The Dish

There are two issues on which Bush’s disapproval ratings exceed his approval, according to the latest Washington Post poll: health insurance and the federal budget. I couldn’t help but be impressed with Alan Greenspan’s testimony Wednesday. He made the obvious point that it’s good to cut taxes if you also cut spending. Duh. This administration, alas, is one of the most spend-thrift in recent times and yet still wants massive tax cuts. Thank God for some of the saner Republicans in the Senate. At least some people haven’t forgotten that conservatism means limited government, personal privacy and fiscal responsibility, in contrast with the hard right’s big government, sex police and mounting debt.

WORSE THAN EASON JORDAN: Which journalist do you think would strike up an intense personal friendship with Saddam’s head propagandist? Who do you think would write letters to such an odious figure with sentences like: “After promising and promising to have dinner with you for such a long time – we finally did it. Alhamdullilah!!!!! For me, this was the main achievement of my visit.” Would you believe the BBC’s chief correspondent, Rageh Omaar? Once again, the British papers seem to have done a better job than Americans in digging through stacks of documents left in Baghdad. As the Times of London reports today,

[t]he tactic seemed to work. A note in Arabic on the letter suggests that it be forwarded to the visa department. Before another assignment, Mr Omaar wrote: “It’s been such a long time since we last saw each other, and I would really like to see you again. As you once said to me: Once you have tasted the waters of the Tigris, you can never forget Baghdad!!!”

Yes, some journalists in totalitarian countries have to make some adjustments to avoid being thrown out. But this kind of up-sucking? I can’t imagine John Burns doing it, can you?

An email from a gay lefty in San Francisco points out the customary blindness of some alleged “progressives” about the totalitarian regime in Cuba. He’d just come out of a movie theater and saw a long line of people waiting to see the next screening, of Oliver Stone’s cinematic hagiography of Fidel:

A few leftist organizations tonight had set up two tables of literature and buttons supporting the Cuban revolution in general, and progressive causes around the globe. There were leftist activists chatting up people trying to buy tickets to “Commandante,” the film by Stone. I couldn’t find a single piece of literature about Castro’s latest crackdown on, and killing, of Cuban dissidents. I had something to say about this to my fellow lefties. “Why don’t you tell Castro to stop killing his people because they disagree with him? He should be condemned for executing the boat hijackers,” I said. A woman in her late 40’s asked if I wanted a copy of The Militant. “Does it have a strong disapproval anywhere in the issue denouncing Castro’s violation of human rights activists? If it does, then I want an issue,” I replied to her. “I want Castro to stop killing dissidents.” “Are you a Republican, or something? Bush is also killing innocent civilians. We’re more concerned about his crimes,” the woman said. With pride, I pointed to my ever-present dark green button reading, “Vote Nader/LaDuke 2000.” “No, I’m not GOP, at all. Just one queer leftist who thinks we need more criticism leveled against Castro, especially from the left,” I said.

Good for him. This is especially awful given Castro’s persecution of homosexuals and people with HIV. Do these leftists have no memory? Or no conscience? Between these people on the left and Rick Santorum on the right, it’s enough to drive you nuts.

ONE MAN’S TESTIMONY: This blogger movingly explains why he’s still angry about the social right’s embrace of Santorum.

Viewers have been complaining – are you sitting down? – that it has been too pro-Israel.

SARS AND HIV: Fascinating new nugget. In one major Chinese hospital, AIDS patients were separated from SARS patients. But doctors and nurses, some of whom contracted SARS, freely went from one ward to another. The AIDS patients didn’t even wear masks. But not a single person with AIDS got infected with SARS. How could that be – especially since people with AIDS have suppressed immune systems? Here’s one theory, presented by Laurie Garrett:

Some scientists speculate the virus doesn’t actually kill human cells – that the immune system’s overreaction actually precipitates destruction of cells of the lung and other parts of the body, precipitating the acute pneumonia that is the disease’s hallmark. In theory, they say, death may be the result of an aberrant or overly sensitive immune response. If that is proved correct, it’s possible HIV patients may actually be at lower risk for SARS precisely because they lack strong immune responses.

Just when you thought you couldn’t be surprised, you are. I’ll try and keep track of whether this story pans out. Let me know if you see anything.

Responsibility for the terrorist suicide murders in Tel Aviv lies with two British citizens, we now know. More evidence that it’s increasingly impossible to separate one brand of Islamist terror (al Qaeda) from others (Hamas):

It was not disclosed if the men also held Palestinian identity cards, of if they used their British passports to cross the boundary fence enclosing Gaza. Hamas and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a group linked to the Fatah faction of Mr. Abbas and Yasir Arafat, claimed responsibility for the attack.

So who were these people really? How much did Arafat know? And how credible is Abbas’ claim to renounce violence? We’ll soon find out. His original statement, as even Bill Safire concedes today, amounted to “brave words,” undermined by savage violence. Abbas, for Israel’s sake as well as the Palestinians’, should surely be given a fair chance to exert new authority. On this issue, like a few others, president Bush will soon have to show his real intentions. One “Israeli official” tells James Bennet of the New York Times that

Mr. Bush was acting on the plan because he ‘owed it to Tony Blair,’ Britain’s prime minister. This official said Mr. Bush also wanted to ‘to encourage the new Palestinian government.’

But mere introduction of the plan won’t be enough to please Blair, will it? Count me at worst as an incurable optimist. And at best, as someone who symathizes with what these guys are saying.

