Category: Old Dish

Since we posted Frank Bruni’s still-unreleased Ambling Into History as our March Book Club choice late last night, it has zoomed to number 1 on Amazon.com’s “Movers and Shakers” list, up 2900% today. At 7am yesterday the title was ranked number 516 overall. As of 3pm today, it’s jumped to number 15. Not bad for a little website and its readers. Stay tuned.

Al Qaeda fights on in Afghanistan; New York Times – Saudi Arabia “peace plan” suddenly not in spotlight; Riordan up Walnut Creek; Blair pledges to take war to Baghdad.

REALITY CHECK: Terrifying news from Time magazine and the Washington Post about the possibility – I’d say probability – that al Qaeda terrorists may soon have the capability of detonating a nuclear or dirty nuclear bomb in a major American city. In the words of the Post,

The consensus government view is now that al Qaeda probably has acquired the lower-level radionuclides strontium 90 and cesium 137, many thefts of which have been documented in recent years. These materials cannot produce a nuclear detonation, but they are radioactive contaminants. Conventional explosives could scatter them in what is known as a radiological dispersion device, colloquially called a “dirty bomb.” The number of deaths that might result is hard to predict but probably would be modest. One senior government specialist said “its impact as a weapon of psychological terror” would be far greater.

This war is not over. It has barely begun. That’s why I took umbrage last week at the usual Democratic Party gripes about the direction of the war. Tom Daschle has argued that we don’t know what the exact goals are, or why the war is being expanded. What planet is Daschle on? The state of the union address was quite explicit. The aim of this war is now what it always has been – to defend the United States and other free countries from massive acts of war threatened against us, including the use of weapons of mass destruction. How is that unclear?

CHARACTER AND THE PRESIDENCY: “Ambling Into History,” released from embargo tomorrow, is our next book club pick. It’s the new campaign book from the New York Times’ Frank Bruni, about the nature of candidate Bush before he was allegedly transformed by September 11. The book is already the buzz of Washington, criticized by Bushies, defended by some journalists, revealing heretofore unknown details of the president’s rambunctious frat-boy persona on the campaign trail. (Don’t worry that it’s only released tomorrow. If you order today, it will be shipped from tomorrow onward.) Why pick it? I think the conundrum of Bush – of who he really is – is still one of the most disputed questions in our public life, and one we need to debate further. Bruni was Bush’s favorite campaign journalist and easily the least anti-Bush reporter of the liberal press. He has credibility. And the questions he raises are good ones. Is Bush’s wild past reconcilable with his sober present? Can a jokester lead a war? More broadly, how do character and the presidency interact?

CHARACTER AND THE PRESS: The book is also about the press and how it covers, invents, distorts and condescends to politics. This is a constant theme of this site and this book is as good a way as any to investigate it. How did the press under-estimate Bush before September 11? How close to reality is the current practice of campaign coverage? And of course, the advantage of this book club format is that you get to talk back. Turn the tables on the author. If the book enrages or amuses you, you get a chance to grill Bruni directly on his methods and arguments and facts. If you think he’s biased, here’s your chance to expose it. Of course, you may well decide to direct the debate in another direction altogether. Go ahead. Make my month. On a practical note, this time round we’ll be increasing levels of reader participation and structuring the discussion around themes, rather than chapters. And don’t worry about getting the book in time. Amazon has been warned – and the discussion starts March 20, to give everyone a chance to read it before the debate begins. I’ve already started – and it’s a very lively, even gripping, read so far. So join in. Click here to buy the book and thereby join the club. (British readers click here.) See you for the discussion in a couple of weeks.

THE CHURCH’S NEW LOW: I got a distressing email yesterday from a priest friend of mine. Recently ordained, he no longer wears his clerical clothes on the street because of routine abuse. A fellow priest he knows recently got spat on in New York City; another was asked, “What are you up to, father? Trawling for little boys?” This kind of story breaks my heart. What the child-abusing priests have done is not simply commit a heinous crime; they have smeared by association many, many other good priests. That is Cardinal Law’s legacy – and it is the present pope’s as well. Anyone who believes that this policy of defending and sheltering child-molesters was a local or limited phenomenon has no idea how the Church works. This was a policy organized in detail, and approved at every level of the church hierarchy. Rome knew. Of course they knew. And they knew that what they were doing was evil.

