on everything – although any columnist who resorts to that lame old crutch of calling for a Manhattan Project on anything needs to take a vacation. I just don’t see the connections he draws. We face a perilous economic situation with deflationary pressures – so let’s suck demand out of the economy by raising taxes! We need to defang the appeal of Islamism – so lets import Pakistani grain! Puhlease. The most important thing you have to do in a war is simply win it. Yes, let’s do our best to rebuild Iraq as effectively as we can afterwards. Yes, let’s spread the tax cut more evenly. But spare us the grandiose appeal for a Republican president to become a big government liberal if he wants support for the war on terror. It may help persuade Howell Raines that Friedman’s not an evil neocon. It may help some sane pro-war liberals to get over their disdain for a sucessful Republican president. But to the rest of us, it sounds desperate and silly.

THOSE DOUBTING MUSLIMS: If you have a few moments, do yourself a favor and read David Warren’s transcript of a lecture he recently gave at Toronto’s St. Michael’s College Alumni Hall. It’s a meditation on the fate of Islam and the Islamic world from someone who cares deeply about it and knows much. It tackles some of the myths of Western liberals and conservatives about Islam and yet seems, to my mind, even more urgent in its concern about what awaits us than some of the most pessimistic conservatives. I was struck by many insights, but this one in particular:

It is a commonplace today that Christians in the West have lost their faith, whereas Muslims in the East are still believers; that what we now have is a confrontation between decadent post-Christian secularists, and sincere if possibly misguided Muslims. The first part of this proposition often seems true enough, especially of contemporary Europe. But I really think the second proposition is false. I think one of the reasons Islamism has erupted with such gale force in the Muslim world is indeed the very loss of faith, and the fear that comes from this.
They are, again to speak very crudely, in a position a little like that of our own ancestors of the later Victorian and Edwardian era, those many who had lost their faith, but continued to observe the outward forms of religion. It is exactly this kind of mind that creates the biggest welcome for the devil. I have often thought that the violent combustion of Europe in the 20th century was, at the deepest level, the fallout from the loss of faith; of the transformation of spiritual into political energy. Communism and Nazism were themselves pseudo-religions; and indeed all ideological systems, including political Islamism, are pseudo-religions — replacements for the real thing. They take infinite longings and turn them towards finite ends, and seek a new redemption not in heaven but on earth.

The relationship of doubt to fundamentalism is a deep and fertile one. But I’ve never seen it so eloquently explored with respect to Islam.

THOSE DISCARDED POLICIES: So now we have Gore, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson piling on. For once, I think they’re right. Meanwhile, Lott gives a weird non-apology apology: “A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.” Let’s unpack this. Everyone deserves a break for a “poor choice of words” but it wasn’t the words that really offended. It was the plain meaning of the words. What other words would have sufficed? Notice also the adjective Lott now uses to refer to segregation: “discarded policies.” Not immoral. Not wrong. Not abhorrent. Merely “discarded.” And notice too the weasel politician way of not apologizing: only “some” were offended; and it’s only those to whom Lott feels obliged to apologize. And of course, his position as the Republican spokesman in the Senate remains unchallenged by his fellow partisans. It’s at times like this that I realize why I’m not a Republican. I could never be in a party that included someone like Trent Lott.

CAPE FISHERMEN ISSUE STATEMENT ON IRAQ: Actually, I’d care a lot more about what they think than this bunch of self-regarding, brainless wonders.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: “The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world.” – playwright Harold Pinter, in a speech to the University of Turin. In the speech, he also remarked that the plight of the Palestinian people is “the central factor in world unrest.” The central factor in world unrest?

EURO-ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: Greta Duisenburg, the wife of the chairman of the European Central Bank, became famous earlier this year for joking about the Holocaust and orgnaizing boycotts of Israel. She’s now being honored with the the 2002 Prize for Human Rights from the Flemish League for Human Rights.

THE TIMES’ BLINDERS: I vowed I wouldn’t go there for a while, but I just can’t help it. Reading the New York Times’ sympathetic account of the new Rhodes scholar, Chesa Boudin, I was reminded again of the double-standards of the left. Of course, Boudin deserves praise for winning a Rhodes (although Rhodes scholars are among the most irritating mediocrities on earth) and of course he shouldn’t be held responsible for the terrorist crimes committed by his parents. But all this sympathy for a young man who grew up with incarcerated parents should surely have been balanced by some reference to the nine other childern left fatherless by his parents’ murders. Emily Yoffe has the goods at Slate. It’s a devastating little piece.

UH OH: Isn’t it a mite bit embarrassing that the new candidate for Treasury secretary ran a company, CSX, that didn’t pay a dime in federal taxes for the last four years, despite making profits? I think I just wrote Paul Krugman’s next column.

Is it entirely coincidence that the day after Trent Lott lamented the end of legal racial segregation in this country that some Southern blacks turned out in unusually high numbers to deny Lott another Senate seat to add to his majority? I doubt it. Kudos to Jonah Goldberg and David Frum for seeing how damaging and vile Lott’s comments were. I’d add one more comment. We may be about to ask thousands of young African-Americans to risk their lives for this country. And the leader of the Senate publicly wishes they were still living under Jim Crow. It’s repulsive. And, so far, Lott hasn’t even had the decency to repudiate his own comments. Jonah says that “I don’t think Lott’s a racist, pro-lynching segregationist.” I don’t know Lott personally and have never met him. But one thing is clear: what he said could easily have been said by a racist, pro-lynching segregationist. And the burden of proof is now on Lott to say otherwise.

