The Dish

The Baathist Broadcasting Corporation is going to be subjected to an almost unprecedented national review. About time.

You know that the emperor is sparsely clad when even some of the contributors to the New York Times forums concede they fell asleep in the middle of “Angels in America.” The NYT has devoted week after week and page after page to the most glowing hype about this production I can remember. So did almost every other major outlet. I read nothing but raves. (No, I haven’t watched it yet. I just got cable two days ago. But I will try and slog through it this Sunday, as I did with the original, interminable stage production.) But the ratings were execrable, despite the massive hype. Hmmm. Could it be that Frank Rich is wrong, and that this pretentious left-wing screed is, er, just a pretentious left-wing screed?

BEYOND RED AND BLUE: Here’s a map that tries to make sense of American regional politics without the red-and-blue dichotomy. Worth a gander.

I missed this priceless exchange about Howard Dean’s faith, until prodded by Jay Nordlinger:

WOODRUFF: Was it just over a bike path that you left the Episcopal Church?

DEAN: Yes, as a matter of fact it was. I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group to allow the public to use it. And this particular diocese decided to join a property rights suit to close it down. I didn’t think that was very public spirited. One thing I feel about religion, you have to be very careful not to be a hypocrite if you’re a religious person. It is really tough to preach one thing and do something else. And I don’t think you can do that.

WOODRUFF: And you don’t believe, Governor, the Republicans are going to have a field day with comments like these?

DEAN: The Republicans always have a field day with things like this. That’s the reason Democrats lose, is because they’re so afraid of the Republicans having a field day with comments like this or like that, that they never make any comments.

But what strikes me about this is not Dean’s godlessness. I don’t think that kind of thing should be a factor in presidential politics. What strikes me is how Waspy this whole thing is. A certain type of Episcopalian is precisely likely to decide his denomination on the basis of a bike path. If we have a contest between Dean and Bush, we’ll have a choice between a WASP who’s unashamed of his origins and a WASP who has abandoned them. Take it away, Tom Wolfe.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “For 50 years, Iraq went without freedom and democracy. You can’t make it happen in three weeks, three months or three years. It takes time.” – young Iraqi, Atheed Al-Naimy, quoted in an interesting report from Iraq yesterday by Bill Johnson. One simple question: after six months, why are there still gas lines in Iraq?

A paleo-con comes out and says that same-sex marriage should be banned entirely for Biblical reasons. Since the Bible is the source of all moral truth, no human “reason” should stand in its way. Here’s a fisking of the article. I, for one, am delighted to see the real reasons for some opposition to civil marriage rights for gay citizens. For some on the far right, the notion of a separation of church and state is anathema. And they are the prime movers behind amending the Constitution on theocratic lines.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I don’t think you’ve addressed the issue, but I felt a need to comment on current ramblings of various writers (read: Bob Novak) denigrating Howard Dean for his raising the theory that GWB knew about 9/11 before it occurred. Both Howard Dean and I think the allegation is ridiculous, and Dean wasn’t saying he thought it was true. He was just suggesting we could avoid a JFK assassination-like conspiracy-theory-for-the-ages if the Bush Administration was a little more forthcoming. However, that is not the reason for this missive. Instead, I find it amazing that people are so horrified that Dean would raise the issue. Some of these people are the same ones who demanded Vince Foster’s death be investigated five times, because they were sure the Clinton’s were involved. In fact, the Supreme Court is deciding whether photos of Mr. foster’s dead body should be released to an attorney who still claims there was a massive coverup. I am still waiting for the outrage at the implied accusation that the President of the United States was complicit in a murder. Or how about the continued claims that Clinton put Americans and others at risk in the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq for political cover? Where is the disgust at accusing the President of the United States of a potentially treasonous act? I think we all know what Dean was really trying to say. But even if he was making a veiled accusation, there aren’t many on the right with the moral authority and consistency of outrage to convincingly make it an issue.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

MILITARY BLOGS: A place where they all come together.

