The Dish

I’m busy preparing for the move to the Atlantic, which will happen over the weekend. Many of you have written to ask how you can find me in the future. There’s one easy way. If you go into your bookmark preferences, just type in http://www.andrewsullivan.com as a new bookmark, and when you click on it, it will always redirect you to wherever this blog finds itself. Many of you already have it bookmarked from the early days. (I realized the other day that I was blogging daily during the Clinton presidency. Oy.) The same URL applies. Alternatively, you can just bookmark this current page – and Time.com will automatically redirect all traffic to the new site for the next twelve months (I put that in the contract over a year ago). Or you can go to www.theatlantic.com, and find me there. But bookmarking is best. And if you do it now, you won’t miss a beat.

A reader had another concern:

So, Andrew, are you going to be able to use the cool Time illustration of you when you move the blog? My wife & I love the illustration because of the beagles (I have a home office myself, with three dogs plopped around. We’re thinking of getting a "dog couch" in here).

Alas, we’re not bringing the cartoon with us – it’s Time’s. But we have asked the cartoonist, Terry Colon, to come up with a new one, debuting later this week. I’ve looked at the sketches, and it has the beagles. Eddy appears to be yawning rather loudly and scratching her back. Dusty is, of course, asleep. By Monday, the new site should be fully operational. For a few days over the weekend, the site will slowly "propagate." My mother always hoped I’d do that one day.

In German:

I’m working on the next epistle and I will restrict my arguments entirely to addressing Sam’s. But the debate has spawned a wider debate in the blogosphere, and, while continuing the dialogue, I see no reason not to link to other comments. Here’s one. Send me others and I’ll link. Money quote:

Harris, like so many rational atheists before him, is having a field day because of this gap, between the ineradicable, beautiful (in my opinion, despite even that clip) human impulse to believe in something grand, mysterious, and organizing, and the unfortunate impulse to codify that imagined thing until it becomes shabby, baseless, and arrogant — far less grand and not at all mysterious. In short, because of humanity’s stubborn, misguided insistence that our deepest, most meaningful searches lead to math, not just metaphor.

A reader recalls his moment of clarity:

Although, like you and like many others, my own personal descent from the bus was gradual over the course of 2003, I can remember with perfect clarity the moment my feet hit the ground for good: the Abu Ghraib scandal. When I saw those photos, the moral center of the war completely collapsed for me. My support for the war was grounded in my pride as an American, in my belief that America’s only source of strength was its ideals and that these ideals were available to all. Abu Ghraib and the administration’s shameful response to it made clear that, whatever other justification it might have, the Iraq War was not a war for American ideals. Though up until then I felt a great deal of despair and anger at the Bush administration over their execution of this war (and still do, of course), Abu Ghraib left me with the principal emotion I will feel whenever, for the rest of my life, I think back on this war: shame.

Yes, Abu Ghraib was my epiphany too. I knew immediately that the deeper war – for democracy and decency – had been lost at that moment. The enemy didn’t win. Through the torture policies he enacted, Bush surrendered. The other night, I watched an astonishing British documentary set in Iraq in the days after the invasion for the following year or so. It followed the life of a man who called himself "The Liberace of Baghdad." He was a piano player in a hotel, a Christian, a womanizer, and a chain-smoker. The documentary managed to convey more graphically than anything I have ever seen the chilling terror of a slowly collapsing social order, enabled and made possible by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

We saw it through a sane, civilzed Iraqi’s eyes – and witnessed the pain he felt at seeing what was left of his country torn to pieces by preventable anarchy. But what struck me most was how I had almost forgotten the idealism that once surrounded this war, the hope that it could lead to a better world, the knowledge that a terrible evil, Saddam, had been removed, the chance for progress in the heart of the Middle East. Time plays tricks on our minds; and I had forgotten the great optimism I had only recently felt. My response to the documentary? Renewed, indelible shame that I had supported an administration so manifestly unwilling or unable to do the right thing. I should have known better. I was far too naive, and caught up in the desire to fight back against Islamist evil to recognize the callower, casual evil I was enabling in the Bush administration. When I hear of the thousands of innocents who have been killed, tortured and maimed in the Rumsfeld-created vortex, my rage at what this president did is overwhelemed by my shame at having done whatever I did to enable and even cheerlead it, before the blinders were ripped from my eyes. This war has destroyed the political integrity of Iraq. But it has also done profound damage to the moral integrity of America.

Ignore Matt Yglesias’ snarky, vapid post, but check out the comments on his blog about the unexpectedly high levels of tax revenue generated by Bush’s tax cuts. Heritage’s Brian Riedl gets in the mix.

It was much more significant in the 2006 elections than the white evangelical vote. In 2006, a full 36 percent of self-described libertarians voted Democrat – easily the biggest share of that vote that the Dems have had in recent times. In general, the libertarian move away from Christianist big government Republicanism has been intense these past six years of Bush. In 2000, Bush won 72 percent of the libetarian vote; in 2004, he won 59 percent. In 2002, the Republican advantage over Democrats among libertarians in the Congressional elections was 47 percent. By 2006, the gap had narrowed to 23 percent. Cato argues that the libertarian vote is about as large as the Christianist vote, and subject to swings three times as powerful. You can read the PDF report on the data here.

Britain’s Conservatives are unimpressed the the Bush-Rove Republicans. Their foreign policy spokesman, the Americanophile William Hague, is urging a less supine relationship with Washington and new alliances in the Pacific. Yep, Mr Bush, you’ve even lost the British Tories.

It just took a hit from well-meaning but misguided attempts to force Catholic adoption agencies to be open to placing needy kids in the nhomes of adoptive gay couples. It isn’t the law yet, and the British parliamentary system means that, for the Tories at least, the vote will be one of conscience. My conscience tells me that denying needy children good and stable homes, just because their new parents will be gay, is morally wrong. There is no evidence to suggest such chidren will have any worse future than others; and some evidence to suggest they are likely to get better parenting. but my political principles – specifically my belief in unfettered religious freedom – tell me that the right of religious organizations to practice bigotry and even cruelty in their own affairs is integral to a free society.

Sadly, at this point in history, the Roman Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge the dignity and equality of gay people. We are deemed by Rome’s hierarchs to be "intrinsically disordered", unworthy of the priesthood, sick, enemies of our own families and a threat to civilization as a whole. This dehumanization of gay people is a terrible stain on the Church, but that should be of no business of the government. There are also alternatives. If the Church comes across a child who might be taken care of by an adoptive gay couple, it can still transfer that child to another agency. If I were a member of parliament, I would vote against this bill. There are plenty of avenues in Britain for gay couples to do the selfless and admirable job of raising abandoned or orphaned children in need. There’s no need to trample religious liberty in the process. If the Church wants to side with bigots against the needs of children, it should be able to do so. It pains me, but it is none of the government’s concern.