IT GETS WORSE: And what is Rome’s reaction? So far, if this New York Times article is accurate, the conservative cabal at the heart of the Vatican intends to find a scapegoat. That scapegoat is the gay clergy. Here’s the relevant passage from the Times:

The conservatives shift the focus elsewhere, saying that sexual abuse cases in the church mainly involve teenage boys, not young children, and for that reason they say the priesthood should become less welcoming to gays. Priests who said this made clear they were not suggesting that gays were any more likely to be pedophiles. But they said most of the sex cases being investigated did not fit the classic definition of pedophilia. With this in mind, Pope John Paul II’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid. “People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained,” Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory. “That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality,” added Dr. Navarro-Valls, a Spanish layman who is a psychiatrist by training. “But you cannot be in this field.”

Charming, huh? Rather than tackle its own culpability for protecting child-molesters, the Vatican decides to use the ancient slur of associating pedophiles with homosexuals to deflect blame, at the same time smearing the many excellent, holy and dedicated gay priests. This is simply disgusting and enraging. And the fomenting of this bigotry – the deployment of it as a weapon to protect its own sordid record – is yet another sign that something is clearly rotten at the heart of the contemporary church. Its offense is rank. It smells to heaven. After reading this smear, I couldn’t go to mass today. How can I worship at a church which propagates hate and bigotry to defend itself from moral responsibility? How can anyon
e?

MORE VATICAN SPIN: Another pernicious trope from the reactionaries is the notion that the pedophile explosion was a function of liberalizing attitudes in the Church after the Second Vatican Council. Reliable Vatican-defender Richard John Neuhaus tells the Boston Herald that “(The) counterculture had made significant inroads in the lives of the churches, including the Catholic Church,” in the 1960s, and that’s the origin of the pedophile crisis. This will be part of the Vatican’s defensive conservative crouch on this issue. It’s nonsense. As the Herald piece points out, the majority of pedophiles in a Boston seminary were enrolled before liberalizing attitudes prevailed and in a very conservative environment. The proportion of convicted pedophiles peaks in 1960 – before Vatican II – and in 1968 (from a far smaller population) – not exactly proof of Neuhaus’s case. As far back as 1960, the proportion of pedophiles in that seminary was seven times the average for the general population. Blame that on liberalization, if you can. But the problem goes far further back and far deeper than an easy ideological assertion.

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “[T]here is still scant evidence to suggest that [president Bush] condones the idea of a free press.” – Frank Rich, New York Times, suggesting the president disagrees with the First Amendment.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “[P]olitico-literary intellectuals are not usually frightened of mass opinion. What they are frightened of is the prevailing opinion within their own group. At any given moment there is always an orthodoxy, a parrot-cry which must be repeated, and in the more active section of the Left the orthodoxy of the moment is anti-Americanism. I believe part of the reason … is the idea that if we can cut our links with the United States we might succeed in staying neutral in the case of Russia and America going to war … There is also the rather mean consideration that the Americans are not really our enemies, that they are unlikely to start dropping atomic bombs on us or even to let us starve to death, and therefore we can safely take liberties with them if it pays to do so.” – George Orwell, prophetic again, from his review, “In Defence of Comrade Zilliacus”.

BUCKLEY ON BROCK: A nice riff on liberal piety.

A bumper crop of almost unrelenting criticism.

Pakistani Islamo-fascists fight back; recession could be mildest ever; ABC disses Ted Koppel; the Queen breeds a tri-color corgi.

