The Dish

Interesting story that suggests I am actually wrong about the Hajj. It’s even more death-seeking than I believed:

The death of 251 Muslims in a stampede shocked no one, with many pilgrims certain that those who die on the hajj enter paradise and the Saudi authorities pointing to the “will of God”.
“I wish I was among the pilgrims who died on Sunday,” Kamal Shahada, an Egyptian pilgrim, said.
“I would have gone to heaven, because dying in these holy sites of Islam would assure one a place in heaven,” he said, echoing a widespread conviction in the Islamic world.

Of course, this is the sign of a certain kind of real faith. There is a huge difference between seeking holy death or being indifferent to death as a spiritual matter, and suicide bombing. Christ, after all, chose death when he could have stayed alive. Martyrdom is not a uniquely Muslim concept. But it is useful to remember that Western liberalism’s attachment to life faces here an ancient and powerful enemy. If harnessed to a political movement, the indifference to death is the biggest and most potent weapon of mass destruction the world knows. Because it cannot be deterred.

It’s now between the two of them – which is much to Edwards’ benefit. Kerry should have tried to destroy Edwards in South Carolina. The 15 point loss is big news – and means Edwards can get some traction. So does Edwards’ win over Kerry in Oklahoma. That’s especially true because it brings up the deeper question of whether Kerry can mount a truly national campaign (not that he has to). The candidate I most agree with on the issues – Joe Lieberman – is outta here. Nice guy, right instincts, not presidential timber. Dean will fight on – and I hope he does, if only to keep this thing interesting and alive. Obviously, Kerry is now the overwhelming favorite. But I’m not willing to say it’s over when the vast majority of delegates have still to be picked and when the front-runner is so obviously flawed.

SPINNING THE HAJJ: Glenn Reynolds thinks that the constant mass deaths that accompany the annual Muslim Hajj is more to do with bad organization than with a “death-cult.” He has a point. I don’t believe all those victims chose to die and others glorified it. But there’s something weird going on here. If, say, 244 people had been killed at the Vatican in Holy Week, do you think that we would have moved on from the story by now? People would have been held accountable; journalists would have gone over the catastrophe in excruciating detail; relatives of the dead would be interviewed; and on and on. But in Saudi Arabia? It’s just God’s will. May happen next year as well. Next subject. And my email in-tray is full of outrage that I should worry about this. Here’s a column backing me up a little. Money quote:

I fear Madani’s excuse will be greeted by the pious with a complacency bordering on indifference, the same complacency that has allowed all the previous catastrophies at the Haj to pass with minimal comment.
The main reason for this, I suspect, is that the west is in no way responsible for these deaths – which in the past 25 years of the Haj run into the thousands. Thus, unlike, say, the victims of the war in Iraq, they are without political significance and therefore moral weight. At the same time, no one else is interested in bringing attention to this recurring carnage because western governments – some of whose citizens are part of the pilgrimage – are afraid of offending the Saudis. And most westerners probably dismiss the whole thing as the strange workings of religious fanaticism… God’s intentions are not an explanation for incidents such as … the stampede on Sunday. They are an excuse. Similarly, to hold the Saudis to account for these deaths is not an act of a racism. But it is a form of racism to ignore them.

Amen. It seems to me that this kind of indifference to human life is part of the problem we are dealing with in fanatical Islam – and Saudi Arabia is a central part of that “cult of death.” The Saudis handed over the Haj to the nutjobs decades ago, the same nutjobs who train generations to kill Jews and Westerners. Until and unless we challenge these people, nothing will change over there. And if we don’t challenge them when their victims are Muslims, we will have much less credibility when the victims are us.

Here’s a useful primer. Not much there.

WHY NO FOLLOW-UP? John Ellis asks an important question. Why has there been no major follow-up to the ABC News story of massive bribes from Saddam to Western and non-Western Saddamites? Even a French priest was in on the act. And, of course, our old friend, George Galloway. So where’s the outrage? And where are the follow-ups?

THE OTHER OPTION: One thing seems to me to have gotten a little lost in the debate over Bush and Kerry/Dean/Edwards. This election is not going to be simply about which one of these candidates you believe in, trust more, agree with more, and so on. The broader question is: given that the House and Senate are almost certainly going to stay Republican, do you want one-party government or divided government? Recent history suggests that the best option for people of my polyglot persuasion is a Republican Congress and a moderate Democrat in the White House. With any luck, you get gridlock, the Congress restrains spending, and you don’t get wackos on the courts. The big exception this time around, of course, is war. Can we trust a Democratic president to defend the country adequately enough? Toughie. So far, none of the Dems has even begun to make the sale to my satisfaction. But, again, that has to be weighed against whether the country can live with bankrupt big government Nixonism as a price for national security. Second toughie.

