The Dish

Maybe I’m under-estimating red state tolerance:

I’m 26, and an out gay male living in Grand Junction, Colorado. It’s my hometown, and a very conservative place to live. Western Colorado is not known for its tolerance. The airport is named for the founder of the local KKK branch.
I came out 6 years ago in the big city of Dallas, TX and had the comfort of a huge “gay community” that included our own “gayborhood,” two city-council members and a supportive public. I moved back home to Western Colorado for various reasons about a year ago. I was dreading the idea of being “out” in the place I was born and raised…but I decided to be completely honest with anyone who asked.
Within a few weeks of course people asked about me. “Do you have a girlfriend? Why not? ” or simply, “Are you gay?” I was honest with everyone and expected a backlash. Nothing. Well, I say nothing…but what really happened was a lot of cool straight people smiled and said “Thats awesome” or “Oh yeah? Got a boyfriend? I know someone you should meet!”
I would say that no one cared, but in a sense, they all cared. They cared about me and wanted me to be honest and happy. I’ve even had a few of my straight guy friends say “You’re the coolest dude we know…gay or straight.” A few offered to kick any homophobic ass that says or does anything to harm me. Luckily that hasn’t happened…but the sentiment was nice.
I have had only one negative experience. I was at a club recently. Some random guy yelled “Faggot” in my direction. I’m not sure who it was, but they didn’t do anything else to cause trouble. Once I told my straight friends who were with me, they nearly started a riot. I had to hold them back from attacking anyone in that vicinity for calling me that name.
There I was, a gay man in the heart of straight country. And every person around me was willing to fight for my sake. I never thought that would have ever happened in my hometown. But it did. And I’m glad.

I’m glad too. The religious right is fighting a losing battle on this one. And they’re also fighting the compassion and love of the Jesus they claim to represent.

Of course, one critical reason that Dick Cheney will not relent in maintaining his right to order torture, even though he is increasingly isolated within the administration and has isolated the United States even further from its allies and friends around the world is … his concern for immunity from prosecution for past actions and decisions. The truth is that crimes have been committed against detainees – and those crimes were sanctioned all the way up the chain of command. If we agree to end the torture and abuse, the question then emerges of actually holding the really guilty men accountable. Pathetic show-trials of grunts, like the Abu Ghraib disciplining, won’t wash. Those thugs were obeying orders. Those orders came from their commanders and those commanders were given the green light from the very top – or at the very least were acting in a meltdown of confusion that their superiors created. There will undoubtedly be pressure from the White House to trade their own immunity – and immunity for the top brass – in return for new legal bars on torture and abuse. In my view, such a trade would be deeply wrong. After we stop the torture and abuse, there will come a time to hold officials in the executive branch responsible for what they have done and enabled. No deal, Mr Vice-president. You sanctioned these actions; and you need to take responsibility for them. If not now, then later.

Just when you think you have heard the worst about this administration’s chaotic, ad hoc, incompetent and intermittently criminal detention policies in the war on terror, a trap-door opens and you fall down another story. It is important to recognize that this administration reserves the right to detain anyone, include American citizens, anywhere, for any amount of time, without charge, sometimes without even documentation, and reserves the right to torture them as well. There are now close to 4,000 held without charge for a year. It is past time for the legislature and the courts to fight back and restrain – or at least bring some kind of order and legality – to this astonishing record. If the administration will not grant these prisoners POW status, it must agree to new rules that allow the innocent to be distinguished from the guilty, and to bar torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for ever. Pass the McCain Amendment now.

Eduwonk tries to get ahead of a looming debate.

SERMON WATCH: The Onion notices a very detailed homily. Meanwhile, a bishop faces reality in a humane and orthodox fashion.

I’m second to no-one in revering Matthew McConaughey, especially the image of him stoned, naked and on bongo drums. I can dream, can’t I? But I would like to dissent nonetheless.