THE DEMOCRATS TAKE ON THE WAR: Now, it’s official. I don’t think it’s an accident that the Democrats have launched an attack on the war’s direction the day it becomes clear that the recession, even if it existed in the first place, is now history. Enron didn’t stick; no one cares about the GAO vs. Cheney; Bush has neutralized the education issue. Daschle figures he has no choice but to risk everything to undermine the war in order to gain some political traction against the president. So far, it’s been under-stated – the usual Daschle-like mealy-mouthed worries about future conflicts. But the shift in tactics is real. Liberal opinion leaders are egging the Dems on. Take a look at this piece in the Washington Monthly, or this piece by Anna Quindlen, or this piece from “Crazy Bob” Kuttner. Get the picture? The anti-war left is back with a vengeance. And the battle to protect this country has only just begun.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: “Who wouldn’t have handled things the way he handled them after September 11? I mean come on. It’s pretty cut and dry. Any president would have handled it the same way. I think he’s a treacherous motherfucker, frankly, and not to be trusted. … I don’t care for him, and certainly the gay community – or anyone who cares about human rights – shouldn’t care for him. He shouldn’t be there, he wasn’t elected by us – they stole the election. That’s the seed level of this administration. They shouldn’t have been there from the beginning.” – Sandra Bernhard, “comedian,” in Metro Weekly, D.C. (The magazine is not online.)

A NEW LOW IN MEDIA BIAS: A new documentary on the Clinton scandals – brought to you by Joe Conason, and funded by Harry Thomason. All that’s needed is for CBS to broadcast it.

STEYN NAILS IT: “In Saturday’s Independent, [Robert] Fisk reflected on the death of the man [Daniel Pearl] described as his friend: “But why was he killed? Because he was a Westerner, a ‘Kaffir’? Because he was an American? Or because he was a journalist?” Anyone spot the missing category? It’s the one Omar Sheikh used, and the one acknowledged by Daniel Pearl in his last words: “Yes, I am a Jew …” Fisk can’t bring himself to use the word in the entire column.” – from Mark Steyn’s latest column. Steyn is onto something here. When I was in England, I listened to the BBC a lot to hear how they were reporting the war. In every case I heard when the story obviously required recognition that pathological anti-Semitism was behind some action in the Muslim world – Iran’s refusal to accept a new British ambassador because he was a Jew, Daniel Pearl’s capture and murder because he was a Jew – the BBC either ignored it, or buried it. Of course well-meaning journalists did exactly the same thing in the 1930s. But we know better now, don’t we?

DUBYA IN DRAG: Well, Giuliani did it. But he didn’t look half as good as this.

I LOVE MY iPOD: But I never realized they were God’s gift to thieves.

THE NEXT BOOK CLUB SELECTION IS …: Don’t forget to check in on Monday to find out. It’ll be quite a change of pace.

A last attempt by the moralists, universalists and idealists to demonstrate the weakness of Kaplan’s argument. Check out the last post in this month’s Book Club.

Chris Caldwell can’t take his eyes off the new Sports Illustrated.

EMAILS OF THE DAY: One reader gets fed up with the Afghan government:

Am I the only one who’s getting a little sick of these ungrateful assholes “We want you to leave NOW. But first, settle this conflict between these two ‘warlords’.” “Don’t try to tell US whether we can grow opium, but you need to give us billions of dollars of aid to ‘rebuild’ an infrastructure that never existed.” “Just because we actually live in this country doesn’t mean that we’re responsible for the actions of our government. America is responsible because they didn’t stick around long enough after we repelled the Soviets. With American arms. But we don’t want you interfering in our affairs.” Maybe someone should point out to them that their government attacked us, and it was only our charitable natures that made us distinguish between the Taliban and the “innocent citizens of Afghanistan”. How many other military campaigns have been prosecuted in such a way. These people seem to think they’re doing us some sort of stinking favor. I think it would be a good idea for Sec. Powell to advise their president otherwise, and to let him know that we’ll leave when we’re damned good and ready.

And then there’s this brief take:

Didn’t you know that 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Keep ’em coming.

