The Dish

We just learned that some 40 percent of Americans are on some kind of constant medication – many designed to ease the ups and downs of mild depression, or heartburn, or obesity, and so on. We have drugs for hard-ons; and we have elaborate plastic surgery for anyone feeling ugly or fat. We have fat-burning pills and hair-growing treatments. We have pills to send us to sleep; we have medical contraptions to give us better sleep (yay!); we have addictive drugs, like caffeine, to wake us up and keep us awake. The line between pharmaceuticals that actually cure illness and those that enhance our quality of life, or extend it to lengths once thought inimaginable, is getting blurrier all the time. What is health, after all, if not somewhat relative? Am I sick now that my apnea is untreated? Or am I just living with something that humans have lived through for centuries? Do our zoloft prescriptions always treat serious depression – or are they often a means to maximize our social interaction, prevent unsettling bouts of inertia or sadness? I ask all these questions because the brouhaha over steroids in sports strikes me as somewhat off-key. Our cultural norm is that drugs that do not harm you are perfectly legit in increasing your enjoyment of life, or enhancing your ability to perform certain tasks. Why, then, are steroids so illegitimate in sports? Yes, they can harm a body, but only if taken in excess and outside a doctor’s supervision. Yes, it’s unfair when some players use them and others don’t. But the answer to that might just as well be universal steroid use as a universal ban. I think trying to stop this is almost certainly futile (the steroid technology almost always out-strips the testing technology) and not obviously virtuous. The notion that there is some “pure” human being out there – unaffected by the technology that now enhances our lives in so many ways – is fiction. Why are sports the only arena in which this fiction is maintained? And why would it be so bad to aknowledge reality and celebrate the new frontiers that human science and human performance can now breach? I’m not that comfortable with that idea; but I’m having a hard time coming up with good arguments as to why I shouldn’t be.

The Pentagon acknowledges that we’re losing the propaganda war in the Middle East.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-élite network” – Tavis Smiley, lashing into NPR.

At least fifty of them oppose violence and terrorism. Out of around 70,000.

EX-EX-GAYS: In Britain, the leading ex-gay group, Courage, decides to end its campaign for homosexuals being cured by psychotherapy or religion. Why? It doesn’t work.

DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE: The stats I quoted in my “Conflicted America” piece are all good, but may not capture the entire picture. The fact that Texas has almost twice as many divorces per capita than Massachusetts may not tell the whole story. Texas also has more marriages. (And presumably, because of more divorces, also more re-marriages.) Texas also has more young people. I’ve now read several statistical analyses trying to sort all this out. All of them show Texas with a higher divorce rate than Massachusetts, but not as extreme a disparity as the crude figures suggest. The critical issue is Texas’ tradition of young marriages. They tend to fail more often than marriages engaged in by more mature couples.

WEBLOG AWARDS: I’m not sure what awards mean when they are the result of mass voting, or once a day voting or voting by automated bots. They presumably have the same accuracy as online polls. Usually these polls are p.r. operations for media entities, or a somewhat sad means of increasing traffic. So who gains from the weblog awards? Wizbang, I guess. I’m grateful to all of you who have voted for the Dish, and would love to encourage you to vote by bot or daily or hourly orchestration. But it all seems a little silly, doesn’t it?

Check out the response of Joe Pitts to the devastating Waxman report on “Abstinence-Only” sex ed. None of all the specific charges of inaccuracy are refuted. I’ve also been having an email exchange with the blogger at After Abortion blog. She has made one point about inaccuracy, which I linked to. But nothing else. There’s an important place for “abstinence-only” education. I favor it – as long as it’s sane, accurate, secular and fact-based. In practice, it’s often pork for the religious right to preach their views at public expense. I fear it’s the tip of the ice-berg.

TEXAS AND MASSACHUSETTS: A reader, while setting me straight, actually confirms my thesis:

I liked your article for the Times about red and blue states exemplified by Texas and Massachusetts. It is a perspective those of us on this side of the pond should benefit from as well as the Brits. Your observation, however, that Massachusetts represents “high tax, and social permissivness” plays to old stereotypes and not current realities.