Robert tells me that the response to the pledge drive has been great so far. The site will be back to regular scheduled blogging tomorrow with reminders all week. I’m particularly grateful for your emails of support. And I apologize for this interruption. But please keep it coming and I won’t have to write anything like this till next May. You can chip in $20 to keep this site on the web for the coming year by clicking here. C’mon. Make Howell Raines’ day.

This isn’t an easy post to write, since I’m not used to begging. But as old-timers at the site know, we’ve been trying to find a way to make this site economically sustainable for a long time. It hasn’t been easy. I’ve now written this blog for over two years for free and I don’t regret a minute of it. We’ve paid most of our expenses with your help and are still (just) in the black. But I and my tech/business partner, Robert Cameron, still work part-time for free. I’ve been happy to do so, but in the last month or so, it’s become almost impossible to keep the show on the road and meet my other paid commitments. The sheer volume of emails (400 or so a day and climbing), the amount of web-surfing to keep the site competitive with others, the demands of the Book Club (which is in suspension for lack of time), and the Letters Page (which can sometimes go days without updates because of the task of sifting and editing) have gone beyond the bounds of what I can do part-time for free. Either I give the blog up or I have to give up my other paid work. I’ve tried to re-cycle the blog for columns and that’s helped. But in the end, the work keeps increasing rather than decreasing and I’m afraid of the quality dropping because I’m stretched too thin.

So here’s my plea. You’re the reason I’m writing this blog, and I’m turning to you for help. We’re working hard for ad dollars, but the landscape is still bleak. Many of you have been real generous in the past, for which I’m eternally grateful. But a fraction of 1 percent of our regular readers send us donations, and I hate interrupting the site all the time to beg. So we came up with the idea of a pledge week – like reader-supported public radio and television. All this week, we’re going to nag you to donate something. Then we promise we’ll leave you alone for 6 months. What’s a fair request? I figure that our regular readers, who visit us a few times a week or more, could completely transform the prospects of the site if they gave us $20 a year – a few cents a visit for some. If only one or two percent of you did that, we’d be completely financially secure. I could get a salary and focus on the blog more; I could hire an assistant to help with email, editing, the Letters Page and the Book Club (currently our interns get a piddling stipend and I get nothing); we could add more features to the site; and we could plan for the future securely. If you think of the $20 as retroactive payment for two years of daily work as well as the upcoming year, it’s a bargain.

You know why you like the site, if you do. To me, what started as a whim has become a real journalistic adventure. My interaction with you on a daily basis has been an enormous privilege and a learning experience. And as far as media and political influence are concerned, this little blog is certainly punching above its weight. My plea is: keep us on the road. If we succeed this week in providing a financial basis for the next year, I’ll keep on bloggin’. If we don’t, I’ll have to rethink. I simply can’t do what’s becoming a full time job for nothing any more. And I really want to avoid making people pay for the site, through a toll-booth or paid-only access. After two years of voluntary work, it’s time to move forward.

I hope this experiment isn’t entirely for this site either. If we can prove with this pledge week that there’s a place for reader-supported Internet journalism, then we’ll also help nudge the blogosphere one step further to financial stability. We’ll show that this medium can not only spawn new forms of journalism, but also provide a direct revenue stream from readers themselves – without ads, without big sponsors, without any intermediaries. Other blogs could follow – putting the next big dent in the monopoly of big media. So please pledge today.

Click here to get to a simple page where you can chip in $20 in several easy, secure ways. If you want to give more, please, please do. If you’ve given in the last six months, then no sweat. We’ll hit you up again in May. If $20 is too much for your budget right now, then no sweat either. I’m aware that things are tight right now. But if you’re a regular reader who wants to keep this blog alive, and can afford it, please contribute. One small bonus to donating: If you give us your email address with your donation, we’ll also send you an email newsletter each week starting in the New Year, filling you in on the latest site news, up-coming topics and exclusive pieces.

So please make blogging history, and give this site a financial and journalistic future. Click here for more details.

The Washington Post had it exactly right yesterday. The blizzard of data that Saddam has just unloaded on the U.N. should not be a means for him to buy time. If it amounts to a declaration that he has no weapons of mass destruction, then the administration must determine that as soon as possible and then provide the U.N. with documentation of Saddam’s lies. Then we go to war. This document dump should not be an occasion for more inspections. A false declaration is in itself a casus belli. And any other interpretation will be a sign that Washington has blinked. For the security of all of us, the White House must not go wobbly now.

After his disgusting remarks at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party, it seems to me that the Republican Party has a simple choice. Either they get rid of Lott as majority leader; or they should come out formally as a party that regrets desegregation and civil rights for African-Americans. Why are the Republican commentators so silent about this? And the liberals? (Josh Marshall, to his credit, states the obvious. And Bill Kristol, to his great credit, expressed disbelief.) And where’s the New York Times? Howell Raines is so intent on finding Bull Connor in a tony golf club that when Bull Connor emerges as the soul of the Republican Senate Majority Leader, he doesn’t notice it. And where’s the president? It seems to me an explicit repudiation of Lott’s bigotry is a no-brainer for a “compassionate conservative.” Or simply a decent person, for that matter. This isn’t the first piece of evidence that Lott is an unreconstructed racist. He has spoken before gussied-up white supremacist groups before. So here’s a simple test for Republicans and conservative pundits. Will they call Lott on this excrescence? Or are they exactly what some on the Left accuse them of?