(GAY) MEN’S FITNESS:Compared to Men’s Fitness, Details is Penthouse. Here’s a magazine devoted to endless pictures of the male physique and dedicated to men who work out obsessively. But as with many other all-male institutions with more than their fair share of gays (the boy scouts, the priesthood, the military, etc.), there seems to be a need to over-emphasize heterosexuality in response. A reader notes the introductory paragraphs to the first four articles in the current (March) issue. “A Stronger Neck in 10 Minutes” says it’s likely that the reader’s neck muscles get worked “only when the Heidi Klum look-alike saunters by at the gym.” “Recharge Yourself,” about the benefits of spa time, begins with the author stating “…I can watch the brunette sink slowly into the hot water, her face crinkling with pleasure as the water slips over the tops of her breasts.” “Five Fast Stress Busters” opens with “It would be nice if you could spend all afternoon in the park … contemplating the deeper meanings of the Victoria’s Secret catalog.” The writer of “Aqua Fat Loss” describes his workout boredom by saying “Like a husband who knows the contours of his wife’s body all too well, I had practically memorized every crack in my local sidewalks.” Doesn’t this strike you as a little much? Isn’t there a way in which you can write for gay and straight male readers without this overly-defensive, macho-hetero swaggering? Or are the editors perfectly aware that a large plurality of their readers are gay and are terrified that their straight readers will panic at the thought?

The Democrats start attacking the war on terror; Judge ‘outs’ Cheney’s task-force; New York Times, Colin Powell praise Arafat, back Saudi plan on Middle East; Opus Dei founder to be named a saint.

BLAIR BACKS BUSH: It may splinter his own party but Tony Blair seems full-square behind the Bush administration’s concern about Iraq, Iran, North Korea and any other state attempting to acquire or disseminate weapons of mass destruction. “I certainly agree with [president Bush] very strongly that weapons of mass destruction represent a real threat to world stability,” Blair told the Australian Broadcasting Company. “Those who are engaged in spreading weapons of mass destruction are engaged in an evil trade and it is important that we make sure that we take action in respect of it. I think that George Bush has shown tremendous leadership since 11 September. He has acted always in a very measured way, in a calm way, but he is right to raise these issues and certainly he has our support in doing so.” Grim news for the appeaseniks – and the Tories. Good news for everyone else – especially Iraqis. Iranians, and North Koreans.

WAITING FOR JESSE:Guess who still hasn’t sent in his 2000 tax return?

ISLAM MEANS PEACE: First Pakistani Sunnis shoot Shi-ites at a mosque. Now, Indian Muslims massacre Hindus. At some point, we have to infer that this religion has degenerated in parts into a murderous cult. Can you imagine the headlines if Christian fundamentalists did similar things?

BOOK CLUB:One last question for Bob Kaplan – about Vietnam. Later today, your final emails.

THE SHAMELESS VON HOFFMAN: You’d think that Nicholas von Hoffman, whose prediction of disaster in Afghanistan was so wrong he made it even after Kabul had fallen, might be feeling a little sheepish these days. If journalists were in any way accountable for their idiotic pronouncements, he would have taken a year’s leave of absence after apologizing. But no. He’s at it again. This time, he’s urging the European Union to become a new super-power to restrain the idiotic United States. His comment on the conduct of the current war tells you all you need to know:

Bill Clinton and the Marines were bad enough, lurching here and there across the planet in Mr. Clinton’s aimless armed escapades. He pales, however, in comparison to George W. Bush, who has taken on the role of a latter-day Peter the Hermit, calling for crusades against the “axis of evil.” The top elected official of the world’s only superpower is besotted with the idea that he can say and do anything without fear of any consequences, because nowhere in the world is there a set of teeth which can come back to bite him. You’d think that the catastrophe of Sept. 11 would have taught him better.

You’d think that the catastrophe of September 11 would have taught Nick von Hoffman something as well. But some people never learn.

LONE BLOGGER SKEWERS THE GUARDIAN: If you want a good example of why blogging can leave professional journalism in the dust, check out this inspired little screed. It dissects the Guardian’s recent foray into Alabama (to report on all those moronic Yanks). It’s brought to you by James Lileks and it will make your day.