IN DEFENSE OF BUSH: “I am as conservative as can be. Not a paleo, not a neo, but bedrock social and fiscal conservative Catholic. I read your piece and numerous other wailing articles about Bush’s non-conservatism and have the following comments:
GWB is not Reagan. He did not campaign on the “goverment isn’t the solution, it’s the problem” platform. He did, however, campaign on his ability to form bi-partisan agreements to address problems. He stressed this over and over in 2000. He also said he would get a Medicare drug benefit passed (which congress had been jaw-boning for 15 years), address illegal immigration with a no-amnesty worker program, appoint constitutionalist judges, push for a ban on partial birth abortion, not pass additional gun restrictions, allow faith based groups to be eligible for federal funds, hold Saddam and other rogues accountable, pursue missile defenses, modernize NASA, restore dignified behavior to the White House, require testing for students, and have across the board tax cuts.
On each and every one of these issues, he has either achieved legislation or is currently working towards the stated goal. Considering he inherited a tanking stock market, corporate scandals, Clinton’s phony economic forecasts, and a recession; its a damn miracle that he was able to stick to his agenda as well as he has. Many conservatives are bitching and moaning about some of the legislation, some of the compromises, and lack of spending control; and some criticism is definitely warranted. But one cannot bitch about the agenda, since he laid it out on the table as clear as day when campaigning.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.

A NEW DATING SITE: For political wonks.

GOOD ADVICE FOR KERRY: From Ruy Teixeira. Drop the faux-populism. Learn something from Clinton.

Not content with howling, one little critter now blasts the car horn. Very beagle.

Tony Kushner “bravely” takes on Laura Bush in – shock, horror – Cambridge, Massachusetts. What a hero of pushing the envelope! What daring! What artistic courage! Here’s how Alex Beam puts it:

Welcome to Kushnerworld – Pulitzer Prize-winning “Angels in America” Kushnerworld – where heterosexuals are repressed homosexuals trapped in loveless relationships, gays are generally noble and capable of spiritual enlightenment, religion is soul-suffocating bunkum, and Republicans occupy a moral plane similar to that of the Nazis. “You’re nice. I can’t believe you voted for Reagan,” Louis tells Joe, the repressed Mormon gay man in “Angels.”
The men and women who glean their news from NPR and the Guardian newspaper are always startled to learn that 48 million Americans voted for Reagan. Many of them must be the same yahoos and rubes who – gosh – voted for George Bush in 2000.

You can hear more Pulitzers coming down the pike for this one, can’t you?

That’s looking like the Bush campaign’s strategy this year. I feared as much.

SPENT ARGUMENT: David Frum protests too much in his excuses for George W. Bush’s failings.

Whom I’d support if I were a Democrat.

BLAIR, HUTTON, US: I cannot recommend this piece by Martyn Kettle in the Guardian too highly. There’s a phrase in it that rings in my ears – and not always too comfortingly. He quotes a former collague’s reminiscence about one Rod Liddle, the man who hired the infamous Andrew Gilligan at the BBC:

“Rob didn’t want conventional stories. He wanted sexy exclusives … I remember Rod once at a programme meeting saying ‘Andrew gets great stories and some of them are even true’ … He was bored by standard BBC reporting.”

I must say I’ve had my own Brit-glib moments in journalism, when I’ve too easily disparaged worthy, accurate but “boring” reporting or commentary. Being boring in journalism is not a good thing; but not being boring isn’t always a good thing either. The need to be fresh can lead to cheap shots or sloppy research. These are forgivable. But what isn’t forgivable is the slow and insidious slide into media arrogance and cynicism. London’s media can at times represent the worst of this. In this country, we’re not much better. It is hard, for example, to make the case that the Bush administration made honest but real mistakes about intelligence from Saddam’s Iraq. One side adamantly wants to believe that the Bushies lied; the other side wants to believe that there were no mistakes. In a completely cynical, polarized culture, it’s hard to break out of this cycle. I’m particularly concerned about the use of the term “lying.” I cannot claim total innocence in this, and every now and again, it may even be an accusation that’s merited. But these days, every mistake people make is immediately denounced as a matter of bad faith. When that happens routinely, political discourse simply cannot operate civilly. Gilligan accused Blair of lying. That’s different than claiming Blair was wrong. When we have lost that distinction, democratic debate is over. Which is why I get this horrible feeling that debate in this country has morphed into a kind of cultural warfare that will at some point devour us all.

“Someone has to change his mind. Someone has to say, now and then, My heavens, I voted for the wrong man; I am sorry that I did.
The team player cannot change his mind, because his mind is the collective mind of the team, and he obeys it. He obeys it the way a good football player obeys his coach — because this is what he must do in order to be a member in good standing of his team. You cannot remain on the team, and cheer for your team’s opponents.
That is why God, in carefully weighing out the proper amount of conservatives and the proportionate amount of liberals, also factored in a not insignificant dose of independents. They are a necessary ingredient in the complex American civil ecology, just as a nauseatingly repulsive form of algae may turn out to be an indispensable agent in the harmonious ecology of a beautiful forest pond.
In short, I have a right to exist – but not to set a trend.” – Lee Harris, on the joys of being an independent voter.

