The Dish

Keep them coming. We have three new entries:

“Drawing is taking a line for a walk.” – Paul Klee:

“Architecture is frozen music.” – Goethe

“Poetry is the music of what’s happening.” -Seamus Heaney.

A reader takes issue with my Larkin quote:

When it comes to jazz, is there a better one-line description than (New Yorker) jazz critic Whitney Balliett’s famous observation that jazz is “the sound of surprise”? I don’t think so. Larkin’s description falls a bit short because he describes how jazz works, i.e., what jazz does. Balliett, however, describes what jazz is.

IT’S NOT SATIRE FOR ADULTS: The debate over “Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed” continues. I am accused of being one the most humorless people on earth. By John Podhoretz. But it isn’t satire. It’s indoctrination. (Yes, lefty idiots ruin their case by posting fake parodies of the illustrations, but lefty idiots have been makng Sean Hannity’s job easy for years now.) From the blurb:

This news-making book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.

Chairman Mao, anyone? It has caricatures of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. It has a Democratic donkey under the bed, posing as a member of the press. Jonah thinks the left does the same thing. I’m sure there are examples out there, but they are generally fuzzy tracts about saving the earth or explaining why over a hundred thousand kids have two parents of the same gender. I haven’t yet seen or heard of any 4 – 8 year old kiddies’ books which caricature George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Bill Frist, or get into the details of tax policy or the liberal media. This is also not a fringe book. It’s #44 on Amazon! In a word, it’s creepy, in the way all ideological fanaticism is creepy. From one Amazon reviewer:

Our children need to know that there are those in our country who desire to limit our freedom, such as our freedom of religion, our freedom from governmental control, and the freedom of our markets. The extreme, elitist, liberal minority in the U.S. starts foisting its agenda on our children from kindergarten. But, with more educational materials like this book, perhaps we can teach our kids to truly be free thinkers and help them to recognize the elitist liberal bias in all its forms.

So the culture war is now in Kindergarten. The author, by the way, is not a humorist:

Katharine DeBrecht is a mother of three. A freelance newspaper reporter who previously worked in Washington, D.C., she is a member of the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women and served as that state’s co-captain of “Security Moms for Bush.” Ms. DeBrecht graduated cum laude from Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, where she studied political science and history.

Whatever else this kind of ideological indoctrination is about, the notion that it is promoting freedom of thought is risible.

The latest horrifying torture revelations give his proposed anti-torture legislation a push. This is a real war within Republicanism right now: the decency and honor of John McCain and Lindsey Graham versus the incompetence and brutality of Cheney and Rumsfeld. And in army captain Ian Fishback, we have a real American hero. In his words: “We are America. Our actions should be held to a higher standard. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is ‘America.'” That’s the real voice of the U.S. military. And it abhors the brutality this administration has sanctioned and covered up.

How many were killed in the Superdome? Apparently: one.

“Command is a sacred trust. The legal and moral responsibilities of commanders exceed those of any other leader of similar position or authority. Nowhere else does a boss have to answer for how subordinates live and what they do after work.” – Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 22-100, sec. 1-61.

“An Army inspector general’s report has cleared senior Army officers of wrongdoing in the abuse of military prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere, government officials familiar with the findings said yesterday.” – Washington Post, Saturday.

It’s still unclear what impact the war on terror is having in the Middle East, with some positive signs and still worrying possibilities in Iraq and elsewhere. But the impact on America – and on the U.S. military – is already clear. The United States has become a country that practices and condones torture and abuse of war detainees – even in a conventional conflict, such as Iraq. The legal memos allowing this are clear; the responsibility is clear – from president Bush down. And the consequences are clear: hundreds and hundreds of cases that prove systematic, approved torture and abuse of prisoners in every field of conflict, in camps and bases across Afghanistan and Iraq. The latest news about Camp Mercury is sickening, horrifying, but, at this point, utterly predictable. And when you read the Human Rights Watch report, and hear what the courageous and heroic soldiers say about what they witnessed, the conclusion is unavoidable. Scott Horton takes up Marty Lederman’s baton and explains more here. Money quote:

