NOT FROM AL QAEDA

The claim of responsibility for the Madrid massacre is probably not from al Qaeda, according to Memri. Worth a read.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “Rich: I recently read Tim Jeal’s excellent biography of Robert Baden-Powell (title: “The Boy-Man”), founder of the Boy Scouts. Jeal shows how the Boy Scout movement was, from its very beginnings, plagued by pederasts. Baden-Powell’s first two appointees to the post of medical director at the movement’s main camp, for instance, both had to be dismissed for “gross misconduct” with the boys. Only a society as wilfully stupid and sunk in dogma as our own could imagine that an organization for boys would NOT attract the attention of pederasts. To insist on the “right” of homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters is to pour gasoline on a smouldering fire. (And before anyone e-mails in to tell me that homosexuality and pederasty are utterly different things, not related to each other in any way, shape or form whatsoever: I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.)” – John Derbyshire, equating homosexuality with child abuse. It is the oldest, most sickening piece of bigotry around, used against Jews in one era just as it is now used against homosexuals. There is no more logical connection between homosexuality and pedophilia than heterosexuality and pedophilia, or heterosexuality and rape. Look, there are legitimate public policy disagreements about how we treat homosexuals in society. But linking gays with child-molesters, in this way, and asserting it as a matter of faith, immune to any argumentation, is simply bigotry.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “It is important to remember that this resolution does not authorize the use of American ground troops in Bosnia, nor does it specifically authorize the use of air or naval power. It simply associates the U.S. Senate with the current policies of this administration and of the Security Council.” – John Kerry, as quoted by David Brooks. The good senator from Massachusetts is not complicated; he’s someone unable to tell the difference between complexity and inanity.

LE MONDE SWITCHES SIDES

An encouragig sign in France. Le Monde‘s editorial today, “Tragedie Europeenne,” ends with the following sentiment: “If she did not know it yet, she knows it now: Europe is part of the battlefield of hyper-terrorism.” Then there’s this astonishing piece of black-and-white analysis: “Nothing, evidently, no cause, no context, no supposedly political objective, justifies this kind of [large scale] terrorism.” Now they tell us. Whatever happened to all those sophisticated European “gray areas”? With any luck, they died in the wreckage of Madrid’s trains. Here’s another money quote from the French daily:

“If the trail back to Al-Qaida is confirmed, Europeans should rethink the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as did the United States after the attacks of September 11, 2001. . . . Will March 11 have in Europe the same effect as September 11 in the US? After having spontaneously expressed their solidarity with the Americans, the Europeans, preoccupied with other forms of terrorism, found that the Americans had become consumed with paranoia. Contrary to the latter in 2001, Europeans today discover not only their own vulnerability, but also that they are confronted with a new phenomenon, mass terrorism. Like the Americans, they may now be forced to admit that a new form of world war has been declared, not against Islam but against totalitarian and violent fundamentalism. That the world’s democracies are confronted with the same menace and should act together, using military means and waging at the same time a war for their ideals.”

One word: enfin.

IF THIS IS AL QAEDA

It’s still unclear who exactly is responsible for the mass murders in Madrid. It seems to me, however, that it has all the hallmarks of al Qaeda. The Basque terrorists have never attempted something on this scale before; the coordinated attacks are reminiscent of al Qaeda operations; and Spain, of course, is a major target of the Islamists since helping liberate Iraq. Spain is also on the verge of elections – an exercise in democracy anathema to the theocratic fascists we are still fighting. And the horrifying carnage is something that reeks of the evil we are confronting:

“There were pieces of flesh and ribs all over the road,” [one witness] said. “There were ribs, brains all over. I never saw anything like this. The train was blown apart. I saw a lot of smoke, people running all over, crying. I saw part of a hand up to the elbow and a body without a head face down on the ground. Flesh all over. I started to cry from nerves. There was a 3-year-old boy all burnt and a father was holding him in his arms, crying.”

Somehow this evil puts everything else in perspective, doesn’t it? If it is the beginning of an Islamist terror campaign throughout Europe, then we will witness a cultural and military war on that continent not seen since the last world war. We can only hope it won’t transpire, that we have managed to keep al Qaeda at bay. But if it does, we can equally hope that the democratic nations of Europe will begin to realize what Tony Blair and George Bush have been warning about for so long. The enemy is clear. The question is not whether it will strike, but whether the West can strike back and decisively defang and defeat it. It’s up to Europe now. Maybe now they’ll get it.

A SECOND THREAT: Then there is the letter sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, as reported by Reuters. Again, it’s hard to tell how legit it is. But the warning is grim enough: “We bring the good news to Muslims of the world that the expected ‘Winds of Black Death’ strike against America is now in its final stage…90 percent (ready) and God willing near.” Winds of Black Death? Sounds like a bio-terror strike to me.