“The alleged mistreatment of detainees and the inhumane conditions at an Iraqi Ministry of Interior detention facility is very serious, and totally unacceptable,” – from the U.S. commanders who have uncovered torture by the Iraqi army. We led by example, didn’t we? Immediately following that horrific story is the following one:

Army officials said Tuesday that they were looking into claims by two former Iraqi detainees that they had been put into cages holding lions to terrify them during interrogations in 2003. Thahe Mohammed Sabar said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union that soldiers had pushed him and Sherzad Khalid, a friend, into the cage, then pulled them out when a lion moved toward him. Mr. Khalid said soldiers had forced him into the cages after repeatedly asking where to find Saddam Hussein and unconventional weapons.

There you have what’s left of our moral authority in Iraq – and around the world. Rumsfeld called the latter allegation “far-fetched.” This from a man who sat on the evidence of Abu Ghraib for months. He should have resigned then. And he should resign now.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “Not all Americans wanted to do these things [i.e. treat prisoners humanely]. Always some dark spirits wished to visit the same cruelties on the British and Hessians that had been inflicted on American captives. But Washington’s example carried growing weight, more so than his written orders and prohibitions. He often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies. Washington and his officers were keenly aware that the war was a contest for popular opinion, but they did not think in terms of ‘images’ or ‘messages’ in the manner of a modern journalist or politician. Their thinking was more substantive. The esteem of others was important to them mainly because they believed that victory would come only if they deserved to win. Even in the most urgent moments of the war, these men were concerned about ethical questions in the Revolution.” – David Hackett Fischer, from “Washington’s Crossing.”

Some interesting context from MysteryPollster. What strikes me in the numbers is not so much the slightly waning GOP support for Bush and the intense Democratic opposition, but the shift among Independents. Last October, in response to the question: “Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with president Bush on the issues that matter most to you,” 46 percent of Indies agreed with Bush and 50 percent disagreed: a pretty even split. The numbers now are: 28 percent agree, 63 percent disagree. In the end, the center counts. And Bush has lost it. All hail the genius of Karl Rove.

TOP VICTIMS OF 2005: John Leo has some candidates.

END OF GAY CULTURE WATCH: More response from readers. They all tend to resonate with the point. Email one:

The local gay organization here in Seattle announced last week it is moving our annual Pride parade from Broadway Avenue, the spine of the gay community for 30-some years, to Fourth Avenue in downtown Seattle. Broadway has been dying a slow death for several years now, evidenced by the closing down of businesses, and an exciting literal and symbolic exodus out of the ghetto for countless gay men and lesbians. Broadway and Capitol Hill in general were rites of passage for most of us. We did our time in the bosom of our community, within walking distance of countless bars, meeting rooms, clubs, clinics and bathhouses. But for a number of reasons, Broadway is in decline, and it former inhabitants (graduates, even) are integrating thrillingly into the region at large.

The parade, however, has continued to draw crowds, and the annual post-parade rally at Volunteer Park has grown too big. The new route downtown will culminate in a rally on the Seattle Center grounds, in the shadow of the Space Needle. While Capitol Hill businesses are hollering that community leaders are now abandoning Broadway, and others lament the break from the traditional, I hear a fascinating bit of fear in those cries.

It was easy to grab a sign and show myself in the old Broadway parades. It was home, it was comfortable. It was our turf and those on the sidewalks were our guests. But next summer, we take our team on the road for what feels for some like an away-game. We are facing yet another coming-out – hundreds and hundreds in a single day. I have no doubt the community will turn out, but the event will take on deeper meaning for the intention and thought that will go into it this time. No one is stopping us – any resistance is our own. We are being asked to step out of our comfort zone and show our brave, tender, loving faces to a larger, more diverse crowd lining the sidewalks. It should be a fascinating, exciting day.

The same thing happened in Washington a few years ago. Now, we have pride right on Pennsylvania Avenue. Here’s another straw in the wind:

I’m a psychologist, age 61, in West Hollywood, CA; I’ve been in practice for 30+ years. I’m also a gay man, which I readily acknowledge when asked. Over the past 2-3 years, since insurance companies have been putting their provider panels on the Web, I get many clients who’ve found me themselves, rather than thru referral by telephone intake workers. People choose me because I’m close to their work, their home, or for some other reason of convenience.

