Category: Old Dish

The French ambassador to Britain refers privately to Israel as a “shitty little country,” that is the root of today’s global unrest. “Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?” he allegedly said at a private dinner party in London. I think we call that by the French word “gaffe.” I wish I could say I’m shocked.

Judith Miller puts some more pieces together for us on Iraq.

JERRY JIVES: “I real recon’ dat da damn pagans, and da damn abo’shunists, and da damn feminists, and da damn gays and da damn lesbians who is actively tryin’ t’make dat an alternative lifestyle, de ACLU, Sucka’s Fo’ de American Way – all uh dem who gots tried t’secularize America – ah’ point da damn fin’a’ in deir face and say “ya’ helped dis happen. ‘S coo’, bro.” – Jerry Falwell, from the Sept. 13 edition of “700 Club.” Translated into jive.

LETTERS: Derbyshire’s hetero credentializing; why Chesterton is full of it; and gay history month?

KINGSOLVER AS THE SWEDISH CHEF: “I vunt tu du sumetheeng tu help reeght noo. Boot I cun’t geefe-a bluud (my hemetucreet elveys roons tuu loo), und I’m tuu fer vey tu geefe-a unybudy shelter oor a dreenk ooff veter. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! I cun oonly geefe-a vurds. Um gesh dee bork, bork! My ferbel hemuglubeen nefer seems tu vune-a, su vurds ere-a vhet I’ll ooffffer up in thees teeme-a thet esks ooff us zee best ceetizenship ve’fe-a ifer moostered. Bork bork bork!” – Barbara Kingsolver. She loves Sweden, doesn’t she?

“”The covetous, racist, and hated Jew Shylock, who cut the [pound of] flesh from Antonio’s chest with the knife of hatred, invades you with his money, his modern airplanes, his missiles, and his nuclear bombs. You must face a hard question: Do you, Christians and Muslims, wish to live, survive and fulfill your convictions? Or are you Abraham’s bleating lambs on the threshold of the Jewish altar, who are led to be sent to the Hereafter?” – Dr Ali Aqleh Ursan, chairman of the Arab Writers Association, in the Syrian publication Al-Usbu’ Al-Adabi, February 5, 2000, as reported in a terrifying piece in the Guardian.

ONE LAST THING, JONAH: I don’t want to drag this out, so this is really my final small word. Jonah is a wonderful writer, fair-minded, hilarious when he wants to be, and civil to a fault. So I don’t mean this personally. But one sentence he wrote haunts me. It’s this: “By having a single public standard that was inconvenient to everyone, but not tyrannical in its implementation – Oscar Wilde’s gaol time notwithstanding – there was no moral tragedy of the commons.” Jonah is referring to the Victorian standard of everyone adhering to a public norm of marital heterosexuality while doing anything they wanted to in private (Gladstone getting whipped by whores, etc.). Jonah rightly says that this is now a non-starter, but I think he is way, way too blithe about what he’s describing. Gay men and women were not given an easy break in any Anglo-American society until very recently. Thousands were jailed, humiliated, murdered without real recourse, demonized, or subjected to lives of such misery and shame that they could barely function. This was a form of tyranny. Some rose above it – see Oscar Wilde. But many, especially of poorer backgrounds, went through unspeakable private pain. Either forced into sham marriages or into the underground or the Church or education where their public lies each day diminished their dignity and integrity, these men and women were subjected to terrible cruelty. They were denied the saving power of love and the wonder of sex – without fear of exposure, imprisonment, violence or social death. I don’t believe that Jonah would ever countenance such cruelty; but he needs to come to terms with its moral legacy. There was indeed a “moral tragedy of the commons.” And only now, fitfully, is it being addressed and accounted for.

Now, it’s official.

Alistair Cooke, God bless him, still does his homework. It convinced him to support military tribunals.

PONNURU RULES: A judicious and completely persuasive analysis of foreign policy by Ramesh Ponnuru in the current National Review. Don’t miss it.

A CANADIAN GETS IT: Could politics be changing up north?

I guess he’ll continue, but how he can garner even the remotest public respect after this dissection by Ron Radosh and David Horowitz is beyond me.

“There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy out of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. It affirms, with no little sublimity, something that is not merely the singleness but rather the solitude of God. There is the same extreme simplification in the solitary figure of the Prophet; and yet this isolation perpetually reacts into its own opposite. A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets. Of these the mightiest in modern times were the man whose name was Ahmed, and whose more famous title was the Mahdi; and his more ferocious successor Abdullahi, who was generally known as the Khalifa. These great fanatics, or great creators of fanaticism, succeeded in making a militarism almost as famous and formidable as that of the Turkish Empire on whose frontiers it hovered, and in spreading a reign of terror such as can seldom be organised except by civilisation ” – G.K. Chesterton, “Lord Kitchener.”

