SUPPORTING IAN FISHBACK

The hero who has blown the whistle on illegal abuse of prisoners has given up a lot to fight for the integrity of his country and his military. I know many of you wish to send him emails of support. Because he is sequestered and under interrogation, this is not easy. So I have set up an AOL email address: SupportFishback@aol.com. I will forward all your emails to his family, with whom I am in contact, and to his lawyer. I am reassured that Ian will receive the emails. He needs your support right now. His bravery, his integrity, his patriotism and his service are worth your support. Please let him know. Again: SupportFishback@aol.com. I will keep you posted.

THE TIDE TURNING?

Public support for amending Arizona’s state constitution to ban gay couples from getting married or having any legal protections is waning:

The poll of 390 voters done last week found that 60 percent are likely to oppose the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative if it makes the November 2006 ballot. Only 33 percent said they would vote for it, and the other 7 percent were undecided.

Polls in California and Massachusetts are showing the same trend.

EMAIL OF THE DAY

“My God. I had to stop today and do a spit take, along with a Jon Stewart-style ‘Whuuuuuuaah?!?’ while rubbing my eyes when I read this in your remarks on the Bennett kerfuffle:

I too was sent dozens of emails calling Bennett out on his alleged racism. But it seemed unfair to me, given the full context of his remarks which are empirically hard to refute and whose immorality he went at length to emphasize.

Count this as a dozen and one. Empirically hard to refute?!? This is like saying it’s empirically hard to refute that if we simply exterminated all homosexuals, it would put a real dent in the HIV-AIDS rate, or that nuking all of Mexico would really cut down the illegal immigration problem. Technically those statements are “true,” yet simply making them betrays one as a moral monster, even when you then uncomfortably clear your throat a few moments later and claim that you were just playing devil’s advocate or whatever. I find this far worse than anything Trent Lott ever said. DeLong is being too even-handed by half, but I don’t even know how to respond to your observation that Bennett really wasn’t all that wrong. Sometimes, like with the Abu Ghraib issue, or gay priests in the Church, your moral compass is finely tuned with justice, but then I guess you have something for breakfast on occassion that just sends the needle spinning. You’ve completely lost it on this one.”

I’m sorry, but when you look at the full context of the remarks – specifically responding to a caller’s assertion that abortions in the past meant lost revenue for social security in the future, Bennett’s entire point was to oppose such idiotic generalizations and he used the “black babies” point as a way to reinforce that point. I stand by my moral sense here. This is simply a lesson in not using hyperbole or arguments designed as reductio ad absurdum when your comments can be wrenched out of context. And again: I’m no fan of Bennett. He has wrenched things I have written out of context for his own purposes. What he said was ill-advised, poorly phrased but not evil.

YGLESIAS AWARD NOMINEE

“Bill Bennett is a hypocrite, a loathsome fungus on the tree of American politics, a man who has worked unceasingly to make America a worse place–when he’s not publishing the work of others under his own name, or rolling the dice at Las Vegas while claiming that America’s poor would be rich if only they had the righteousness and moral fiber that he does. But Bill Bennett is not afflicted with genocidal fantasies about ethnically cleansing African-Americans. The claim that he is is completely, totally wrong.” – Brad DeLong, on his blog. I too was sent dozens of emails calling Bennett out on his alleged racism. But it seemed unfair to me, given the full context of his remarks which are empirically hard to refute and whose immorality he went at length to emphasize. By the way, I differ from the extremity of DeLong’s remarks about Bennett, although I’m not a fan. (Hat tip: Patrick Semmens.) Runner up in this case: Matt Yglesias himself.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Hellerstein should be drawn and quartered.” – a guest on the Bill O’Reilly show last night, referring to Judge Hellerstein who ordered the release of the full Abu Ghraib photos. He was the one defending the notion that commanders should be held responsible for abuse of prisoners! I would have thought Fox News, given recent events, would try not to broadcast violence-laden attacks on judges.

BUSH AND GENEVA: Greg Djerejian notes some delicious ironies.

ANTI-GAY SLEAZE IN MASS: The petition irregularities to ban marriage and civil unions for gays are mounting up. By the way, the polls suggest that, if held today, the initiative would fail. At the rate the Massachusetts polls are moving in favor of equal marriage rights, I can’t see its chances improving by 2008.

SOURCES: RealClearPolitics wants me to clarify the source of those quoting Donald Rumsfeld’s alleged hostility to the revelations of Ian Fishback. They have a fair point, given the gravity of the issue. Obviously, I don’t reveal sources, especially in a sensitive matter like this. But in this case, it behooves me to say that a very reliable source who has consistently provided very accurate information in the past gave me the information that a third party used the words attributed to him about Rumsfeld. I did not speak directly to the third party. Yesterday, I contacted the source again. The source does not retract the quote, which is attributed to a third party. But others I have since been in contact with, who are just as familiar with the situation, and one who is more so, differ and have said that the quote is unfair to Rumsfeld and that while Rumsfeld is following the case very closely, his view is not as extreme as that quote suggested; that he is merely paying very close attention to the case; and concerned about the accuracy of the accusations. By the way, I am trying to find a way to get emails of support to Fishback. I’ll report back if and when I find one.

THE STRENGTH OF VIRUSES

An emailer makes an interesting point:

If HIV follows the same trend as other epidemic diseases, the outcome will be a little more subtle than a generalized weakening of the virus. In areas where practices to reduce the severity and transmission of HIV are broadly applied, the virus will indeed weaken. This is due to selection pressure on the virus to keep its host alive long enough to successfully pass the virus on to a new host. In areas where little is done to prevent the spread of the disease, it will remain virulent and selection pressure may even favor more-virulent strains. This is because, with hosts dying relatively quickly, aggressive viruses are more likely to make the jump to their next host. A well-studied analog is the cholera parasite. In countries with poor sanitation, periodic outbreaks are characterized by their virulence. In the US, the disease is mostly confined to travelers returning from overseas. However, an endemic strain has developed in Texas and Louisiana which is characterized by mild symptoms and the ability to survive outside the classical human host/contaminated water cycle. References here and here. This divergence of virulence might explain why different studies come to different conclusions on the matter. It also seems a strong argument for extension of first-world HIV prevention/treatment practices to the rest of the planet.

Meanwhile, we have a new U.N. avian flu czar.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I’m afraid that, no matter what comes to light in the Abu Ghraib materials, you’re still gonna be disappointed. There is far too much else going on right now domestically for the majority of average Americans (and sorry, but living in Provincetown, MA, you don’t have a clue what we are thinking) to get all excited over something that happened 12-18 months ago thousands of miles away in a country brimming with folks trying to kill American military personnel and innocent Iraqis.
Oh sure, the Dems, the Wa Post, NYT, MSM at large, various bloggers and those predisposed to an anti-military and/or GOP animus will wring their hands, but most Americans will greet it with a yawn.”