The Dish

They could do with some good Kazakh jokes right now:

I’m constantly asked about it, for some reason. Here’s an exchange in the new MW interview that may help clarify things:

MW: Given the case that you make in the book about the Republican party being taken over by fundamentalists who are so hostile to gays and lesbians, is there a point where it becomes ethically or morally wrong to be gay and Republican?

SULLIVAN: Having never been institutionally in the Republican Party, I never had to face that dilemma, but I’ve seen people who have. I was very proud of Log Cabin for not endorsing Bush in 2004. I think Patrick [Guerriero] did a spectacular job under insanely difficult circumstances.

I don’t know how gay Republicans can exist today unless they are actively out and actively fighting the forces within their party that are aligned against us. There is no space for, ‘I’m just going along to get along.’ No. We’re at war with these people, and they’ve made that very clear. The Mary Cheney option is contemptible at this point. Either you fight back from within – and I mean fight back from within, which is an honorable position to take – or you leave and fight from outside for the principles you believe in. But the coward option, I think, has to be called by its name. It is that. You’re enabling these people. At some point it’s sick. It becomes masochistic.

I’m never going to force that decision on anybody else, because I’m not judging anybody. But I’ve seen a lot of gay people in the Republican Party – just go to the Duplex Diner on Thursday night, it’s not like it’s a mystery. I know the strain that this has put on a lot of them and I know good people torn up about this. I just call them to stand up for themselves. That’s all I’m doing. We can sit here and we can judge and we can condemn, but as gay people we’ve been judged and condemned. Maybe we should be a little forgiving of one another, but at the same time, urging people to come forward and fight. It’s not easy. It’s never been easy. Our lifetime as gay men has been bewildering, to be honest.

But we dealt with it through this terrible plague as well, this hideous illness that struck so many people down. And the current younger generation I don’t think even understands what we went through, what we witnessed. For me that’s the fuel. The ashes of all the people I loved who are dead keep me going. I promised one of my best friends that I would not give up. And that’s still very much a part of my identity. I am a child of the plague and I will never, never forget that. For some of us, that changed us forever. It gave us a sort of intensity and drive that the younger generation cannot know because they are lucky enough to have escaped it.

(Photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP.)

"It seems to every administrator that it is only by his efforts that the whole population under his rule is kept going, and in this consciousness of being indispensable every administrator finds the chief reward of his labour and efforts.  Whle the sea of history remains calm the ruler-administrator in his frail bark, holding on with a boat-hook to the ship of the people and himself moving, naturally imagines that his efforts move the ship he is holding on to.  But as soon as a storm arises and the sea begins to heave and the ship to move, such a delusion is no longer possible.  The ship moves independently with its own enormous motion, the boat-hook no longer reaches the moving vessel, and suddenly the adminstrator, instead of appearing a ruler and a source of power, becomes an insignificant, feeble man," – Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace."

(Photo: Haraz Ghanbari/AP.)

We have news of the first attempted prosecution of the defense secretary for authorizing torture. You could see this coming. At least, I did, and Bush did. The case is coherent, as I pointed out last July. Rumsfeld had better not travel abroad for a very long while; or he could be arrested.  Same goes for Gonzales and the other war criminals in this administration.

Another reader dissent:

While I understand your point about the desirability of a popular vote to finally reject efforts to overturn gay marriage rights, I disagree that the legislature has somehow acted improperly or that its action somehow taints the result.  The state’s constitution spells out clearly how to amend the constitution: approval of the amendment on the ballot for two sessions by the legislature followed by a popular vote.  There is a clearly defined role for both the legislature and the populace and an obligation by both to use their independent judgment in weighing changes to the constitution.  Yesterday the state legislators, constituting a duly elected body representing the people of Massachusetts, decided by a majority vote that, in their judgment, the proposed constitutional amendment was not one they could support.  The only way to see this result, in my opinion, is as legislative ratification of the state constitutional right of gays to marry.

As with any other bill or constitutional amendment, the proponents of the gay marriage ban are free to campaign to "throw the bums out" the next time they are up for election and try again with a new set of legislators.  That this effort is doomed to failure by the fact that only the opponents of gay marriage rights, not the supporters of such rights, seem to lose popular elections these days, while an enjoyable fact, is of no account in this analysis.

What was Elton thinking?

The rumors are flying.

