The Dish

A few of you have had the temerity, the chutzpah, the salty chocolate balls, to ask if I’ve given up on my decision to drastically reduce my blogging commitments. Er, well, the thing is … Actually, I have. In deference to my relationship (and my sanity), I’m not blogging in the early hours any more. I’m spooning. I blog when I feel like it, which is mainly post-coffee in the morning (and I get up earlier too). The pressure to promise something every day first thing no longer haunts me like a recalcitrant, recurring zit. Traffic is down (though less so than I expected), so pressure is off. Maybe it’s all a self-psych-out. But I’m making progress on the book and writing longer stuff. It’s all about balance, no?

Perhaps the least appreciated potential shift in global politics is happening in … France. The polls there are showing that it’s perfectly possible – maybe even likely – that voters will reject the new, cumbersome and unnecessary E.U. constitution. The NYT today reports on Chirac’s latest lame attempt to shift public opinion in his favor. A good read on why this could force a seismic change in Europe is the following piece by Anatole Kaletsky in the Times of London:

The alternatives offered to the people of France are not between the idealistic European multiculturalism of the 21st century and the xenophobic nationalism of the 19th. Rather they face a choice between two approaches: on one hand the liberal ideology of free markets and small governments that seems to be sweeping the world after its relaunch in Britain and America in the 1980s. The alternative is the 1970s belief that a centralised, protectionist and bureaucratically managed state could gradually be extended to the whole of Europe, preserving and enhancing the traditions of Gaullism in its glory days, when Chirac and Giscard were rising to power.

The EU isn’t all bad. It has acted as a democratic magnet for many other countries on its periphery; its democratic values have helped goad national governments into adopting more liberal economies and more inclusive societies. But the French dream of a rival to the U.S. is both reactionary – why should Europe and America be in competition? – and doomed to economic failure. In fact, the obsession with political union has acted as a diversion from the vital reforms needed in continental Europe’s economy. It would be a lovely irony if the French helped kick-start a more reasonable and diverse collection of cooperative nation states as the real future of Europe. In that country, the people are often wiser than the elites.

MUST-READ ON AFGHANISTAN: A concise, on-the-ground, revelatory report on what’s really happening in that country. Apart from the Gonzales Gulag (“news reports claiming that the US has set up a network of secret and lawless prisons in Afghanistan are dreadful, if accurate”), the picture is relatively promising. Money quote:

[T]he power of the gunmen and the chaos of the war years have diminished greatly, and people believe they will continue to diminish. This bears emphasis, in contrast to the unwarranted hysteria of some of the commentary I read on Afghanistan (“an electoral-narco-gulag-permanent-base dependency,” passim). Many people still don’t understand just how bad things were in Afghanistan, or how hard it is to find the traction to begin rebuilding a country from such a low base. Look at the stats on where Afghanistan is now (poverty, infant mortality, kidnappings, repression of women, impunity for murderers), and of course it’s appalling, of course it’s a dependency — four years ago it was a textbook failed state. Look at the trajectory of the place, and there’s reason for much hope.

Patrick Belton is doing great and good work – as an aid worker and as a journalist.

CONNECTICUT’S CHALLENGE: Two days ago, Connecticut became the second state to grant marriage rights in all but name to same-sex couples without any court prompting. California was the first. The new legislation emerged from the usual political process, with no judicial intervention. A bill was also passed reserving the name “marriage” for heterosexual couples. It seems to me that this shifts the debate on marriage rights in America. Many opponents of equality between gay and straight couples have insisted that what they are primarily opposed to is the judicial imposition of equality, not necessarily equality itself. Connecticut shows that the procedural argument is insufficient. The legislators framed this reform, not the courts. Something not completely dissimilar, by the way, is happening in Massachusetts. In the Bay State, the process for a constituional amendment is under way. That process is difficult but it is democratic. Elected representatives have to take a stand; they face re-election difficulties if they fly in the face of the democratic will. After almost a year of equality, Massachusetts voters have rewarded pro-equality legislators and penalized those who backed the amendment. There’s a good chance that the legislature will let the amendment die before too long. Again: this is a democratic process. Such democratic processes have led to constitutional amendments against marriage rights and civil unions in many states. In my view, federalism means those decisions, however regrettable, should be respected. But so too should Connecticut’s. And that is where the anti-federalist import of the proposed federal amendment is most clearly revealed. It seems to me that such an amendment would revoke Connecticut’s new civil unions, since they provide almost all the legal benefits of civil marriage. The co-author of the amendment, Robert P. George, has been quite clear in saying that the amendment is designed to invalidate civil unions that are the equivalent of civil marriage as well as civil marriage itself. So again we have two conservative principles in conflict: the procedural conservatism that respects states’ rights, and the theocratic conservatism that holds that a “sacred” meaning for civil marriage must be imposed nationally regardless of any state’s decision. It’s time that opponents of equal rights for gay couples acknowledge that this is now the choice: between a diverse, federalist country, and an explicitly Christian definition of a civil institution to be imposed on everyone.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I am literally sitting in the hospital room with my dying father as I read your comments on Eric Cohen’s commentary. He is dying of Pulmonary Fibrosis, a disease from which there is no chance of recovery. He has specified in a living will, and thru multiple discussions with family and the hospital staff, that he does not wish to be placed on life support when the rapidly approaching (within days) time comes.
The thought of having the state, in the name of someone else’s beliefs, defy my father’s wishes for a natural death with dignity, fills me with rage. If we can not maintain a simple right to die when nature itself would have us do so, what rights do we maintain? Who is playing God here?” The Republican party is playing God, that’s who.

