Category: The Dish

A reader writes:

You and your blog have given me a sense that there is a light at the end of this tunnel of political darkness. I consider myself a liberal, but agree with most of what you put on your blog. Our country is certainly headed in the wrong direction, our spending has spiraled out of control, we have brave young men and women dying in Iraq, and those in power only want to talk about illegal immigration (and not seriously reform it) and wedge issues like gay marriage that only further divide these "United States."

I have lived my entire life in the south and have thus been surrounded by conservatives for as long as I can remember. You have broken the mold of what I consider to be a  conservative and have helped me realize that there is hope to once again unite this country. You have helped me to realize that what unites us is far more than what divides us. This Congress and Administration have done nothing but played upon the fears and prejudices of the voters in this country and have in the process become the corruptness they ousted in 1994. It warms my heart to know that there are conservatives out there that are as disgusted as I am and yearn for change – and that liberals like me and conservatives such as yourself can collaborate to piece this country back together.

Karen Armstrong makes a powerful case in defense of the nun’s full habit and the Muslim chador. In a free country, I absolutely defend the right of any woman to freely choose to wear the chador, wherever she wants. But no-one is proposing banning it. And in public schools, where people have to teach students, I can see a reason to restrict it, because it is an impediment to doing your job. Facial expression matters in teaching. So does a clear voice. But freedom means the full chador must be defended as a public act of religious expression, if chosen voluntarily, as well. Armstrong writes of a fascinating historical parallel in this respect:

In Victorian Britain, nuns believed that until they could appear in public fully veiled, Catholics would never be accepted in this country. But Britain got over its visceral dread of popery. In the late 1960s, shortly before I left my order, we decided to give up the full habit. This decision expressed, among other things, our new confidence, but had it been forced upon us, our deeply ingrained fears of persecution would have revived.

But Muslims today do not feel similarly empowered. The unfolding tragedy of the Middle East has convinced some that the west is bent on the destruction of Islam. The demand that they abandon the veil will exacerbate these fears, and make some women cling more fiercely to the garment that now symbolises their resistance to oppression.

I grew up as a religious minority in an overwhelmingly Protestant country, where the head of state was also the head of a church. And my belief in religious freedom – and in the absolute separation of church and state – is as embedded in that as it is in my love of America, my new home.

It really was too good to last, wasn’t it? Google is clamping down on YouTube. No more Comedy Central; no more South Park. Once youTube was sold for $1.6 billion to Google, you knew the suits were on their way to cripple what made YouTube great. They’re morons, of course. Getting your message across on YouTube helps expand your market, reaches new viewers, spreads brands and expands knowledge. Crippling YouTube this way means that their $1.6 billion is about to go up in smoke.

Update: I should have read the piece more closely. A reader points out:

This was not Google’s doing. Rather, it appears that in light of Google’s purchase of YouTube, Viacom, who views Google as a competitor, decided not to look the other way any more, and demanded that its copyrighted content be removed from YouTube. So, if you are going to blame anyone, blame Viacom.

Well, we already knew that Viacom was evil. Remember what they did to Matt and Trey? All I can say is that Google needs to do a deal with Viacom to keep their purchase of YouTube viable.

A reader writes:

In your post on the anti-Stem Cell ad featuring Jim Caviezel, you wondered whether he was speaking Aramaic.

As it turns out (according to Reason’s blog), he is, and he’s saying "You have betrayed me with a kiss."  Who this is directed to I am not sure.  (The voters of Missouri?  Michael J. Fox?)  It does seem, however, that Mr. Caviezel is confused as to if he once simply played Jesus or if he actually IS Jesus.

A lot of people seem to be making that mistake these days, don’t they?

"Seven blunders of the world that lead to violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics without principle," – Mahatma Gandhi.

(Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters.)

I was chatting with some friends after the Maher show. They’d been against the war from the beginning. They were African-American and said it was obvious to them that the WMD argument was what they called "game." They weren’t surprised. I was. I believed George W. Bush. And I trusted him. And as the evidence has poured in that my faith and trust were betrayed, my surprise has turned to rage. I’m not a generally angry person. But if I have placed my trust in someone on a matter of this gravity and I find out they lied, bungled and betrayed me and others who trusted them, then all I can say is: they picked the wrong guy to bamboozle.

You don’t send 19 year-old kids to risk their lives and die to protect your own political power or advance your own partisan purposes. You don’t abandon thousands of innocent Iraqis who also trusted you to marauding gangs of terrorists and murderers, and stand by and tell critics to "back off". You don’t ask people of good faith to support you in a critical war and then secretly breach the Geneva Conventions and torture people and blame only a few grunts on the ground for your war-crimes.

The anger of the left, I realize, was always there. But the anger of the betrayed and decent right and center is deeper. Some readers think my anger has gotten the best of me. Maybe on occasions it has. But I’d rather be too angry than too afraid to call these people what they are.

But if you think I’m angry, read conservative, pro-war blogger John Cole.   

Here’s Christianism in its finest hour:

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum accused state Treasurer Bob Casey of "aiding and abetting terrorism and genocide," saying yesterday that state pension funds are invested with companies linked to terrorist-sponsoring states… Santorum did not cite specific examples but referred to a report by the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank that has pushed for divestment from companies doing business in terror-sponsoring nations.

"Bob Casey has invested Pennsylvania pension funds in companies with ties to terrorist-sponsoring states and states that engage in genocide," Santorum said. "Bob Casey is aiding and abetting terrorism and genocide."

Beyond disgusting. Can even K-Lo defend this slime?

San Rafael, California, 3 pm.

Too many gay activists do stellar work fighting against anti-gay marriage amendments and laws. But they are too often crippled by self-censorship and, well, politics. Evan Wolfson, one of the heroes of today’s civil rights movement, expains why this is counter-productive here:

So far, too many of our state campaigns‚Äîboth the short-term election efforts and the longer-term public education work‚Äîfail to offer the voting public real content and an authentic engagement. Too often they have not used the airtime of an election battle to talk about gay people and marriage ‚Äî the two things these ballot measures are most about ‚Äî instead relying on generic appeals to fairness. Too many of our side’s campaigns have chosen to emphasize collateral effects on non-gay families, as if voters will really be persuaded that what the media will always refer to as "the marriage amendment" is somehow not about gay people’s freedom to marry. Worst of all, many campaigns and activists have gone with the message that people should vote the measure down simply because it is "unnecessary" or "goes too far." That subliminally suggests ‚Äî unintentionally, but in a way that is still damaging to our long-term movement ‚Äî that some discrimination is okay and that it would indeed be a problem if we really did have gay couples marrying.

We will not win until we are unafraid. I believe civil marriage for gay couples is moral, it is right, it is good for society – and anything less is immoral, wrong and bad for society as a whole. (My fundamental case is made in my 1995 book, "Virtually Normal.") Let us make this case – calmly, honestly, openly. And we will win – for one reason only. Because we are right.

"In a recent interview with Vice President Cheney, Time magazine asked, "If you had to take back any one thing you’d said about Iraq, what would it be?" Selecting from what one hopes is a very long list, Cheney replied: "I thought that the elections that we went through in ’05 would have had a bigger impact on the level of violence than they have … I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence. I think that was premature."

He thinks so? Clearly, and weirdly, he implies that the elections had some positive impact on the level of violence. Worse, in the full transcript of the interview posted online he said the big impact he expected from the elections "hasn’t happened yet." "Yet"? Doggedness can be admirable, but this is clinical," – George F. Will, the best conservative writer in America today.

(Photo: David Burnett for Time.)