CLEAR SKIES HUMBUG: Why has the media ignored a new study by the National Research Council on how to reduce air pollution? Because it supports the Bush administration’s Clear Skies initiative. Easterblogg has details.

NANNY WATCH: “In his bloated budget for 2005, the president seeks funds to keep marriages intact, to prevent overeating, to encourage teenagers not to have sex, and to help give Americans the willpower to stop smoking. Should it bother us that both parties have bought into the belief that government now needs a federal program, bureau, agency, or grant contract to deal with every conceivable human need? An indoor rainforest in Iowa? Arts festivals in Alaska? Swimming pools in New York? What’s next, my teenager’s right cheek gets a relief from acne?” – Stephen Moore, National Review Online.

Two new polls – Quinnipiac and CNN – support the much-derided Newsweek numbers. Somehow I don’t think people have grown disillusioned with the president because of gay marriage.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Have spent many years in the elite environs of higher ed and can tell you that whatever you think you know about admissions, it’s tens time worse. The ‘minority’ admissions rarely graduate and few even get to be sophs.
All the administration wants is to meet their quota of freshman accepted for admission.
What it does to those poor kids is criminal. They’re so disoriented, totally fish out of water. They don’t have a clue how to behave, how to dress, how to talk, how to read and write at the level of the freshmen accepted at the competitive northeast institutions. It’s truly pathetic. Their classmates spend vacations skiing, going to their cottages at the beach, traveling, they have their own cars, their own plastic, etc. As far as the quota kids are concerned, they may as well be from outer space.
The reaction is to act up and act tough further alienating themselves. It’s an awful system.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

My death-match with Stanley Kurtz on the question of equal marriage rights in Scandinavia is beginning to remind me of Frodo and Gollum battling on the edge of Mordor with a marriage ring in their hands. Readers can make their own minds up. On one simple point: Kurtz now argues that I’m having it both ways, since I once called registered partnerships in Scandinavia “de facto marriage” and now claim that there is a small distinction – in what they are called, adoption rights, and how they would be perceived in the U.S. We’re into very fine distinctions here, as I have said before. But my previous piece was in part designed to argue that, despite predictions that gays cannot hack marriage, the evidence fron Scandinavia was that same-sex partnerships had a far lower divorce rate than heterosexual marriages. That strikes me as an interesting fact – and it stands on its own. (I’d love to know what the latest stats are – and whether this finding still holds up.) In fact, if such relationships last longer than straight ones, even while being consigned to second-class status, why wouldn’t they be even stronger if included within marriage? So my point is strengthened, not weakened. As to Stanley’s further arguments, they still amount to correlations, not causes. He does, however, come up with one new piece of evidence: there are higher rates of out-of-wedlock births in Norwegian counties where homosexual relationships are celebrated. Quod erat demonstrandum. So let’s do the same thing in America. Take two states with very different cultural attitides toward gay equality, Massachusetts and Texas. In anti-gay Texas, the divorce rate is 4.1 per thousand people; and the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent. In pro-gay Massachusetts, the divorce rate is 2.4 per thousand and the percent unmarried is 26.8 percent. By Kurtz’s Norwegian logic, if you want to save marriage, adopt Massachusetts values, not Texan ones. I think it’s more complicated than that.

THE FAIRNESS PRINCIPLE: But there is a substantive point: Kurtz argues that civil marriage is still for procreation, not coupling. As an aspiration, that’s defensible. As an empirical matter, it’s false. According to the Census, 52.1 percent of married couples are in households with no children present. Now many of these may be because the kids have grown up. Many are also because the couple has decided not to have children; or are re-married with no kids; or are infertile; or any other range of possibilities. (I haven’t been able to find any stats on how many marriages – second, third or first – never have kids. Can anyone help?) But that’s a lot of non-procreative marriages and married couples with no kids in the house. If coupling isn’t the de facto meaning of that relationship, what else is? That’s the living, breathing reality of civil marriage in America. Given that reality, how can civil marriage be denied gay couples? You could argue (and I think this is the crux of Kurtz’s case) that allowing marriage to gay couples makes this fact more explicit. But is it fair to deny one tiny group these benefits, simply as a means to promote an ideal that most heterosexuals don’t live up to anyway? Do you open the barn door and let out 98 percent of people, but close it back for 2 percent? Are gays, in other words, to be used instrumentally in this schema of social engineering? I’d say that that fails a very basic level of fairness and respect for the individual homosexual or gay couple. How can it not?