A reader writes:
"I am rapidly losing my hair and have a neatly trimmed beard. I’m 28 and married to a beautiful woman. She finds my baldness "distinguished" and the beard sexy. It’s not just for gays, Andrew. The revolution is everywhere! PS: My back is also extremely hairy. She loves that, too!"
What a woman.
"Throw a bash at the White House advertised as the bash to end all bashes. Have only neocons. They are a terrible-looking bunch, so I’d get off the wagon, if I were you. Make sure there is plenty to eat because of John (four dinners) Podhoretz. Then, as midnight strikes, have Big Julie from Chicago come in and do his thing. Rataatatatattatat … You know what I mean. It’s the only chance you have to go up in the polls." – Taki Theodoracopulos, giving the president advice, from the London Spectator (sub req).
Yesterday, I expressed puzzlement and depression at the polling news that American Christians are more likely than non-religious Americans to support the Bush policy of torturing and abusing military detainees. A reader objects:
"If you think about it, the results are not so surprising.
Consider: forced conversions ("you can die of hunger or convert"), the Salem witch trials, the Inquisitions. And I would not be at all surprised to learn that Christians favor the death penalty more than non-Christians.
I think it not unfair to say that Christianity, unlike, say, Buddhism, contains or permits belief systems that support horrific means for just ends. Heresy is, thus, grounds for burning at the stake. An "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Attacking the USA (satan vs. saint) is grounds for torture.
To be honest, I am more horrified by the support for torture from people such as Alan Dershowitz who really should know better."
All I can say is that faith founded genuinely on Jesus could not begin to endorse such a concept (which is why I find Bush’s endorsement of it so troubling). But then Christianity’s history shows, alas, that Jesus’ followers have not exactly always been faithful to his teachings. Today’s age of politicized and intolerant Christianism seems to me to be one of those moments when Christianity has estranged itself most thoroughly from the priorities and spirit of its founder. But this will pass. Christianity will survive Christianism. Some true followers of Jesus will recover their faith from Caesar’s grip at some point.
Well, he can indeed reach a point where he’s writing sentences like:
While Saletan cites my “Here Come the Brides,” he doesn’t talk about the most potentially stable form of multi-partner union: a man and two bisexual women. That union does reduce jealously, and also points to the potentially powerful bisexual constituency for multi-partner unions.
Ah, yes, that powerful female bisexual community! We all tremble in fear of its revolutionary potential. (And this is finally what Kurtz’s loopy argument against gay marriage via polygamy comes down to.) Funny how after observing gay politics closely for almost two decades, the bi "community" has always felt itself to be a bit player, ignored and condescended to by gays and lesbians and the transgendered. If they haven’t sadly mustered much clout within the gay movement, does Kurtz really believe they are about to storm the barricades of society as a whole? Or are we really dealing with someone here who is now chasing his own ideological fantasies? If you want to read a reasonable discussion of the issues, try Will Saletan.
They are, apparently, officially, back. Just keep an eye on the homos, see? We were pioneering the big facial hair a few years’ back, and finally the straight guys are getting into it. Of course, the heteros have to get past women and Gillette, but some women like beards, and Gillette’s already jumped the shark with its seventeen-blade razor. Some tips and customer support. There’s a stage when about 70 percent of men give up: the itchy and scratchy show that sets in after a few days. That separates the bears from the cubs. If you can hang in there through that, it actually gets less scratchy and itchy in a week or so than keeping the face shaved all the time. Then there’s simply the length. Most people, especially your mother/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband (in descending likelihood), will acquiesce as long as you keep it real trim, which is a wussy way to grow a beard. So fight over the size of the guard on the trimmer. My own preference is to use a quarter inch guard for occasional pruning, but to use a pair of scissors just to trim the stray hairs that inevitably make the beard look too unkempt. That way you get to grow the beard slowly, while avoiding the bramble bush look. The models above include one famous Jew-bear fashion star, Oliver Kamm, and his far better-looking friend whose name I’m now too distracted to recall.