LETTERS: The meaning of conservatism – and where gays fit in (if at all).

This is the week that lobbyists hope to shoe-horn tax-payers’ money to their favorite projects and paymasters. The biggest outrage is the wonderfully named Travel America Now Act. The Act would give us all a $500 tax credit to get on an airplane. This pathetic piece of economic micro-management is proposed by – yes! – a Republican. TANA is a wonderful piece of rhetorical ammunition for all those neoliberals who argue that Republicans only say they believe in market economics but are actually the tools of corporate interests. In the case of the current Republican party, the neolibs are increasingly right. Then there’s protection for catfish production, aid for sky-diver companies and all sorts of nonsense. It seems to me that president Bush has an opportunity here. Veto! Sure, some of these companies may have been disproportionately hurt by the aftermath of September 11. But it’s not the role of government to make sure anyone who gets a bad business break immediately gets a handout courtesy of everybody else. Some Americans are risking their lives in this war and many have already lost them – and these businessmen can’t get through a recession? Please. There’s a sweetheart deal for Boeing as well, just in case you thought the biggest corporate interests were spared. As always, John McCain is a lone, noble voice decrying this ugly spectacle. But if Bush came out against this opportunistic pork, wouldn’t it help him politically and also save us from some terrible legislation? C’mon, Dubya. Go for it.

KILL THE STIMULUS: Talking about terrible legislation, I’m praying for the ‘stimulus package’ to go down the tubes as well. The Dems have squeaked in a new healthcare entitlement, the Republicans are born-again Keynesians, and the entire package of accelerated tax cuts and handouts will almost certainly have an effect just when we don’t need it. I agree with Michael Barone that Bush can afford to see the stimulus die a welcome death. I don’t believe it will have any impact on turning around our little recession; I don’t think the Democrats are going to be able to run on the “Bush recession” next year with any real traction; and I do think voters will narrowly blame the Democrats for failing to pass one. Bush has already got a decent education bill under his belt. He has a successful war on terrorism. He will have a recovery by next summer. He can afford to let this piece of Keynesian nonsense go down the tubes. Here’s hoping it never reaches his desk.

STRESS RELIEVER: Is there a particular columnist that drives you up the wall? Dialecticize him! This dinky little site will automatically “translate” your favorite pundit into one of many accents. Here’s Madeleine Bunting, for example, as a redneck: “So we’ve been lef’ wif a straightfo’ward mo’al narrative: fine triumphs on over evil, ah reckon. It’s been this hyar kind of easy mo’alisin’ thet kicked me into th’ idiots’ camp fum th’ start. Th’ US may haf wanted t’exack revenge, but it was nevah sumpin ennyone c’d claim t’be mo’ally right.” Feel better? My favorite previous column by Madeleine gets translated as “No politics, We Is British.” Here’s Anthony Lewis’ farewell column as rendered by Elmer Fudd: “Wewigion and extweme nationawism have fowmed deadwy combinations in these decades, impewvious to weason, uh-hah-hah-hah. Sewbs in the gwip of wewigion and mysticaw nationawist histowy kiwwed thousands and expewwed miwwions in theiw “ethnic cweansing” of Bosnia. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!” Oh joy! The possibilities are endless. Have fun. And if you can come up with a particularly hilarious sentence (one or two only, please!) from one of the usual suspects, enter it into our Christmas contest. I’ll post the best entries as they come in.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE (FOR EGREGIOUS RIGHT-WING HYPERBOLE): “”The recent Billy Elliot was not bad, if you ignored the ingredient of homosexual propaganda that seems to be compulsory in British movies nowadays – some edict from the European Union, no doubt.” – John Derbyshire, National Review Online. This bizarre one-liner comes in the middle of a perfectly entertaining piece on ballet. Why the slur? If you’ve seen “Billy Elliott,” you’ll know that it’s about a straight ballet dancer. The only conceivable piece of “homosexual propaganda” is the fact that this straight guy doesn’t disown and actually gets along with a gay friend. This is propaganda? What Derbyshire objects to is the simple human presentation of a sympathetic gay character – in a movie about ballet, for goodness’ sake. Imagine if the movie showed that Elliott befriended, say, a Jewish ballet dancer. Would that be a piece of “Jewish propaganda?” I’ve come to like much of what John Derbyshire writes and then he throws this piece of bigotry in there. What gives?