A leading Australian politician apparently stole a number of bottles of wine, imbibed their contents, and then assailed a fellow senator, calling her a “f–ing bitch” in parliament. Hand-wringing Aussies have subsequently re-examined their country’s leaders’ fondness for a drink or two. I liked this story:

In a recent book, journalist Mungo MacCallum recounted a trip the then prime minister, [John Gorton] took to Melbourne in a VIP aircraft after a hard day in Parliament. “He chose to unwind with a few drinks on the plane, some pre-dinner cocktails at the Sheraton, some wines, a port or two and the odd palate cleanser before being wheeled back to Tullamarine for the flight back to Canberra.
“He decided on a little nap, but on waking with the engines thrumming in his ears was so queasy he threw up in the aisle. A stewardess arrived to clean up the mess and Gorton turned on the legendary charm: ‘Well, my dear,’ he grinned, ‘I suppose you’re surprised that an old RAAF man like me can still get airsick?’ But for once he was out done; the stewardess replied cheerfully: ‘I am actually, Prime Minister, because the plane hasn’t taken off yet.'”

Even worse than Yeltsin. (Hat tip: Dan Drezner.)

Sid Blumenthal seems to be straying off the Clinton reservation with a thoroughgoing endorsement of Gore-Dean:

Gore’s endorsement of Dean is the most important since grainy film was shown at the 1992 Democratic convention depicting President Kennedy shaking hands with a teenage Bill Clinton. Gore’s endorsement is not the passing of the torch to a new generation, but another conferring of legitimacy. For Democrats, he personifies the infamy of the last election. He is not another politician, but the rightfully elected president, by a popular majority of 539,895 votes.

So a dead president endorsed Clinton? If you say so, Sid. Interesting, though, that Blumenthal is echoing the argument of Dean and others that the popular vote should now be regarded as the legitimate basis for a presidency. Are they proposing doing away with the electoral college? He also repeats the Hillary-line (or was Hillary repeating the Sid line?) that Bush is trying to undermine the New Deal. Huh? How is adding a $2 trillion Medicare benefit and doing nothing to reform social security undermining the welfare state? If president Clinton had proposed the Medicare drug benefit, do you really think Sid would have opposed it?

Smart of me to insult a hefty section of my readership the week I’m begging for money, isn’t it? Well, at least it proves I’m not corrupted by the process. Here’s a typical email of dozens I received today:

Your generalizations about the boomer generation strike me as just plain wrong. This is akin to the position that all blacks or all gays or all Republicans must be a monolithic block that have to think and act alike. Re-read your rant and ask yourself what proof you have of these claims. As one of the early boomers (1946), I was going into the Army at about the same time the late boomers were being born (1964). So, we are to believe that all the boomers born in the early 60’s are “unable think about any cultural or foreign policy matter outside the context of 1968?” And how is it so many boomers all vintages support so many of your viewpoints? I would guess that your readers cluster heavily in the boomer demographic.
To take the position that everyone in this huge demographic thinks the same, or wants the same things, is not only incorrect, it is just completely out of character for you. That you find all of us x1aenraging largely because (we are) so immeasurably selfishx1a just sounds childish (i.e., “don’t trust any over 30” becomes “everyone between 57 and 40 is immeasurably selfish”). How is it then, that such evil people have been among your earliest and most constant supporters?
Do I sound angry? I guess the fact that I am asked to pay for you to lecture us so unfairly is what really drives me nuts. Unlike your situation, however, the solution to my problem is easy.

D’oh! If you still feel like contributing, click here.

SPECIAL FORCES RESPOND: “As a former Special Forces major (separated fewer than 30 days ago) and long-time reader of your blog, I can tell you that what you saw on socnet is by no means a representation of the Special Operations community. It is, nevertheless, an embarrassment.
By and large, the individuals who post to boards like that are the most juvenile examples of our breed, if they are even in the community. Most real special operators are far too busy at the moment to waste time posting hateful nonsense on a bulletin board for all to see (there are, after all, a number of little wars on at the moment). In addition, their commanders would be none to happy to find out that they’d been having anything to do with a public forum, particularly for that sort of speech.
The overwhelming majority of my comrades in Special Operations were, and are, far more tolerant than most people you are likely to meet in middle America. And they are not so uncertain about their sexuality that they need to attack others for theirs. Not exactly the sort of clown who posts homophobic messages to a site like that.”

This article presents a very wide spectrum of views about how Dean-O (as W calls him) could fare against the president. For my part, I’m increasingly unsure. Dean clearly represents something real: blue state upper middle class rage. It’s healthy that this is given expression, however polarizing it might be. And conviction counts for something, if Dean can convey conviction to the broader public. That’s something conservatives learned from Reagan and Thatcher, two figures once placed in the long-odds category that Dean is now in. The media will give Dean major support – not least because most journalists will vote for him but also because everyone wants a competitive race. If the Dems decide early, there will be even more media hunger for a viable challenger in the summer and fall. As 9/11 fades from memory, and as deficits continue to soar, Dean’s anti-war zeal and Yankee frugality could count for something. I’d still say the odds are against him. But they’re not impossible. He certainly seems more formidable in terms of will and energy than anyone else. And those things count.