Soldiers state they fully appreciated that the abuse to which the detainees were subjected was sanctioned up the chain of command. A decision apparently had been made not to apply the Geneva Conventions in the War on Terror, and unambiguous instructions had come down the line of command to “take the gloves off” with the detainees. But one officer saw Donald Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004 saying that the Geneva Conventions were being respected in Iraq. “Something was wrong,” he said. The officer went up the chain of command and to the JAGs in theater trying to get clarification of how the Geneva Conventions could possibly permit what was happening. He got nowhere. Moreover, he found he was subjected to implied and direct threats. Asking questions or reporting on what he saw would affect “the honor of the unit” and would damage his career.
The officer attempted to report these matters to several Republican senators. When his intention to do this became clear, officers in his chain of command denied him leave and took other steps to block his actions.

I think it’s pretty clear that the military knows they have a lot to hide and that Rumsfeld knew he was lying when he assured Senators that the war in Iraq was being conducted in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The cover-up of abuse that was the norm went all the way up the military command to Rumsfeld himself. Someone had told these officers that torture was now okay. That someone told the Senate another version.

THE END OF ACCOUNTABILITY: The Bush administration – especially vice-president Dick Cheney and Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld – have fiercely resisted releasing critical documents that could nail this down without any doubt. They threatened to veto any bill that would bar the CIA from inflicting torture, and they oppose any Congressional attempts to insist that the U.S. military be legally forbidden from “cruel, inhumane or degrading” treatment of detainees. We need to see the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos that have been withheld, but we also need some critical documents, in order to categorically disprove propaganda like that recently published by National Review. Horton again:

Until the Yoo March 14, 2003 memo is released to congressional oversight — and to the public — it is impossible for any serious analyst to accept the Harvey and Schoomaker claims about the role of doctrine. To the contrary, the unjustified withholding of this document — along with the military’s own Church Report, and the numerous primary documents collected during that investigation — invites a strong inference that their claims are false. Moreover, at this point the text of the March 14, 2003 memo in and of itself is not enough. We need to see exactly how it affected military doctrine in the form of advice given by the DOD General Counsel’s office, the JAG Corps, and the Military Intelligence branch, among other things. Some e-mail traffic I have seen among MI officers in Iraq suggests that this memo shaped actions on the ground in the War on Terror within a matter of weeks, if not days.

Horton reminds us of an important fact. In the military, responsibility goes up the chain of command. Punishing the grunts, while excusing those who devised these policies is not only unjust, it violates basic principles of military accountability. Read this analysis from someone who actually cares about the military’s reputation. The president has already repeatedly declared his own view of his own responsibility for what goes on in his administration: others are always to blame. Only with Katrina did he manage to spit out his own responsibility. But destroying centuries of honor in the U.S. armed services is a graver crime than slovenly hurricane response.

The always informative Peter Steinfels looks beyond the gay issue in the new series of seminary visitations in the Catholic church. Examining the questions asked, he notices something striking:

There are no explicit questions about the seminarians’ capacities for initiative, creativity or imaginative and consultative leadership, although some of these qualities are undoubtedly taken up in the various church documents found in the footnotes.
There is no explicit question about concern for social justice, unless that could be assumed under a single reference to “apostolic zeal.” By comparison, there are numerous questions specifically asking about recitation of the rosary, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, devotion to Mary and the saints and many other “exercises of piety.”
A single question asks whether seminarians are being taught “a proper understanding of the role of women in ecclesial life” and “the proper models of clergy-lay cooperation.” The next question makes clear that what is “proper” is to be found in statements by Pope John Paul II and his Vatican officials. Of the 96 questions, just these two address the intellectual potential of future priests.