HIZBOLLAH UNREPENTANT: More calls for suicide bombing. “We tell Palestinians, stay tough. Our martyrs’ operations are laying the grounds for the coming victory,” declares Hizbollah’s secretary-general. “Do not listen to those who say these types of attacks go against Muslim Sharia (law). Those who say there are civilians and soldiers in Israel are mistaken. There are no civilians in Israeli society. All of them are invaders, collaborators in crimes and massacres, and it is for this reason that you must continue on your path.” Charming, huh?

THE OTHER GOLDBERG: Bernie Goldberg’s withering attack on liberal bias at CBS rockets to Number 13 on the New York Times bestseller list. The Internet (i.e. Drudge) fueled this. Methinks the liberal media establishment is melting, melting …

A very powerful piece by Richard Cohen today. It’s really a defense of anger – justified anger. “[A]s for myself and countless other Americans,” Cohen writes, “our anger is so pure, so clean, so clearly the product of what was done to us, that to shame us for it mocks our humanity. It comes not from our insecurities or failings but from what is best in all of us — sorrow for the dead, sympathy for the grieving, concern for the future and love of our country. I feel no shame — but I would if, after what happened, I felt no anger at all.” I know what he means. I was talking to a friend in the gym today, a man who is mild-mannered to a fault, and he said that he wanted to shoot bin Laden himself. Personally, I’d like to pummel bin Laden’s head in for a while first. But the truth is, I am ashamed of this impulse. I was a little ashamed when gabbing with friends the other day, I was asked what I thought we should do with the Taliban stragglers. I said, “Three words: kill them all.” My faith tells me that these impulses are not simply wrong but sinful. We can forgive but we cannot excuse them. For years, I have tried to channel what is really a profound rage at the way society has treated gay people for so long into something more constructive and reasonable. I’ve been criticized for this, but anger, I still believe, is only and always part of the problem. It is never part of a constructive solution. I think what Cohen really means is that his anger is related to a sense of righteousness. In so far as anger is proportionate to such righteousness, then it’s a good sign but it is still not a good thing in itself. Killing bin Laden out of rage is not the correct response. We must not kill him because we are angry. We must kill him because it is just.

MUST READ: “Anyone who ever wondered about the extraordinary blindness of clever people towards the Soviet Union 70 years ago – all those Shaws, and Wellses, and Webbs, and G D H Coleses; all those subscribers to the Left Book Club – anyone, indeed, who thought we would never see such naivety again, has been able to enjoy a little trip down memory lane since September 11… Substitute Islamic fundamentalism for Soviet Communism and you will hear exactly the same argument being made today – with this one difference. At least Shaw and the Western sympathizers for Stalin believed in something: for all their folly, they had a kind of intellectual grandeur about them, a coherent philosophy to defend. Today, the Left doesn’t even offer an alternative – just endless nit-picking raised to the level of an ideology.” – Robert Harris, Daily Telegraph today. The American Left, of course, has not been as shameless as the British Left in this war. But the impulse is the same and Harris is right to name it: it’s not legitimate skepticism about a war; it’s a desire to see the West lose. Those faulty predictions were really wishful thinking gone awry. Thank God they were wrong.

JONAH AGAIN: Jonah Goldberg’s response to my response to him is now up on National Review’s site. He makes a couple of good points, although I think he has largely conceded the gist of my argument about what conservatism should be like. Our agreement is that conservatism is a messy temperament. Conservatives like what is, but they are not averse to what might be – if the change seems sensible, practical and moral. There is no conservative textbook, no fixed set of principles with which conservatives approach all political questions. That’s why conservatives place particular emphasis on the necessity for practical judgment, for prudence, in politicians or even political writers. And I think what Jonah is saying is that as a practical matter, the inclusion of gay people among conservatives is a non-starter. The Republican Party isn’t ready for it. The country isn’t ready for it. Get real.