MARRIAGE STRUGGLES ON

It’s still too early to see what the final outcome of the Massachusetts legislature’s struggle to prevent or allow equal marriage rights in the Commonwealth. The amendment that passed the preliminary round is by far the least objectionable. It would enshrine a semantic difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriages by calling the former “marriage” and the latter “civil unions.” But it would uphold the Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that there should be complete substantive equality in terms of all protections and benefits. In other words: Vermont, but by constitutional amendment, not law. What bothers me about this is that it amounts to the constitutionalization of pure stigma. There’s no possible reason to give gay couples something that walks, talks and squawks like a marriage but is called something else – except to maintain a purely semantic distinction, whose purpose is to reaffirm the inferiority of homosexual couples. Since many of these couples will get married in a religious ceremony as well, they may well describe themselves simply as married anyway. In time, common parlance will simply refer to all of the above as married. The only real difference may be that a civil union will be less transportable to other states. But that will also surely change, as some states will agree to recognize such civil unions, just as New York state has said it will agree to recognize Massachusetts’ civil marriages. Of course, this process in Massachusetts is not, in many ways, a bad thing. It really has initiated an extraordinary public debate that has enriched many of us. The legislative and judicial processes in that state are signs that the system is working on a state level, and there is no need for clumsy federal intervention to pre-empt this state-by-state process and impose a premature “solution” on the entire country through the drastic option of a federal constitutional amendment. That also goes for California, where the judicial process should be allowed to continue unmolested by Washington.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE

“I could not help but think about the hurt and fear that would cause a group of men to commit suicide by flying planes into the World Trade Center buildings. Anger as a byproduct of hurt and fear was not a foreign concept to me.” – Jayson Blair, identifying with the mass-murderers of 9/11 on the day it happened, in his new book, “Burning Down My Masters’ House.”

FIXING FAT: “I don’t want the government telling me what to eat either. But I do think there’s one thing the government ought to do in this area, and that is to eliminate farm subsidies. Farm subsidies lower the price of corn, raise the price of sugar, and thus encourage the overproduction of corn sweeteners and processed corn which results in the paradox that it is far cheaper to eat high calorie junk food than it is to eat fresh food.
There are all sorts of other good free market reasons for the government to eliminate farm subsidies, not to mention the distributionalist concern that most of their benefits accrue to very wealthy corporations. But if processed corn were sold at its fair market value, instead of at the subsidized price, and if we didn’t have such a glut of corn, maybe the cost of “super-sizing” could go up a little bit, and some people might decide to go on a diet. Since there are plenty of reasons to eliminate farm subsidies anyway, it’s certainly worth a try.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

DAN GETS MARRIED: To a lesbian co-worker! Now this is an interesting idea for civil disobedience. Leave it to my friend Dan Savage to figure it out:

Amy Jenniges lives with her girlfriend, Sonia, and I live with my boyfriend, Terry. Last Friday I accompanied Amy and Sonia to room 403, the licensing division, at the King County Administration Building. When Amy and Sonia asked the clerk for a marriage license, the clerk turned white. You could see, “Oh my God, the gay activists are here!” running through her head. County clerks in the marriage license office had been warned to expect gay couples sooner or later, but I guess this particular clerk didn’t expect us to show up five minutes before closing on Friday.
The clerk called over her manager, a nice older white man, who explained that Amy and Sonia couldn’t have a marriage license. So I asked if Amy and I could have one–even though I’m gay and live with my boyfriend, and Amy’s a lesbian and lives with her girlfriend. We emphasized to the clerk and her manager that Amy and I don’t live together, we don’t love each other, we don’t plan to have kids together, and we’re going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married. So could we still get a marriage license?
“Sure,” the license-department manager said, “If you’ve got $54, you can have a marriage license.” … It’s not the marriage license I’d like to have, of course. But, still, let me count my blessings: I have a 10-year relationship (but not the marriage license), a house (but not the marriage license), a kid (but not the marriage license), and my boyfriend’s credit-card bills (but not the marriage license). I don’t know what a guy has to do around here to get the marriage license. But I guess it’s some consolation that I can get a meaningless one anytime I like, just so long as I bring along a woman I don’t love and my $54.

Now what would the religious right say about that?

MEMO TO THE BOSTON GLOBE

Those guys won deserved kudos for their coverage of the Boston arch-diocese’s treatment of child abuse charges. How about looking into the annulment issue? One Bay State reader suggests the following:

I think if someone were to look at the annulments granted in Boston and cross-tabulate that data against contributions across the range of Catholic Charities (to say nothing of the normal payola, which is obviously unaccounted), that someone would have the beginnings of a very good story.
The going rate, as I remember it, was roughly $40K-50K for an annulment.

I wonder how much Kerry paid for his. Why doesn’t someone ask him?