The Dish

Here’s another piece of evidence that sexual orientation is genetically hard-wired. For my part, I don’t really see the political or moral salience of this. The origins of sexual orientation will one day be better understood. But I know of no theory – even those of the “reparative therapists” – who believe that orientation is somehow “chosen.” I know of no theorists, including those on the religious right, who seriously argue that it isn’t largely fixed (whether through genes, environment or a combination of the two) by the age of three. The point is that, regardless of its origin, sexual orientation is experienced by the overwhelming majority of homosexuals as involuntary in every sense of the word. Those activists on the far right who claim otherwise are, at some level, accusing people like me of lying about a fundamental reality in our lives. We’re not. The only salient political question is: how do you integrate a small minority of people whose sexual orientation is fixed as the opposite of the norm? Stigmatize them for being different and write them out of constitutional protections? Or integrate them into the family and the society as equal citizens, and demand the same responsibilities from them as everyone else?

SMART JEWS: Eventually, the empirical links between intelligence and genetics will be unable to be denied. But sit back and watch people try.

Here’s an unusual instance of uniformed officers speaking directly to the press about the impossible task set for them by Rumsfeld:

From last October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles. “Resources are everything in combat … there’s no way 400 people can cover that much ground,” said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar. “Because there weren’t enough troops on the ground to do what you needed to do, the (insurgency) was able to get a toehold.” said Wilwerding, 37, of Chaska, Minn.
During the past two months, Army commanders, trying to pacify the area, have had to move in some 4,000 Iraqi soldiers; about 2,000 more are on the way. About 3,500 troops from the 3rd ACR took control of the area this month, but officers said they were still understaffed for the mission. “There’s simply not enough forces here,” said a high-ranking U.S. Army officer with knowledge of the 3rd ACR.

One word: duh. You have an insurgency replenished with money and men pouring in over the Syrian border. But you don’t have enough troops to stop it. Worse, your incompetent war-management has led to a deeper recruitment crisis for the military so that they’re reduced to these kinds of tactics just to stay in play. Worse still, the carnage from those enabled by our war strategy continues to mount. And the policy continues.

Harry Shearer has the goods.

A tip on the successor to Rehnquist.

A reader sends me the following quote from Newsweek, January 19, 2004:

Tuesday marks one month to the day of the capture of Saddam Hussein, humiliated and feeble, and Bush aides insist these are the death throes of the insurgency.

Readers are invited to send me statements by Bush officials describing the insurgency as in its “death throes” over the past couple of years. Anything from Dick Cheney will be particularly welcome. Just because the president holds no one accountable, it doesn’t mean we can’t.

Here’s a classic Rumsfeld quote, regarding the abuse and torture of detainees under his command:

“To date there have been approximately 370 criminal investigations into the charges of misconduct involving detainees” since Sept. 11, 2001.

Now recall that that’s a defense of his record. The real question is: if a defense secretary has presided over a military detention system in which 370 separate criminal investigations of prisoner abuse have taken place, what on earth is he still doing in his job?

Yes! Someone who actually paints has been shortlisted for the British art establishment’s famed Turner prize. The artist has actually been known to paint … flowers!

“‘The Dutch people won against this crazy constitution,’ said Tiny Kox, a member of the small Socialist Party, which was pivotal in the campaign opposing ratification.” – New York Times today.

There are many disagreements I have with this column by Charles Krauthammer. But let me just point out one. Charles posits two forms of “imposition of values” on society. One is by secularists; and one by Christians. Here’s a quote that suggests the dichotomy as he sees it:

It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you. And if that contrary view happens to be rooted in Scripture or some kind of religious belief system, the very public advocacy of that view becomes a violation of the U.S. constitutional order.

It seems to me that this is the wrong formulation, and already concedes something that should not be conceded. Christianism – politicized Christianity – argues for the imposition of one religion’s values over the entire society. So, in this context, it would forbid gay couples from getting civil marriages or unions and prevent pregnant women from seeking an abortion. Secularism is not the polar opposite. Secularism allows Christians, and any other religious faith, to affirm religious values, live exactly as they see fit, and avoid such moral outrages as abortion and gay civil unions in their own lives, if they so wish. All secularism does is say that as a political matter, there will be as much government neutrality as possible because the government should represent all citizens; that the Church and the state shall coexist, but independently of each other. Secularism is not only compatible with aggressive and proud Christian faith; in practice, secularism has fostered that faith. The polar opposite of Christianism, in contrast, would be a government that actively suppresses religious faith, discriminates against Christianity and forbids Christians from practising their way of life. No one is proposing that. I’m really concerned that secularism is slowly becoming tainted with the same brush as “liberalism.” But secularism is the great modern achievement of Christianity and of Western freedom. It is an honorable tradition, integral to the entire concept of Western liberty. The difference between secularism and Christianism, to put it bluntly, is that one side is happy to let people make their own moral choices; and one side isn’t. So who exactly is imposing on whom?

Two pieces of analysis to grapple with the seemingly growing insurgency in Iraq. I say “growing” because, as Steve Chapman points out,

Fatalities from car bombings and suicide bombings have soared five-fold since November. Attacks on U.S. forces have been running at 70 a day, double the rate in March and April.

Steve proposes reducing U.S. troop levels to undermine the political appeal of the insurgency. But wouldn’t that withdrawal merely empower the insurgency? It would certainly demoralize the Iraqi government, such as it is. A more persuasive case is made in the NYT, arguing for a more thorough re-training of Iraqi military commanders – by taking them for long periods to the U.S. I have to say that sounds more sensible to me. Even then, however, we need to be thinking in terms of around a decade of major commitment. Have we made that case to the American people? Have we prepared for it? To my mind, one measure of the administration’s seriousness is its plans for the military. We obviously need more manpower to deal with Iraq and any other serious crises. And yet Rumsfeld is opposed. I guess when you believe that the insurgency is in “its last throes,” you don’t need to reach for more radical solutions. What we have, I fear, is an administration in a cocoon of its own denial. That denial was intensified by the two elections last November and last January. I just hope it unravels soon.