Category: The Dish

… and confronts Senator George Allen. A moving moment. The next generation of gay kids are the best yet. They haven’t been as psychologically damaged by homophobia as my generation; and they won’t take being treated as second-class citizens and human beings. I’m proud of being part of a gay generation that stood up for our dignity and equality at a critical time and changed history. I’m even prouder of the generations that are coming.
(Hat tip: John.)

Here’s a wonderful example of how global country music can be. In a cricket match against India, the England team was up against it. They needed inspiration:

Flintoff revealed that a blast of country music during the lunch break was behind England’s inspired display of seven wickets for 25 runs. "We went in the dressing-room, had our lunch then played a bit of Johnny Cash, Ring of Fire," he said. "It got the lads going and we came out afterwards with a spring in our step."
Matthew Hoggard admitted: "I’m the only guy that’s sad enough to have Johnny Cash on his iPod. We had a rousing rendition and that seemed to do the trick."

Still walking the line. Or should that be "bowling"?

(Photo: Robin Jones/Getty)

The Wall Street Journal doesn’t think so. Even those who offer token opposition to the practice imply that this kind of thing has happened in the past and we shouldn’t take much notice of it. Here’s an interesting transcript from a trial of Japanese interrogators after World War II, who "waterboarded" American detainees in captivity. The war crimes prosecutor is getting testimony from an American soldier who was waterboarded:

"Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?

A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.

Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.

A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again.

Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?

A: Yes sir they did.

Q: How long did this treatment continue?

A: About twenty minutes.

Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?

A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

Here’s the CIA’s formal description of the waterboarding technique approved by president Bush for use in Guantanamo and in other secret CIA torture sites around the world:

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

Sound familiar? It’s worth placing in the public record that the Bush administration’s torture policies are, in this specific respect, the same as the Japanese dictatorship’s in World War II. The American prosecutor at the time dismissed charges against the American serviceman whose testimony appears above on the following grounds: "The untrustworthiness of any admissions or confessions made under torture would clearly vitiate a conviction based thereon." How far we’ve sunk. And it took a Christian president, supported by Christian voters, to take us there.

There’s been a significant drop in new HIV and AIDS cases in Florida this past year. Not earth-shattering, and only one year’s data – but I’m passing it along because the MSM almost never reports on decreases in HIV and AIDS rates. They have a story line that HIV is exploding everywhere, especially among gay men, and they sure aren’t going to report on anything that disturbs that line.

According to this Pew poll, Americans favor torturing detainees in some circumstances by a wide margin. There’s a reason John Kerry didn’t bring it up in the debates. And there’s a reason Cheney and Rumsfeld know they can continue the practice: they have widespread public support. Most disturbing to me are the high numbers of self-decribed Christians favoring torture: only 26 percent of Catholics oppose it in all circumstances, while only 31 percent of white Protestants rule it out entirely. If you combine those Christians who think torture is either never or only rarely acceptable, you have 42 percent of Catholics and 49 percent of white Protestants. The comparable statistic of those who are decribed as "secular," which I presume means agnostic or atheist, is 57 percent opposition. In other words, if you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic. Christians for torture: it’s a new constituency. Another part of the Bush legacy.

"One doesn’t want to be accused of inhuman callousness; but I am willing to confess, and believe I speak for a lot of ["To-Hell-With-Them-Hawks"] (and a lot of other Americans, too) that the spectacle of Middle Eastern Muslims slaughtering each other is one that I find I can contemplate with calm composure," – John Derbyshire, National Review.

"My mum wrote me a letter the other day and she said, ‘Son,’ – she’s 86 years old – she said, ‘Son, please don’t become a Democrat’.
And I told my mum, I called her and I said: ‘Mum, you know what? I want my party back. I don’t want to become a Democrat. I want my party back.’
The Republican Party that I knew, that I grew up in, a moderate party, a party that believed in fiscal discipline, a party that believed in small government, a party that had genuine conservative values. This is not a conservative leadership. This is radical leadership. I called them neo-Jacobins. They are radical. They’re not conservative. They’ve stolen my party and I would like my party back," – Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief aide.

Vive la Resistance!

Chef’s back! But only as an image in tonight’s episode. And there’s something very strange about the slowly unfolding saga of Isaac Hayes and South Park. It’s worth recounting the chronology again, just from the public record. The Scientology episode, "Trapped in the Closet" ran November 16, last year. On December 7, the "Bloody Mary" episode aired. On January 4, Hayes gave the following interview to the Onion:

"AVC: There’s some pretty harsh satire on South Park. They don’t really care who they offend.