First taxes. Massachusetts is decidedly middle of the road in taxation these days. High tax revenues have more to do with Masschusetts being a high income state rather than a high tax state. Tax curbs passed years ago have succeeded in dramatically moderating the tax climate. The state income tax is a flat tax, yes a flat tax, with a rate slightly over 5%. The sales tax, with exemptions for food and clothing, is 5%. Property taxes are severely limited by voter initiative and can only be overridden by popular vote. Compare this with neighboring states. With the exeption of New Hampshire (with outrageous property taxes), Massachusetts is a tax bargain. Compared with a neighboring state down the coast with a losing baseball team, Massachusetts looks like an offshore tax haven.

Second social permissiveness. If you think Massachusetts is permissive, you’ve been spending too much time in Provincetown. You need to get out and see the rest of the state. Massachusetts is socially tolerant, but certainly not permissive. Let me give you a couple of examples. Let a straight man try to find a “tittie bar” here. They are few and far between. Boston has spent the better part of two decades closing down all but a couple of holdouts, and they are constatly harrassed. Texas, by the way seems to have a “tittie bar” or a suggestive ad for one on every street corner. Let a visiting gay man try to find a bath house. There are none in the state. They are illegal. The closest are 45 miles away in Rhode Island (the parking lots are full of Mass plates). Texas has gay bath houses in every major city. Want a drink? Better get to the bar before 1am. It goes on and on. Tolerant? Yes. Permissive? Definitely not.

That captures the red-blue ironies perfectly, doesn’t it?

More evidence that abuse and dehumanization of prisoners has been widespread in the U.S. military. And the Bush administration has already made it absolutely clear that no one of any consequence will be held responsible. They make me ashamed. One more thing: where are the remaining photographs from Abu Ghraib? Hundreds were kept under wraps. Why have they not been released?

My latest Sunday Times piece is now posted: why do the blue states have lower divorce rates than the Bible belt? Hmm. Also: my TNR defense of prince Charles. Coming soon: the demise of authority in American culture; and the case for optimism in Iraq.

Evidence procured by torture is now sufficient to detain “enemy combatants” at Gitmo. Prisoners “have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court.” Slowly, we are beginning to piece together what the Bush administration has set up – with little public debate. The government can detain prisoners without naming them, it can use methods that are “inhumane,” it can use evidence procured by torture, and anyone the government deems an “enemy combatant” is beyond the recourse of constitutional protection. Some of this might be defensible, although I doubt whether I’d agree. But the lack of candor, the absence of real debate (neither Gitmo nor Abu Ghraib came up in any of the presidential debates), and the vagueness of many of the rules are surely worrying in the extreme.

BACKLASH WATCH: In South Carolina, another Republican anti-gay witch-hunt.

A GAZA KILLING: This atrocity seems unspinnable to me.

AN APNEA STORY: A first-hand account of a severe diagnosis.

DEATH BY WANKING: Just one of the theories believed by one Judith Reisman. I saw the movie, “Kinsey.” I wasn’t too thrilled by it: like many biopics, it appeared labored and strained for a real story line. But it did remind me of the appalling ignorance about sex that so many millions lived with for so long – an ignorance that is now being actively promoted by the Bush administration.

GAYS IN THE SOUTH: Here’s an email from the front lines:

I am from Louisiana and I am quite aware of Louisiana’s and the South’s public disdain for gay relationships. However, it is not as bad as you think. Even in the rural parish where I come from homosexuals are acknowledged and respected for the human beings they are. My lesbian cousin lives with her partner and her child, in a small, small town in South Louisiana and gets by fine. My Catholic family, some of whom are “anti-gay” in the voting booth, accept her and her partner with open arms, and contradict themselves by not pushing them away from family functions.
We are not New York City or Boston or Washington D.C., an urban enviroment, where queer culture thrives. Change comes slow to the countryside where people do not live in anonymity, like in the big city. In the South’s larger cities, even mid-size cities like Baton Rouge, you have an open queer culture. Lots of rainbow flags on cars and such. Sure we have Jimmy Swaggert too, but the city’s collective reaction to that guy’s hateful language was basically “watch your mouth.”
I know it’s difficult for you to see this up in the Washington, D.C. area, but freaks like Roy Moore and others have already lost the battle. It’s not much different than the death rattle of segregationists in the 60’s. Just like the Southern Manifesto was NOT a sign of the future in the South, neither are these obscure remarks or governmental acts you’re harping on.
I understand this a big deal for you, being gay, but you’ve already won and you should realize this.