STAGGERINGLY HOMOGENEOUS UTAH: A reader writes:

It’s a pity that Utah (with it’s 85.3% non-Hispanic white population) isn’t as diverse as socialist Vermont (96.2%) or liberal Maine (96.5%) or Byrd’s West Virginia (94.6%) or Dashchle’s South Dakota (88.0%) or liberal Wisconsin (87.3%) or Wellstone’s Minnesota (88.2%). Oops, how can those caring diverse states be less diverse than repressive Utah? Well, maybe someday it can be as diverse as progressive Oregon (83.5%). But of course, those conservative Mormons will never be as diverse as Kennedy’s Massachusetts (81.9%) or Rhode Island (81.9%). That 3.4% difference is just too vast. Worse, Gore’s Tennessee (79.2%) and hip Washington (78.9%) are beyond reach with their overwhelming 6.1% and 6.4% leads. How do the people in Utah live in such a terrible close-minded world? By the way, the US average is 69.1% (numbers come from Census 2000).

Take that, Mr. Janofsky!

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND BLOGS: If, like me, you’ve come to be skeptical of almost every statistic you read in the papers, don’t give up on stats altogether. (My boyfriend, who’s a stats professor, has exerted enormous pressure to make me write that sentence. But I believe it anyway.) Here’s a great antidote: it’s called STATS, and it’s a handy web-resource that examines and debunks phony stats, surveys and reports on a regular basis. You might also want to check out Joel Best’s recent book, “Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists,” and most things written by Michael Fumento.

AND NOW, A SCIENCE BLOG: Since I’m on a blog-roll here, I thought I’d mention two more. One is about science, pharmaceuticals, bio-tech and related issues. It’s by a working medicinal chemist who knows his stuff and can help you understand various public policy issues related to science. The post that impressed me was his assessment of recent HIV news. But he also has a smart new post on Imclone, about which he recently and obviously made a bad stock call. But guess what? He fesses up in a matter of hours and explains why he still thinks he’s right. Another diverting blog on a theme dear to my heart is one called relapsedcatholic.com. Great links on contemporary religious issues.

NOW THAT HE’S GOON: Spike Milligan subsided yesterday into the grave. He was a comic genius; a profoundly moral man, whose unpopular stances (against abortion, for animal rights) were quirkily sincere. As the Guardian notes today,

Probably his most famous – or notorious remark – was in 1994 when, at the age of 76, he was receiving a Lifetime Achievement Comedy Award. A letter praising him from the Prince of Wales, an enormous fan, was read out – and in front of a stuffed-shirt audience and millions of TV viewers, Milli
gan declared: “Little groveling bastard …”

Ballsy, no? My own favorite bit of comedy from him was the line he would always utter when some piece of slapstick sent him crashing to the floor: “Thank heaven the ground broke my fall.” I know, I know. But it always made me laugh.

“This isn’t a failing of the church; it’s an attack upon its very integrity-by its own clergy.” My initial take on the growing Catholic pedophile scandal – posted opposite.

The war expands to the republic of Georgia; Skilling says he’s innocent; foot-and-mouth disease breaks out again in Britain; home sales soar despite recession; inventor of voice-mail leaves final message.

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND BOOZE: Here’s why I almost don’t bother reading stories any more that announce “startling” new statistics about some social “problem” or other. The story blared all over the papers recently was that teen drinking makes up about a quarter of all alcohol consumption. As the New York Times points out today, that’s baloney. The number is probably around 11 percent – with the 25 percent coming from a loaded sample, skewed to teens. The quote from a spokesperson for the do-gooder group, the Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, tells you the thinking behind the exaggeration: “It’s very unfortunate. We didn’t reweight the data. But we think the 11.4 percent number is way too low, since there’s so much underreporting.” Unfortunate? It’s a LIE – designed to advance an agenda. But the lie is defended because the “cause” is just, and, in any case, the busy-bodies believe there’s underreporting. Oh, that’s all right then. This is the same mentality that gives us a surging epidemic of “hate-crimes” where none exists; and it’s the same mindset that goes out to prove resurgent HIV infection, even when there’s scant evidence to support it. My advice is to ignore most such studies. The occasional report that’s honest is vastly outweighed by the self-serving, puritanical propaganda that these groups exist to spew out. Now, I’m gonna pour myself a drink. Or five.