The sentence that set Jonah off is the following one from a set of rough and ready suggestions I made for conservatism to adjust to the new opportunities proffered by the war. Here’s the offending sentence: “And why not win some gay votes, by noting and praising the way in which gay Americans . . . acted as patriots and heroes in an integrating national crisis?” This is my crazed and radical idea: that the president might actually include a previously marginalized group in a unifying national sentiment. In the piece Jonah is referring to, it’s almost the only mention of the subject of homosexuality: one sentence out of over 4,000 words. (Then Jonah goes off on a tangent about equal marriage rights, which it is not in the purview of the president to grant, which I do not mention in the piece, and with which Jonah in part seems to agree. On Jonah’s basic point that I should have patience before we get marriage rights, dignity in the military, etc., all I can say is: sure. But when every other NATO military bar Turkey has already included open gays, and when our current compromise has doubled the rate of discharges, why am I being impatient? As to marriage, I’m perfectly happy to let federalism work and have marriage tried out in a few states for a while to see how it transpires. But it’s the position of National Review that no such empirical experimentation should be allowed – ever – and that such a ban should be imposed by federal diktat. How conservative is that?)

Where was I? Oh, yes. A presidential acknowledgment of gay war heroes. Why, I wonder, was I so ‘quirky’ in suggesting such a thing? Was Senator John McCain quirky when he attended gay rugby player Mark Bingham’s memorial service and paid tribute to Bingham’s spouse? Was Colin Powell out of it when he presided over Michael Guest’s swearing in as ambassador to Romania, with Guest’s spouse present? Were Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford nuts when they supported equal treatment for gay citizens under the law? Was Dick Cheney a flake when he said in the vice-presidential debate that it should be up to states to decide whether to grant gays and straights equal marriage rights? Are all these people – luminaries in the Republican Party – raving solipsists for arguing that including gay people within the bounds of conservatism is good for gays, good for their families, good for Republicans, good for the country? Or is it only a gay man making this argument who is subject to the terms ‘solipsistic,’ ‘quirky’, etc?

Recall that I wasn’t even asking for anything more than words: simple words of inclusion and respect. Is there any Christian Church which wouldn’t endorse such a statement and see it as completely consonant with Christian orthodoxy? Recall too that I suggest this not as a way to criticize Republicans but as a constructive measure to help them win wider support. Jonah says it’s naxefve to believe that such a statement wouldn’t have serious “consequences for the conservative project.” I think he means it would antagonize a few religious right leaders. But why should it? What happened to the “hate the sin, love the sinner” concept? One of the people I think Bush should praise was a priest, for goodness’ sake. The other was a Republican jock who might have been one of those who actually saved Washington from terrible destruction. Sorry, I don’t get it.

As a practical matter, I think Jonah is too hard on his fellow Republicans. My experience is that they are not in fact the homophobes he seems to think they are. More and more of them know openly gay people and don’t have huge problems with them. More
and more are actually related to them. They may not be ready to sign on to, say, marriage rights – but I don’t think they’d be shocked if the president found a way to reach out to gays, especially in the context of a unifying speech which mentioned others as well. Bush did as much already in Austin, at the behest of his good gay friend, Charles Francis. Why not do more? Besides, as a political matter, the Republican Party is changing. The religious right is in retreat. Jerry Falwell has become a national disgrace. Pat Robertson has just quit. The new GOP chair, Marc Racicot, defended gay dignity and equality in his home state. The vice-president’s daughter is openly gay. Several key non-left writers – from Jon Rauch, Norah Vincent, Walter Olson, to Camille Paglia, David Boaz and yours truly – are openly gay. Many others whom Jonah knows all too well are privately gay. One thing conservatives surely shouldn’t do is deny reality. The gay presence in our culture is here. Sure, we’re a mixed bag, as all human beings are; but there’s plenty about gay people that good conservatives should want to co-opt, embrace and nurture. Jonah, it’s your refusal to follow the logical consequences of this that seems quirky and solipsistic to me. Get real.

“Meanwhile, the Taliban were hopelessly ignorant. They always buried the bodies too quickly for western cameras. Just compare them with the Kosovo Liberation Army, which ensured a storm of western moral outrage at Serbian ethnic cleansing by taking the cameras to remote villages to show them the dead bodies … The US may have wanted to exact revenge, but it was never something anyone could claim to be morally right. The Americans have unleashed a principle of foreign policy – it is legitimate to fight terror with even greater terror – that is causing havoc in the Middle East, could cause more havoc in Kashmir and is being used from China to Zimbabwe to warrant brutal repression.” – Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian. So the attempt to bring justice to the murderers of 3000 civilians “is never something anyone could claim to be morally right.” And the United States and Britain are the moral equivalent of Serbian fascists. I went to school with Madeleine. Whatever happened to her mind?

FAREED REPLIES: An email from another old Harvard friend. Plus: a guide to Nazi salutes.