A reader remonstrates:

By dismissing them as liars and party hacks, I don’t think you’re really confronting their argument head-on. I know because I’ve had this argument a million times with conservative friends. Rush and Hugh are probably being sincere in their contention that the Democratic party is SO debased and oblivious to the terrorist threat that it would put our safety directly at risk to not overlook some of the flaws in the current Republican leadership. To them, even to entertain the notion of giving power to a modern-day Democrat is to embolden our enemies and show ourselves as cowards to the rest of the world.

So, much like you and your temporary kinship with liberals, Rush and Hugh put their objections to the side and unite with a deeply flawed group of politicians. Just as you see the christianist/free-spending Republican threat as so serious as to require putting an otherwise unattractive bunch of liberals in power, Rush and Hugh see the democratic threat as so serious as to require keeping the republicans in power. If conservative vision gets trashed in the process so be it – conservatism is strong enough to reassert itself when the threat to our existence is not so imminent. To counter this, don’t you have to defend the leadership abilities of a bunch of indefensible democrats? What have they shown us to deserve such praise?

Two responses: if Hewitt and Limbaugh had said before the election that they knew these Republicans were not conservatives, and didn’t deserve their support, but that they were still preferable to any Democratic check on presidential power, it would be one thing. But they didn’t. They bit their tongues on the GOP. That’s intellectually dishonest.

The second point is: is their fear of the Democrats a rational one? On some key issues, I just don’t think so. On the war, it is hard to imagine how much worse you could get than Rumsfeld’s management. Is Biden really lunatic to propose dividing the country? Is Levin eager to allow Islamist terrorists to win? Please. Show some respect. On spending, again, how much worse could it have been? These guys increased spending at a faster rate than any Democratic Congress since FDR. I could go on.

There comes a point at which an adult conservative should be eager to see the Democrats come to the center, if only to avoid the hubris and corruption that always stems from one-party rule, whichever party it is. I think the explanation for the intellectual dishonesty was that an entire industry was built around demonizing the left; and that this demonization became all conservatives were about. There was so much money in it; and it was so easy to demonize liberals that that’s all they ended up doing.

The Republicans had become so enthralled by what they were against that they had forgotten what they were supposed to be for. So they came off as negative, mean-spirited and cruel. Hence the solid American center moving back to the Dems. The result, however, is in many ways a good conservative one. Many more conservative Democrats are now in Congress than before. We have a chance to move in a realistic way in Iraq, now that the loonies have been removed from the Pentagon (Cambone has just been given his papers, I hear). And we may get a sensible compromise on immigration. Bush has a real opportunity to rescue his presidency. For the sake of the country, I hope he succeeds.

Radar online has an interview with the "angry hustler" who exposed Ted Haggard’s hypocrisy. They also have an interview with me on the book, by the way. The gay press has also perked up. My Q and A with Washington D.C.s’ "Metro Weekly" can be read here. If you’re interested in my own interaction with the gay world, it may help explain a few things. For them, I have always been perceived as a conservative, whatever the right is now trying to claim.

"Everything we know tells us that mankind developed by small gradations from earlier forms.  With modern genomics we can even set approximate dates for the various changes.  At which point in this everlasting series of changes were we kissed by God?  Or:  How would we go about seeking an answer to that question?  And if, at some point in the series, God did indeed say:  "This is my favorite creature, this one I will bless with special gifts"‚Äîif that actually happened, why might not it un-happen?  If God can bestow His favor at some point in our phylogenetic development, why might He not withdraw it at some further point, for His own mysterious purposes?  How do we know this hasn’t already happened?  How, in fact, do you detect this specialness‚Äîthis having been favored by God?  What would be the difference between a human being, or the human race, thus favored, and one not thus favored?  How would I tell which was which?

My main point about biology in my original piece was just that up until about 150 years ago practically everyone believed what Wesley believes‚Äîthat we are a uniquely blessed and gifted creature.  All the big religions of the world are built around that notion.  It is now clear that we are not, after all, special in the way we thought.  And that weakens faith.  That’s all.  As I said in my piece, the creationists are perfectly correct to hate and fear modern biology.  Probably all religious people should hate and fear it.  If its discoveries pass the very strict evidentiary tests required by science, though, then to reject it is just obscurantist," – John Derbyshire, NRO.

The alternative, of course, is to integrate what we thought we knew of God into what we now know is empirically true about the planet. I explore how a revitalized Christianity should embrace Darwin in my book.