If you want to know why most lay Catholics find their priests’ homilies to be, at best, embarrassingly dumb and facile, look no further. The most recent survey found that only 10 percent of priests were educationally “highly qualified” to teach effectively. Moreover, many of John Paul II’s new generation of orthodox priests don’t want to study: “regardless of native abilities and educational experiences” they resist “the learning enterprise” because it threatens their “preconceived ideas about theology.” The Jesuits still do great work, of course, and so do other orders. But there’s no question that the last and current papacy regard inquisitive minds and fearless intellects to be threats rather than assets. They want automatons to obey their bosses, not priests capable of leading or inspiring a diverse, modern flock. Of course, many of the most gifted and intellectually alert priests are gay: they truly chose their vocation despite the obvious conflicts and know their theology. But they are now to be purged. I wish I had better news; but it seems to me that what is happening is a defensive crouch that will shrink the Western church even further. More important: that is the point.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I visited the Vatican in early August and met a person who is deeply ’embedded’ in the world of those who run Vatican City and who govern the global machinery of the Catholic Church. According to this person’s estimation, he guesses that a “conservative estimate” of those cardinals and senior church officials who are gay is about 50 percent. Practicing, as opposed to just flirtatious, homosexuals at the highest levels of the church are probably about 30 percent. When I asked whether homosexuals would be better served under Pope Benedict XVI than under John Paul II, he responded, ‘Don’t think that we will be any better served under a gay pope than a straight one.'” – Steve Clemons, Washington Note.

The Louisiana Congressional delegation get their snouts in the federal trough.

I was lucky enough to have coffee yesterday with Kyle Maynard. He’s a nineteen year-old congenital amputee with more energy, focus and dignity than most able-bodied people. His book is out this week, aptly titled “No Excuses.” Yep: the guy can bench press 360 pounds, with arms that end at elbow stumps and legs that end where most people have knees. He’s a wrestling champion and the first person I thought of when I met him was Don Rumsfeld. Boy, those two would get along. From the minute I tried to move a couch out of his way, and he simply clambered effortlessly over it, I saw something quite stirring. He answers his cell phone more quickly than I can; he writes with ease and fluency; his eager eyes pierce right through you. Kyle may perhaps represent the best of what might be called the disability movement. He has that South Park mentality that doesn’t try and hide disability or difference, but places it right in front of you. And then – through that fact, not around it – you begin to see the larger dimension of the person. It’s called integration – not avoidance, denial or embarrassment. Of course, I see the parallels with gay people – how the future is being made by people whose gayness is right there on the table, but eventually becomes integrated into an understanding of the full dimensions of someone’s personality and character. Ditto for those with HIV. Kyle believes that his disability shouldn’t prevent him from doing anything he wants to do or anyone he wants to be. But first you have to embrace the disability as a part of who you are – without fear or deflection. Reading his poignant, personal book is a joy. Buy it and try and get to see “Murderball” as well: the astonishing documentary on quadriplegic wheelchair rugby tournaments. I think we have a new moment in disability culture; and it’s a truly inspiring and progressive one.

The marriage has officially broken up.

HOW CAN YOU TELL …: … when a political ideology has become the equivalent of a religion? When it attempts to indoctrinate 4 – 8 year olds. Check out some of the illustrations here. (Update: the illustrations on that site are fakes and parodies. I apologize. I was conned. The book, however, is utterly real and sincere. It is not a parody and it is not aimed exclusively to adults. For more: see here.)

EXCUSE ME? From the NYT today:

Though “The Color Purple” tells a story of redemptive love and the triumph of the human spirit, it does so through some unsettling elements, including family violence, incest, racial discrimination and lesbianism.

Nice to see how some people view homosexuality. Just as unsettling as incest and racism. In the New York Times.

“In music the passions enjoy themselves.” – Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Section 106.

Thanks to several readers. The Daily Dish: conservatism for Nietzsche readers.