Update: the beautiful Jew-Bear whose name first escaped me is Steve Gershman.
Things must be rough for the president because even Fred Barnes has clambered out of the prone position and is proposing a radical shake-up of the administration. Money quote:
The president’s most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.
There’s a let-down, however. Fred wants to move Cheney to Defense. At that point, the idea gets loopy. But give Fred points for trying. The chances of such a shake-up, alas, seem to me to be close to zero. This president cannot seem to fire people; and he cannot easily manage them either. New people scare him. My prediction? He’ll sleep-walk with the same people and the same pillow till he’s sent back to Crawford. But I hope I’m proven wrong.
Don’t worry. I haven’t dropped this ball. In fact, I intend to run with it some more and hope you can help. Here’s my intention, but I’ll need to beg a little of your patience. I’m taking notes on all your suggestions for saving money – both current spending and future liabilities – and hope to come up with a serious wish-list for righting our fiscal mess. My idea is to then send the program to some independent experts – on the right and left – who will give us a rough idea of whether we have achieved the goal of retruning the government to fiscal sanity. One ground-rule: we keep the current income tax rates and payroll taxes, but we can remove deductions or tax shelters. I know many will call that raising taxes. So be it. I like the broad reductions in rates because they don’t penalize success. I’m also open to restoring the gas tax to where it was years ago (or more, if necessary) and restoring the estate tax. But the main point of this is to cut spending – on entitlements and discretionary spending, including parts of the defense budget, if needs be. I’ve set up a new AOL address to receive your suggestions: WhatIdCut@aol.com. Keep them coming.
The trouble is: this takes time and effort and focus and my book deadline is April 1. I’m nearly there but don’t have time to do all this right now. I’m not ducking this. I think we could do a real service by hashing this out. Maybe some of us fiscal conservatives can even come to some agreement with moderate liberals on what a reasonable solution might be. But give me a few weeks or so to revisit this. Deal? Meanwhile, keep the suggestions for cuts coming. Pretend you’re a dictator who can impose a solution. Once again: WhatIdCut@aol.com – no apostrophes. The politicians seem unable to solve this. So maybe an army of fiscal Davids can. Have at it.
Will Chef ever be able to escape the super-secret, brain-washing cult, the "Super Adventure Club"? I don’t know. They have amazing brain-washing techniques. Is his transformation into a Darth Vader Super Adventure Clubber reversible? Not many people escape its clutches. But wherever you are, Chef, and whatever they have done to you, know this: we still love you. And we want you back.
It’s a fatal combination, as Jon Chait explains.
A reader writes:
"I’m a conservative (and editorialist/reporter) from New Hampshire who covered the same-sex civil marriage issue for my community newspaper. As a matter of fact, I was present at one of the lengthy public hearings held throughout the state. A raucous affair!
As such, let me tell you and your readers this: this amendment never had any chance of passage from the start, for political "inside pool" reasons as well as our "Live Free or Die" motto. The widely-held view by state legislators (off the record, of course), was that the committee’s recommendation of an amendment to ban gay marriage was more indicative of the committee chair’s views than a general consensus of what the state felt on the matter. In fact, I know of more than one legislator who drifted from the committee for precisely those reasons.
So it’s no surprise it got voted down roundly by the State House. New Hampshire has been – and will continue to be – a libertarian state. We hate taxes (no sales or income tax here!), we hate big government (we trust it to plow roads, and that’s about it), but we don’t hate each other. Gays and lesbians are too much a part of our social fabric – our friends, family, neighbors, and yes, politicians – for this ridiculous constitutional ploy to have had any chance. In response to your post, then, I’m not sure if this marks "a turning tide," as the tide was never flowing in favor of the amendment. At least not here.
This is the type of Republicans we are, Andrew, and this is the type of Republicans we will remain, theocons or no!"
Keep hope alive.
The Dish 