IH: But that’s their thing! Their success was built on that cutting-edge stuff. I’ve had to defend them a lot of times. One time on BET Tonight I defended them because Tavis Smiley, the host on that show, was coming at me. It was a call-in show, too, so people were calling in. I told them not to take this stuff seriously. If you do, you’ll get in trouble. Just enjoy it. Remember your high-school yearbook? You look at those pictures now, you laugh, right? That’s what South Park is. You got to laugh at it. Because we cursed, but we just didn’t dare let the principals, the teachers, or the preachers hear it. And we didn’t turn out bad, okay? Just look at it that way. Also, usually there’s some kind of moral message at the end for the kids, by the Chef.

AVC: They did just do an episode that made fun of your religion, Scientology. Did that bother you?

IH: Well, I talked to Matt and Trey about that. They didn’t let me know until it was done. I said, "Guys, you have it all wrong. We’re not like that. I know that’s your thing, but get your information correct, because somebody might believe that shit, you know?" But I understand what they’re doing. I told them to take a couple of Scientology courses, and understand what we do. [Laughs.]"

That sounds pretty grown-up and easy-going, and like the normal Isaac Hayes, no? But on January 18, Hayes is admitted to "an undisclosed Memphis hospital" for "exhaustion." On March 18, he resigns from the show, citing its "bigotry." That’s a major change of tune from his Onion interview, which was conducted after the "Bloody Mary" episode as well. What happened to change his mind so drastically? Then we have this Fox News story by Roger Friedman:

"I can tell you that Hayes is in no position to have quit anything. Contrary to news reports, the great writer, singer and musician suffered a stroke on Jan. 17. At the time it was said that he was hospitalized and suffering from exhaustion.
It’s also absolutely ridiculous to think that Hayes, who loved playing Chef on "South Park," would suddenly turn against the show because they were poking fun at Scientology. Last November, when the "Trapped in a Closet" episode of the comedy aired, I saw Hayes and spent time with him in Memphis for the annual Blues Ball.
If he hated the show so much, I doubt he would have performed his trademark hit song from the show, “Chocolate Salty Balls.” He tossed the song into the middle of one of his less salacious hits and got the whole audience in the Memphis Pyramid to sing along."

Something doesn’t add up here.

A reader writes:

"I hate to sound like I’m degenerating into ad hominem, but Kevin Drum seems to lack a basic understanding of the federal budget. You are absolutely right to slam him for taking entitlements off the table. But there’s more direct dishonesty in the way he treats your proposals.
For starters, you need to call him out on the idea that Medicare pays for itself. That’s simply not true. Not even close. The lion’s share of Medicare – and I’m talking 2006 when the prescription drug bill hasn’t even come online – is subsidized by general revenues, not the HI payroll tax. Second, crediting you with $0 on corporate welfare is brutally dishonest. Yes, there’s corporate welfare on the tax side, but there’s also about $100 billion on the spending side: everything from the Export-Import Bank to the Advanced Technology Program to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to the "Byrd Amendment" to Oil & Gas R&D Program and literally scores of other corporate subsidies not done through the tax code."

I think Kevin may have misunderstood my first post because of my own loose language. But I do see something at work here. It’s very important for some on the liberal-left to tar all conservatives with the Bush brush. His embrace of spending gobs and gobs of other people’s money is what some on the left have always wanted. Bush has already conceded their basic point: "when someone hurts, government has got to move." All they need to do now is to raise taxes and then fix the Medicare plan to screw the drug companies and bingo! As I’ve said now for years, the only real fiscal difference between Bush Republicans and Kennedy Democrats is the difference between Big Insolvent Governent and Big Solvent Government.

But many left-liberals don’t want this analysis to sink in with centrists, principled Republicans or fiscally conservative Democrats. So their preemptive move is to discredit the real conservatives who would actually like to restrain spending, rein in entitlements and keep much of the tax cuts (while reforming the tax code to eliminate the myriad deductions). So they have to insist that people like me and Bruce Bartlett are dishonest or have supported the Bush program all along, even when they know full well we haven’t. This is the Krugman line as well. The aim is to discredit conservatism as a whole for a generation. Bush has done much of their heavy lifting for them. But they still need to discredit the handful of die-hard fiscal conservatives left.

A big victory for conservatives over Christianism in New Hampshire.