The whole idea of “super-AIDS” was a punch-line on South Park last night. Congrats to New York City’s Health Department. Their credibility is now even lower than it was before their hysterical photo-op in February. The generation they need to reach has tuned them out. They’re not reading the Health Department’s p.r. department, i.e. the NYT, either.

Some important lessons here:

* It’s important to have a lawyer present when you draft a living will, as it makes the desire to be dead that much more tangible.
* Specify which flavor of feeding-tube nutrient you prefer. Otherwise, you may get stuck with cream of mushroom day in and day out.
* If, in the event of a catastrophic brain injury, you wish to be taken off life support and kept out of the guardianship of your overprotective Catholic parents, underline those directives over and over with a thick red pen and then highlight them in bright yellow.
* Leave at least one reasonably flattering photo for the press. This point cannot be emphasized enough.

Sage advice. Especially on cream of mushroom.

Dead-on as might be expected (although it took a lot of lobbying to get News Corp to make its websites free). Full text here. Full disclosure: yes, he pays me a salary. But so once did Howell Raines.

Zach Wendling suggests a new nickname for Tom DeLay. I’m not that impressed with the ethical complaints against him. His sleaze doesn’t seem to me to be that unusual. Having his wife work for him is almost routine in Congress. The problem with DeLay is that he’s a repulsive figure on television and elsewhere. I’ve never met him and can’t believe he’s this repellent in person (he wouldn’t have done so well in politics if he were). But his religious fanaticism, his seething hatred for his opponents, his natural proclivity for arrogance all reflect a real problem for the GOP. He does indeed represent what the party seems to be becoming. That’s why he won’t be forced out. And that’s why smart Republicans will keep him out of the public eye as much as possible. He makes Newt seem likable.

THE NEOCON CONSPIRACY: Another dark twist from Germany.

BLOGGING HEZBOLLAH: A firsthand account of their nefarious influence in Lebanon.

BUSH AND LIBERIA: A disturbing story from Ryan Lizza.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “You’re being too nice to Eric Cohen. The State doesn’t ‘intervene’ in right-to-die cases. These cases end up in court because of disputes among family members or between families and caregivers. The state is forced into action–it doesn’t volunteer. Moreover, Cohen’s example is fatuous. In the situation he describes, the decision is left up to the incapacitated individual’s legal guardian, just as it was in the Schiavo case. Michael Schiavo said that Teri told him she would want to die, and the courts agreed. In Cohen’s example, the guardian could enforce the terms of the living, or not. It’s his or her call. If the legal guardian chose to ignore the terms of the living will and provide treatment, it would be very difficult for anyone else to challenge that decision on legal grounds. The state doesn’t just jump in to enforce the terms of a living will–someone has to ask for relief in court, and that person then must overcome the presumption that the legal guardian’s decision is not in the best interests of the incapacitated person. If you’re going into court asking for guardianship so that you can kill someone, it would be pretty tough to overcome that presumption, regardless of any statements made in a living will.”

Apparently he’s up to no good, according to a State Department press release issued April 5:

According to the indictment, between August 1999 and July 2001, Christ was assigned as a political-economics officer at the U.S. Embassy in Vilnius. Christ allegedly conspired to fraudulently provide nonimmigrant visas and to deprive the State Department of Christ’s honest services. Christ and others allegedly charged individuals amounts ranging from $3,000 to $14,000 to acquire nonimmigrant visas to the United States. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of $42,500 and a vintage BMW motorcycle.
The co-conspirators allegedly obtained visas from Christ without the applicants having to appear in person at the American Embassy in Vilnius. The recipients then used the visas they fraudulently obtained to enter the United States, with most arriving through O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, according to the indictment.

That would, of course, be one Matthew Christ, a State Department Foreign Service Officer.

From the always-thoughtful Robert A. George (not the theology professor).

“What’s maddening about this pope’s signature gay bashing is this: When the pope – the dead one, the next one, the one after that – says something stupid about homosexuality, straight folks take it to heart. The church’s efforts have helped defeat gay rights bills, led to the omission of gays and lesbians from hate-crime statutes, and helped to pass anti-gay-marriage amendments. But when a pope says something stupid about heterosexuality, straight Americans go deaf. And this pope had plenty to say about heterosexual sex – no contraceptives, no premarital sex, no blowjobs, no jerkin’ off, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial insemination, no blowjobs, no three-ways, no swinging, no blowjobs, no anal. Did I mention no blowjobs? John Paul II had more “no’s” for straight people than he did for gays. But when he tried to meddle in the private lives of straights, the same people who deferred to his delicate sensibilities where my rights were concerned suddenly blew the old asshole off. Gay blowjobs are expendable, it seems; straight ones are sacred.” – Dan Savage, in his often-brilliant weekly column. Yes, the only theological argument against gay sex is identical to the argument against almost all straight sex now occurring in America. But it’s easier to beat up on and discriminate against fags, while giving straight sodomites every protection of the law.