Alas, I do not believe we have won – yet. And I’m struck by how this kind of email could easily have been written about the Jim Crow South. Relations between many blacks and whites were often cordial; and the cordiality depended on the implicit acknowledgment of one group’s inferiority to the other. Essentially, the position of the Republican right is now identical on the matter of homosexuals. The Bush line, essentially is: “We are not homophobes; we are happy yo live alongside gay people, as long as they recognize that they can never have the same civil rights as we do. Accept your own inferiority, and we will accept you.” That’s why this is so hard to compromise on. Because it cuts to the core of a human being’s self-worth. On this, we cannot compromise. The simple truth is that there isn’t a single civil right I would deny to an evangelical Christian. I’ve defended their freedom of religion, of association, of disassociation, and believe they should be treated with respect. I wouldn’t dream of drumming them out of the military, firing them for their faith, tearing up their relationships, or taking their children away from them. The favor, alas, is not returned.

Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway’s ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven’t been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge’s view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:

Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to $375,000 a year from Saddam.
The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper’s Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. “Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him,” said the judge. “He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published.”

Such a judgment wouldn’t stand a chance in an American court – but then Britain’s libel laws are far tougher than America’s; and there’s far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here’s the Telegraph’s official response. It’s deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

MORE ON SLEEP: How important is REM sleep? Here’s an interesting PDF piece. My CPAP machine should be delivered next week. I’ll keep you posted.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Here’s a helpful debate on proposed reforms between Frederick Rawski and Ruth Wedgwood.

There’s been a mild and partial debunking of the Waxman investigation into “abstinence-only” programs funded by the feds here. But the broader point remains. Under the guise of sex ed, the Bush administration is using public funds to spread an ill-informed, half-baked evangelical message. Your tax dollars are being spent to tell kids that “a 43-day-old fetus is a ‘thinking person,'” that “HIV can be spread via sweat and tears,” and that “condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.” This crap is bad enough. Then we find this:

Some course materials cited in Waxman’s report present as scientific fact notions about a man’s need for “admiration” and “sexual fulfillment” compared with a woman’s need for “financial support.” One book in the “Choosing Best” series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. “Moral of the story,” notes the popular text: “Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.”

We’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars to spread James Dobson’s gospel to kids in public high schools. I have no problem with abstinence education. I have no problem with churches teaching kids how to live sexual lives responsibly. But I do have a problem with spreading fear, ignorance and chauvinism with my tax dollars. But when you hand over government social policy to religious groups, what do you expect?

THEOCRACY WATCH II: I missed this quote from Alabama state rep Gerald Allen, who wants to ban public funds for any books “that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.” What of existing books by, say, Whitman or Auden or Proust, and other degenerates? We have the answer:

Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed. “I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them,” he said.

Why not burn them instead? Among the books Allen wants to “bury” are “The Color Purple,” “The Picture of Dorian Gray” and “Brideshead Revisited.” Public schools would be barred from performing “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” I used to read these kinds of stories and dismiss them. But in Karl Rove’s Republican party, how is this in any way out of place?

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Justice Brandeis, New State Ice Co. vs Liebmann, 1932. Justice Brandeis, welcome to the new Republicanism. My latest piece on the importance of federalism today can be read here.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Beinart is almost completely right, and I do think part of the problem this election year was John Kerry personally, which is another way of saying that as de facto leader of the Democratic Party he was unwilling to use the words “Iraq” and “democracy” or “Arab” and “democracy” in the same sentence, and tell the peacenik wing of the party to sit down and shut up. But I’m just plain sick and tired of trying to convince other liberals that America is now engaged in a multi-decade struggle against Islamo-fascism, and that this struggle will be the central organizing principle in American politics for years to come. Sadly, the central post-election narrative that “values” rather national security cost Democrats this election, combined with ridiculous and childish allegations of massive voter fraud in Ohio, has allowed Democrats the luxury of avoiding and denying what ails them.

But whatever.

If liberals are determined to play the role of Taft Republicans during the 1930s and 1940s, denying the threat posed by European fascism and Japanese nationalism, obsessing about freedoms lost at home during wartime, and as such remaining in the political wilderness for most of the next three decades, who am I to stop them? In fact as far as I can tell Democrats would *rather* watch the New Deal and Great Society pissed down the drain, and a hard right Supreme Court roll back the 1960s, than stepping up to the plate and committing themselves to the realization of liberty and democracy in the Muslim world. The peaceniks were allowed to destroy the party once before in the late 60s and early 70s. Will they be allowed to do it again? So far it looks like the answer is yes.” More feedback on the Letters Page.