The Naturalness of Homosexuality

Tangopenguin_1

Homosexual bonding and sex are ubiquitous in nature, despite the ignorant attempts of the far right to describe it as "unnatural". A new exhibition in Norway finally presents the evidence in full, inspired by Bruce Bagemihl’s ground-breaking book, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity." Money quote:

Bagemihl had scoured every scientific journal and paper he could lay his hands on for references to homosexuality in animals. Tucked away at the end of long and erudite texts, or consigned to footnotes and appendices, he found that homosexuality had been observed in no fewer than 1,500 species, and well documented in 500 of them. The earliest mention of animal homosexuality probably came 2,300 years ago when Aristotle described two female hyenas cavorting with each other.

Bagemihl’s book provided the inspiration for this exhibition, and any notion that homosexuality is a uniquely human trait is quickly disposed of. You are greeted by a pair of swans ‚Äî the very symbols of romantic love ‚Äî who turn out to be a female couple. "Up to a fifth of all pairs are all male or all female," reads the accompanying text.

Then you come to the photograph of the whales "penis fencing" above which hang — for no apparent reason — two actual whale penises, both several feet long and looking like stretched and desiccated turnips. Some of the male whales meet year after year, says Bockman, while their relations with females are fleeting at best.

Homosexuality is as much a part of God’s creation as heterosexuality. And those who refuse to acknowledge this are denying … reality.

(Illustration: the charming children’s book, "And Tango Makes Three.")

The “Surge” Fades

George Will adds a little ice to the cold water:

Under a "Laird-Abrams" approach, winning would be the "direct goal" of Iraqi units. There is, however, this sobering arithmetic: Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel.

There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many – perhaps most – of whom are worse than incompetent. Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem. Therefore even a surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure.

Wayne White – for 26 years with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, now with the Middle East Institute – calls Baghdad "a Shiite-Sunni Stalingrad." Imagine a third nation’s army operating between (and against) both German and Russian forces in Stalingrad. That might be akin to the mission of troops sent in any surge.

The main argument against getting further enmeshed in Iraq’s civil war is that we will find ourselves allying with one part of it. No American should die defending the sectarian claims of Sunnis or Shia. And certainly not to give any failed politician political cover.

First Krauthammer, Now Brooks

More realism, in the sense of common sense, from another sorta-neo-con, David Brooks (Times Delete). His idea of giving up Baghdad and focusing on protecting those few pools of order left in Iraq is, at least, a credible policy for withdrawal that has some chance of political success within Iraq. Money quote:

Perhaps it’s time to merge the military Plan B ‚Äî the surge ‚Äî with a political Plan B ‚Äî flexible decentralization. That would mean using adequate force levels (finally!) to help those who are returning to sectarian homelands. It would mean erecting buffers between populations where possible and establishing order in areas that remain mixed. It would mean finding decentralized governing structures that reflect the social and psychological facts on the ground.

The record shows that in sufficient numbers and with sufficient staying power, U.S. troops can suppress violence. Perhaps more U.S. troops can create a climate in which decentralized arrangements can evolve.

Practically speaking, it would probably mean withdrawing primarily to the Kurdish areas. The worst that can be said of David’s proposal is that it’s far more realistic than the leaked plans of the president. If the "surge" we are contemplating is indeed a mere 20,000 troops and if it is dependent on the pesh merga, and if it is accompanied by a puny $1 billion for reconstruction, then we know one thing: this is not a serious military proposal. It is a serious political proposal – to tread water in Iraq until Bush can hand it over to his successor.

Half-Mast

Halfmast

It was beautiful in Washington today, and I took a bike ride down to the Mall to be a tourist for a change. (Aaron got me a new camera for Christmas – so I used it.) The flags are still at half-mast for president Ford. These surround the Washington monument. The sun was going down and it was around 70 degrees.

(Note: A few readers have emailed to point out that the term "half-mast" should really refer solely to flying flags at sea. The more correct term for flags on land is "half-staff," although both terms tend to be used interchangeably these days.)