As a result, I’ve been getting quite a few 20-something straight men who otherwise would not have been referred to me. Now, most of my straight clients figure out, sooner or later, that I’m gay. What I find interesting is that these young men just don’t care. It’s not that they’re gay friendly – they’re gay indifferent, gay whatever. There might be some curiosity, but for the most part, it’s not a relevant piece of information for them. When I’ve asked a few of them about this attitude, they all point to television as the familiarizing and normalizing influence. That’s it: television. This change is already and unstoppably happening.

Re: “less glamorous…than it now appears” reminds me of the old farmer’s saying: I’m not the man I used to be, and if the truth be told, I never was.

Of course, as I wrote in my essay, none of this means that homophobia is over, that fear and loathing of gays is defunct, or that discrimination and cruelty, especially in many red states and enclaves in blue ones, no longer exist. What it does mean is that change is happening extremely quickly. And it is happening among straight people as much as among gays. In fact, sometimes I wonder if the straight ones aren’t further ahead.

This is what I don’t get about Glenn Reynolds, who is a fine man and a great blogger. Responding to Matt Welch’s superb denunciation of the growing attempt to blame the media for the manifest fuck-ups in Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq, Glenn writes the following:

Reporting on things that are actually going wrong, without the “see, Bush is horrible!” spin, and false facts, that we’re getting elsewhere, is actually helpful, and we could use more of it.

A classic attempt to sound reasonable, but, upon inspection, hooey. Why, after all, should the president somehow be excused from reponsibility for the war he launched and has conducted with such glaring incompetence? Maybe Bush is horrible as a war-leader. Has that occurred to Reynolds yet? Maybe if he’d had the balls to point that out last year, instead of cowering behind the “Kerry-is-worse” meme for months on end, and hyping the Swift-Boat attacks, we’d have had more pressure to change course. For the record, it is not unpatriotic to call this president on the mistakes he has made – the grotesque recklessness of invading a country with no serious plan for the post-invasion, the wrecking of the United States’ reputation for humane treatment of prisoners, the debunked intelligence on which he relied (oh, sorry, we’re not supposed to criticize the guy who assured us that there were stockpiles of WMDs as a fact, because others were wrong as well). Reynolds simply won’t criticize the president for the mistakes for which this president is responsible. Worse, he’s arguing that anyone who points out that, yes, Bush is horrible as a commander-in-chief is somehow unhelpful or unpatriotic. One day, denial and distraction from reality will finally collapse at Instapundit. And it won’t be pretty. (UPDATE: David Adesnik has some helpful comments on other aspects of this here and here.)

Marty Lederman provides analysis here and here on the habeas corpus compromise.

A dissent from my opposition to torture:

I understand and sympathise with the dilemmas you posed in your column on war and freedom. However, except for the point about forbidding criticism of Islam or even telling the truth about Islam (which is the point of the bill to protect religion – no one seriously expects any other religion to be so protected), your arguments while pointing to a real problem are illogical and way off base.
Like most people today you judge western society by how well monsters and evil people are treated, especially if they fall into a couple of protected categories. This is false – it is how well ordinary people – especially the vulnerable and the weak – are treated that counts. There is a time for everything, including brute force. Indeed, there is an ancient saying that he who is merciful to the cruel will end by being cruel to the merciful.
You mentioned cruelty to the SS by the British during WWII. The only cruelty was to the world around by permitting such monsters to live. The SS had no human rights – they forfitted them when they perpetrated what they did. Islamofascists are in the same category. Indeed, if you want to understand the sociological origins and nature of Islamofascism look to the rise and background to the German variety.
The behaviour by the Americans you denigrate may well be counterproductive at several levels, and this is reason not to do it. The enemy being fought is undeserving of humane treatment, and the Arabs and Muslims must be made to understand this. Indeed, it is an affront to morality and decency to so treat people with humanity. All war is nasty, and this war is particularly nasty and cannot be made pretty. It is the reluctance of the Americans and the British to use the appropriate level of force that is a cogent reason why Iraq should never have been fought.
It may be complex, but there are times when cruelty is just and mercy is unjust. To figure out when what is appropriate is what makes us human and is our responsibility.

I draw the line at cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of people who are defenseless. And I draw the line at conflating the guilty with the innocent. Right now, we are crossing both lines – and severely damaging our cause because of it.