BOOK CLUB:As we reach the end of our first book, you pose four questions to the author Bob Kaplan, about democracy, patriotism, the meaning of evil, and the necessity to back authoritarianism at times. Bob answers.

GREAT INSULTS: Who says they’re dead? Here’s the irreplaceable Lucianne Goldberg going off on David “There’s a Gray Poodle Near My Nipple” Brock:

Why two of the media’s more prominent scribes, Frank Rich in the NY Times and here, Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post, have decided that serial liar David Brock is worth their attention is best left to assorted shrinks. Brock’s new book will come and go and he will be left with “career issues.” This confused, sick puppy may want to check on the cut off age for the Chippendale’s Japanese touring company. That’s about all there will be left to him to pay the rent.

Thanks to Mickey Kaus for noticing this first.

MEDIA CONDESCENSION WATCH: “During seven years of planning, state and local leaders looked longingly into their Olympic future, half promising, half hoping that Salt Lake’s 17 days with destiny would change forever the profile of a city known best as the Mormon capital of the world and of a state known widely for its staggering conservatism and homogeneity, owing to the influence of the church. Yet it remains far from clear to what degree, if any, those enduring aspirations might be achieved.” – Michael Janofsky, New York Times. Look, I don’t want to live in Utah – but why is it self-evident that “staggering conservatism and homogeneity” are qualities to be abhorred and recovered from? And what is this unsubstantiated prejudice doing in a news story?

THE POINT OF A VACCINE: From everything I’ve read, I’d say the chances of a viable vaccine for HIV are still remote. But something like a vaccine could indeed be useful to reduce disease progression in the already infected, as this article suggests. Above all, science is beginning to destroy the dichotomy of HIV prevention and HIV treatment. Increasingly, HIV treatment works as HIV prevention. How? Because effective treatment can bring viral levels down to levels that make infection of others that much harder. It’s win-win. Better to drop the tired old debate about whether we need to put more resources into prevention rather than into a cure by understanding that the two are intricately connected.

THE BUSH REVOLUTION: Here’s a cogent, smart and prescient piece of analysis from Stratfor on how the current administration is transforming America’s role in the world – largely for the better.

DEVIL IN DETAILS: My eye caught the recent cover of Details for some unaccountable reason today. It has one Josh Hartnett in full, dark-eyed splendor posing on it. I’ve no doubt this ostensibly straight guy’s magazine picked up some female and gay male readers this month. But the headline shows the inevitable confusion of a mag trying to get gay readers while pretending to be strictly hetero. It reads: “Josh Hartnett Dated Gisele and You Didn’t.” Now ask yourself: why would a straight guy want to read about a pretty boy who is more successful at bedding beautiful babes than he is? Why, further, would he be interested in looking at semi-pornographic pictures of another man – the like of which are liberally plastered inside? Perhaps it’s playing to straight-guy insecurity. (That would also account for the cover line: “Your Unit and You: How You Measure Up to the Other Guy.”) But perhaps it’s more indication of how men’s magazines, after a brief dalliance with honestly including gay male readers, now feel quite happy to exploit gay men’s dollars while insulting their intelligence and writing excruciating, bizarre prose for their straight readers. At least I didn’t buy the thing. But I enjoyed the pictures.

Many of you have bugged me for a long time to add PayPal to our list of ways you can contribute to the site. Well, your wish is our command … eventually. If you want to help keep this site going, visit the Tipping Point today and use PayPal if that’s your preferred option. Last year, these contributions were the only reason we stayed afloat. And they’re still vital for an enterprise with no direct advertising. Be a part of blogging revolution – for as little as a few bucks.