Category: Old Dish

Philip Weiss asks the unasked question in the current New York Observer. The answer is: probably not as anti-Semitic as Phil Weiss. But it is interesting, is it not, that there are no Jews in W’s cabinet. (No homos either, closeted or otherwise so far as I can tell.) Weiss wonders whether this stems from W’s notoriously hostile reaction to the meritocratic elitists – read Jews – at Yale. To my mind, it’s a sensibility thing. Some goyim just don’t get it: Jewish humor, learning, ambition, wit, intellect, and so on. Bush is clearly one of those types. He’s uncomfortable around people with ‘ideas.’ He can sniff out condescension like a beagle near a McDonalds wrapper on the sidewalk. He’s not an ideologue, like Thatcher or Reagan, who both adored Jews and surrounded themselves with them. He’s more at home with practical types. I bet he’d get along better with Israelis than American Jews, for example. Does that make him anti-Semitic? Surely not. Rather he’s un-Semitic. He interacts with Jews the way some homosexuals interact with women: they might as well not exist. This could be a problem when he needs some intellectual support from the ideological press. But I have a feeling he won’t need much. There won’t be much ideological in the next four years to support.

No, I don’t get dressed up in pink to cavort around the English countryside. But that doesn’t mean I’m not appalled by Tony Blair’s latest piece of authoritarianism in banning fox-hunting. To see why, check out Foxy Business, posted opposite, and printed in this week’s issue of Time.

It’s a tight field so far, crammed with hyperbolic inanities worthy of the man this award is named for. But an early entry goes to Michael Chabon, a lovely fiction writer, whose politics comes off the shelf marked NPR. Here’s his take on W’s first day in Slate, debating with that perky contrarian Frank Rich: “So, right off the bat, pretty much the first thing G.W.B. does on settling back in that big black chair … is get to work on abortion. Did you catch that? The first thing! He’s going to block funding to international family planning organizations that offer abortion and abortion counseling. I suppose that in a way, as a message, as a deliberate indicator of future intentions, it’s as significant as Clinton starting right in with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But far more accurate, I’m afraid, and, God help us and the 7 billion other people on this planet now under the stewardship of the world’s most powerful Eric Carle fan, far more consequential. Maybe it’s just because I find it such a reprehensible and contemptible act that it strikes me as so much more significant than Clinton’s move, which was, taken on its own terms, far more equivocal and ultimately pointless.” A point of information. Clinton’s first move in 1993 was not lifting the ban on gays in the military. It was ending the ban on overseas abortion funding that Bush has just reinstated! Duh. But when one side, representing around half the country, does this, it’s political courage. When the other side, representing around half the country, does it, it’s “reprehensible and contemptible.” Earth to Chabon. You write wonderful short stories. Stick to them.

Devastating piece in today’s New York Times on John Ashcroft’s record in Missouri. According to reporter James Dao, Ashcroft’s record in that state was running as a fire-breathing conservative but governing as a pragmatic centrist: “As attorney general, for example, he ruled that religious literature could not be distributed at public schools and that federal money could not be used for teaching parochial school students, though he supported both policies. And when term limits ended his tenure as governor in 1992, the most common criticism against Mr. Ashcroft was not that he had been a firebrand conservative who tried to dismantle state government, but a careful administrator more adept at blocking Democratic initiatives than twisting arms to advance his own.” Take that, Ms Michelman! “Three times,” Dao reports, “[Ashcroft] endorsed Democratic-backed tax increases for roads and schools. He signed legislation increasing penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry and raised spending on legal services for the poor. And his legislative agendas relied heavily on bipartisan ideas, from economic development to higher pay for teachers to tougher penalties for criminals.” It looks increasingly likely that Ashcroft is going to be easily confirmed this week. As likely as the surprising development that the culture war waged by the Left is beginning to lose just a little bit of its steam.

Saw George Stephanopoulos on Sunday at the ABC News Brunch. I’ve always liked him, despite our differences. He’s never obnoxious, often smart, and he sure looks better than he did when he was flacking for Bill. So he deserves some credit for stating the obvious on television yesterday: “He [Clinton] pardoned a man named Marc Rich. You may not remember Marc Rich but he was a banker, a commodities trader, who was trading with Iran when they were holding terrorists and trading with South Africa under the Apartheid regime, indicted by Rudy Giuliani, instead of facing trial he went on the lam, lived in Switzerland for 17 years. His ex-wife has given $600,000 almost, over $500,000 to the Democratic Party over the last two years. This is outrageous.” Yes, George. But so was almost everything else. Rich’s ex-wife says she’s appalled and never asked for it. But Clinton’s not after her money; he’s after his. Who’s gonna bankroll a Hillary campaign? The Big Creep went out as he came in – hustling for cash. Here’s what the man deputed to process pardons at the Justice Department said about Clinton’s shameless abuse of his office even in its final hours: “I’ve never seen anything like this. We were up literally all night as the White House continued to add names. Many people on the list didn’t even apply for pardons.” No, but did they offer the Democrats half a million?