PLEDGE DRIVE UPDATE: Here’s a penultimate request for help with the site. After tomorrow, I won’t bug you again in the Dish for a year, so please consider a modest donation to the site if you read it regularly and want to see it continue. It takes enormous time, thousands of bucks, and constant attention to keep this blog as content-filled and as current as it is. Please think about providing a financial base to keep it going. Thanks again to all who have already pitched in. I’m really grateful, especially since many of you have upped your donation this year. If you’re a new reader or an old reader who hasn’t contributed yet, please think about it. You’re are only source of income for a blog that now reaches almost half a million people a month. Click here for details on how to keep it on the web.

PALESTINIAN STUDENT POLITICS: It’s a little different at Bir Zeit University:

At a debate, the Hamas candidate asked the Fatah candidate: “Hamas activists in this university killed 135 Zionists. How many did Fatah activists from Bir Zeit kill?”

Not enough, clearly.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND: Dennis Kucinich may not have Al Gore – but he does have Alice Walker.

Well, that’s my attempt to find a phrase to encapsulate the fundamental fiscal reality of our time. The boomer generation – apart from its inability to think about any cultural or foreign policy matter outside the context of 1968 – is enraging largely because it is so immeasurably selfish. The current mounting debt is a function of boomer selfishness: they want butter now (and even more when they retire) even though the rest of us will have to pay for it later. Steve Chapman points out that

economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Jagadeesh Gokhale say that a typical man reaching age 65 today will get a net windfall of more than $70,000 over his remaining years. A luckless 25-year-old, by contrast, can count on paying $322,000 more in payroll taxes than he will ever get back in benefits.

The latest boomer boondoggle, of course, is the $2 trillion Medicare drug benefit, a measure designed just in time to pamper the boomers through an endless retirement, and to give even more freebies to the wealthiest sector of society – purely because there are disproportionately more of them than the rest of us. I don’t know why the Deaniacs don’t see the injustice of this – except that Dean has to pander to senior greed like the rest of them. Do I sound angry? I guess I am. It’s hard enough listening to many of them preach about the moral purity of the Woodstock generation. But to have to pay for them to lecture us for decades to come really drives me nuts.

FROM THE MILITARY: Here’s a bulletin board where anonymous posters from what’s called the Special Operations community get to vent, chat and exchange views. The posters are responding to the story that several former generals have recently come out and urged a review of the military’s discrimination aainst homosexual servicemembers. Homo-hating is clearly alive and well in the military – which is what the official policy still reflects.

“Opinions flourish only in periods or cultures without a dominant religion. A medieval monk in his Cluniac abbey or a contemporary mullah in his mosque and, indeed, a fine Victorian gentleman, had little use for original opinions. The collective opinions of religion are inflexible dogma, not interesting expressions of private thought. The best opinions are contrarian, not conformist, although that is in itself a matter of opinion.” – Stephen Bayley, Daily Telegraph.

FISKING THE GUARDIAN’S GRAPHICS: A blogger decodes some fishy graphs on global warming. Meanwhile, the whole notion of an unprecedented modern human impact on the atmosphere is given a little more perspective here.

A SPANISH DISSIDENT: Former deputy and avowed leftist, Pilar Rahola, is having the same epiphany that others on this side of the Atlantic have had:

The most absurd thing is to watch leaders of the left today greet and celebrate Arab leaders, even when they are fundamentalists. For example, in the debates that followed the attacks of September 11, we heard an anti-American discourse here, pooh-poohing the victims, something which is in and of itself terrible ! And there were those who tried to downgrade-with that tawdry third-worldism which characterizes some circles of the left-the danger embodied in individuals like Bin Laden, who is, in fact, an authentic fascist. I believe that for the moment the world remains blind to the biggest totalitarianism of the twenty-first century, which is Islamic fundamentalism. Now we must prepare ourselves seriously to face this danger : For me, this totalitarianism is without any shadow of a doubt comparable to Stalinism and Nazism, the biggest scourges of the twentieth century.

Rahola even supports – shock, horror – the existence of the state of Israel. No wonder she has few friends on the European left these days.