THEOCONS VS LIVING WILLS: Eric Cohen has another thoughtful piece about the limits of autonomy in end-of-life decisions. He proposes that where a living will has clearly stated that a person, under some future medical conditions, wants to refuse treatment and die, such a living will should be over-ruled:

[L]egally, guardians should not be forced to implement living wills that aim at death as their goal.

As for the courts that are called upon to settle certain cases, they will need some political guidance or governing principles to do so. For example, what if a tenured professor of bioethics, unable to bear the loss of his cognitive powers, leaves written instructions not to treat any infections if he ever suffers dementia? Decades later, now suffering from Alzheimer’s, the former professor is mentally impaired but seemingly happy. He can’t recognize his children, but he seems to enjoy the sunset. He’s been physically healthy for years, but then gets a urinary tract infection. All his family members believe he should be treated.

Should the state intervene to prohibit antibiotics–to protect the incompetent person’s “right to die”? Or should the state leave the family members alone, so they can do what they believe is in the best interests of the person the professor now is? If Andrew Sullivan and other critics are worried about “theocons” using the power of the state to undermine the right to self-determination, are they willing to use the power of the state to impose death when families choose life? Is this what their idea of “autonomy” really requires?

It’s a tough case, but: yes. The state isn’t enforcing this death: the dying person is. And freedom inheres in the individual, not his or her family, let alone government. If such a person wants to avoid life-saving treatments because in his view, he has essentially stopped living, that should be his choice. Is it a choice I would make? I doubt it. But as someone living with a terminal illness that might one day render me incapacitated, there are treatments that I would like to refuse in advance – regardless of the wishes of my family, or Eric Cohen. I don’t see why my family or Republican politicians should determine my fate. Liberty means above all the right to control what is done to our own bodies. The religious right has long been appalled by modern Americans’ control over their own bodies. They don’t want us having sex as we want to. And now they don’t want us to die as we want to. How do I put this nicely: Don’t tread on me. Make your own moral decisions about your body and I will make the same about mine. And leave me – and every other freedom-lover – alone.

THEOCRACY WATCH: “Whether the debate centers around a Presidential election, the right to die movement, the gay agenda, prayer in school, or simply letting our children recite the Pledge of Alligence, the teachings of Jesus Christ always seems to thwart the agenda of America’s left wing elites. Forget what you heard in the 1960s. God is not dead. In fact, he is very much alive and beating liberal elites on one political issue after another. Maybe that is why so many of them hate the Prince of Peace.” – Joe Scarborough. Is Scarborough honestly saying that Jesus Christ had a position in the last presidential election, that only Republican voters were true Christians? Is he saying that criticism of a Pope’s style or record is somehow identical to “hatred” of the Gospels? Did a Jesus who never mentioned homosexuality take a position on gay politics in the 21st century? The complete conflation of politics and religion among today’s Republicans just gets deeper and deeper. And dumber and dumber.

Some interesting dissenting points can be found here. While you’re at it, here’s another gay, conservative blog from … Canada!

EMAIL OF THE DAY: Both of my parents were raised in fairly strict Roman Catholic households, but drifted away from the church in the 1960’s. For them, this was over the issue of contraception, and what they saw as the hypocrisy of Catholic clergy giving special dispensation for those from England’s upper classes to use contraception (based on their value to the church or how many children they had produced), while of course, the rest of the faithful flock had to follow church teachings.

The cynical political nature of the church over the Bernard Law affair should come as no surprise to students of Vatican history, but it is surely the contempt that this body has shown to its own followers which is most distressing. My mother [as a lapsed Catholic] is all too familiar with the ritual and mystery, but also genuine spirituality and religious feeling which is part of the Catholic faith and her comment on the church’s attitude to the sex abuse scandal was quite insightful. What she feels is so appalling about the abuse itself and the church’s dismissive attitude to it, is that what has been done to these children is not simply the horrible physical and sexual acts committed – abhorrent though they are. The worse aspect from a Catholic perspective, is that the spirituality of the affected children will probably have been harmed or even destroyed, after being so exploited by these paedophile priests. How can one think kindly of God, when one of his representatives on earth has been sodomizing you? People of a non religious disposition might take this concept in their stride but those who actually believe in God are more likely to understand how serious this all is. Not only have these Children lost their innocence on Earth, but after such abuse, they are more likely to turn away from the path, which in Catholic eyes at least, will allow them into heaven.
No doubt this point has been made before, but it is an important one for Catholics and by treating this matter with so little remorse or real compassion, the Vatican is only going to prove to its critics that it has totally lost its moral, religious and spiritual compass.” The betrayal of the Church in this instance is indeed fathoms deep: the abuse was not just an attack on chidlren’s psychological and physical health; it was an assault on their religious and spiritual life; and an attack on the church itself. We know how the Vatican really views this by the way Cardinal Law is now an esteemed part of the Roman establishment.