Several readers let me know that “playing with pain” is a sports analogy, referring to playing with an injury. My mistake. How I missed it with all the football I watch I just don’t know. But what in this case is the injury? Jackson seems fine. His grief and remorse lasted, ooh, well 36 hours.

I’m a typically conflicted libertarian-leaning Catholic on abortion, as regular readers will know. Personally opposed to all abortion but committed to maximizing human freedom in deeply contested moral areas, I can live with its being legal in the first trimester. But I try and respect both sides as far as I can. The one thing I can’t fathom, though, is the notion that one side is somehow more “extreme” than the other. I’ve heard several comments today from friends who see W’s suspension of overseas aid for groups that promote abortion as scary, divisive and extreme. Huh? Why is it more extreme than the previous policy that used tax-money to fund abortions abroad? The public is pretty evenly split, but somehow only the pro-lifers get called “out of the mainstream” by the media. But when Janet Reno came out and supported partial birth abortions, no hue and cry was uttered. Is it me or is there a double-standard here?

For anyone in a movement for modest social change, the attitudes of college students are often salient. They are the future, and although they may get a little more curmudgeonly as they age, their current attitudes predict something of the future of our culture. Good news, then, from my point of view, that a solid majority of college freshmen now back civil marriage rights for gay men and women. The Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, conducts an annual survey of over a quarter of a million freshmen – a hefty sample – and asks a whole variety of questions. Last year, 56 percent backed gay marriage rights outright. There’s a gender gap – with men less supportive than freshman women, 47 to 63 percent – but the majority for equal rights is now clear and growing by about 2 percent a year. More interesting, from my point of view, is that Catholic colleges show higher levels of support for civil rights than others. Almost 62 percent of freshmen at Catholic colleges back equal marriage rights. I’d like to think that’s because Catholic colleges put such a high premium on thinking rationally rather than emotionally and on following one’s moral conscience. And the movement for equal dignity for gay men and women in their lives and loves is a moral and rational crusade before it is anything else.

‘”A two-year-old story was made public,” Mr. Jackson said. “So, one can sense that there may be some motivation. But … I accept my responsibility. What we must do here is put our focus not on my pain, but the people’s agenda … Sometimes, leaders have to play with pain. I’m feeling well. My family is well,” Mr. Jackson said.”‘ – Associated Press. By the way, what does he mean by “play with pain?” Was that some kind of transcript error or is Jackson actually saying this whole exercise in responsibility and publicity was some kind of game? Maybe he really was Bill Clinton’s spiritual adviser. And was it completely coincidental that tonight’s Simpson’s episode was on Krusty the Clown’s discovery of his own illegitimate daughter? Krusty … Jesse. Suddenly the world makes a tiny bit more sense.

Don’t hold your breath for the New York Times or the Washington Post to report this, but today’s Naples Daily News reports on the results of their hand-recount of all uncounted ballots in Collier County, Florida. If you count every thing from dimples to pin-pricks, Bush gains an extra 770 votes to Gore’s extra 544. No big surprise in heavily Republican Collier, and a slight confirmation of Mickey Kaus’s “sloppy Dem thesis,” and Sullivan’s Law, which argues that Democrats are disproportionately likely to screw up their votes, especially if they’re female or elderly or black. Gore got 41 percent of the dimpled votes for the two major candidates and 33 percent of the real votes in Collier. Nevertheless, W still gained votes, even with sloppy Dems, which suggests that outside Democratic strongholds, Gore may well not have enough dimples, pin-pricks etc to pull ahead in a media recount (barring of course, the “over-votes,” which in most places on earth are known as spoiled ballots). The extra 226 Collier votes, after all, is almost half W’s state-wide victory, an impressive number, and shows the logic behind the Gore team’s effort to recount only in their own counties. They were worried that their own attempt to win the election might go awry if they allowed every county a hand-recount. Even so, Miami-Dade came up dry, and it even helped W. Bottom line: Florida wasn’t stolen by anyone. It was nearly stolen by someone. And that someone wasn’t Bush.