ONE BY ONE: The president slowly does the job we most need him for. The number of terrorist attacks went down to 199 in 2002, from 355 in 2001. No reason for any complacency. But surely some credit where it’s due.

LOSERS, SQUARED: John Major defends Prince Charles. That’s like Walter Mondale supporting Al Gore. But in fact, Major’s argument, when it isn’t simply banal, is almost touching. And, largely, right.

JERRY SPRINGER, THE OPERA: Only in London, I suppose. Money review quote:

I never thought I would find a man who wants to poo in his pants touching, but somehow, in this gaudy context, it is. And the first act finale, featuring a chorus of tap-dancing Ku Klux Klansmen is a riot of bad taste worthy of Mel Brooks. The level of energy and invention dips in the second half, when Jerry finds himself in hell and is required to settle the differences between God and the Devil under pain of punishment too horrible to describe in a family newspaper. The jokes aren’t as funny, and I found myself coming over a touch prudish about the blasphemy. But this is a show designed to provoke as well as entertain, and the climactic deus ex machina appearance of God is a real coup de theatre, as is the grand finale, in which the whole cast reappear as Jerry Springer clones.

Jerry Springer clones? Tap dancing KKKers? Book me a flight.

WHERE ARE THEY? Does it matter that we haven’t yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The answer is obviously: no. Would it matter if we never find such evidence? The answer, equally obviously, is: yes. As regular readers will have noticed, I experienced an evolution in my views about this war. I never stinted in supporting it, but my concern about weapons of mass destruction was eventually overtaken by my moral concern with the sheer evil of Saddam’s regime. But that doesn’t mean the WMDs are irrelevant, as Tom Friedman weirdly suggested. I don’t believe the administration lied. I don’t believe Tony Blair lied. But equally, the notion that a few missiles with “chemicals” written on them will some day be found under a rock – and that this kind of thing is necessary for the war to be justified – is silly. We’re talking about a whole system designed to give Saddam a biological and chemical capacity. We need to interview scientists, piece together documents, investigate sites that might have been destroyed to remove evidence just before the war, and so on. This takes time and expertise and patience. I’m happy to wait until a real assessment is possible and credible evidence put together into a coherent whole. Then, we’ll see. But it’s way too soon for some to start crowing that the threat was a sham or a hype. We have as yet no solid evidence for that either.

MAY DAY: Time to celebrate global capitalism, “humanity’s most benign creation.” Anatole Kaletsky rightly blames Europe and Japan for global economic blues, but remains optimistic. I hope he’s right.

ON THE ROAD: Grueling but rewarding speaking tour here. Home later today. I have to say that amid all the emotionally draining debates about homosexuality, religion, and politics, one thing keeps me going: the next generation. The gay students today – I met a bunch at Boston College and the University of Delaware – are coming out at much younger ages than in the past. They have a self-confidence and composure that I never had in college, let alone high school. (I met one today who told his parents at the age of seven.) They span the gamut politically – although more than you might expect are passionate conservatives and Republicans (and tell me how wounded they were by their party’s response to the Santorum affair). But they seem to take it in stride. They know who they are. They appear to have good relationships with their straight peers; and even in their occasional struggles, know they own the future. It’s strange to be in the middle of such social change. I’ll never know what it’s like to grow up in a more accepting age, not to have the torments that so many in my generation went through (let alone the poor souls older then me), but the results in these youngsters’ lives are truly inspiring. They lift me up and cheer me on. With each generation, the psychological damage and pain recedes a little. And the pursuit of happiness begins again. Some of these kids think of me as a mentor. How do I tell them that they are actually mentors to me?

James D. Miller talks about the externalities of incest and homosexuality. He argues, persuasively to my mind, that allowing private incest, even among consenting adults, undermines the trust necessary to form families for all of us. He fails to see how allowing gay people private relationships does the same thing. I think the core issue is actually a simple one: many social conservatives think that homosexuality is something you do; others believe it is something you just are. I’d argue further that it is as critical a part of who you are as being heterosexual. (I explain why in the introduction to Virtually Normal.) Actually, I wouldn’t just argue that. I know that. And once you do know that, equating it with things like incest – which are choices, not orientations – appears offensive and wrong. That’s why I wonder if Santorum has ever had such a discussion with an actual gay person. While I’m at it, here are gay conservative Bruce Bawer’s reflections on the affair.

Norman Mailer used to be an actual writer and thinker. Some of his prose in the past has been peerless, if, to my taste, overly-swaggering. But his recent piece in the Times of London gives hackery a bad name. His theory is that this country went to war in Iraq for the sole reason of appeasing the battered ego of the white American male. For Mailer, the symbol of the WAM is the military. But isn’t the military actually one of the most racially integrated institutions in American life? At one point, presumably after having written half the column, this dawns on Mailer. But he carries on nonetheless. Ironically lamenting the rise of ethnic minorities in many parts of the culture, Mailer argues that

the good white American male still had the Armed Forces. If blacks and Hispanics were numerous there, still they were not a majority, and the officer corps, (if the TV was a reliable witness), suggested that the percentage of white men increased as one rose in rank to the higher officers. Moreover, we had knock-out tank echelons, Super-Marines, and-one magical ace in the hole – the best air force that ever existed. If we cannot find our machismo anywhere else, we can certainly settle in on the interface between combat and technology. Let me then advance the offensive suggestion that this may have been one of the cardinal reasons we went looking for war.

Yes, it is offensive, in as much as it is offensively stupid. Mailer also ignores the other obvious facet of the new military: the presence of women. So apart from the fact that the military is a showcase for feminism and racial integration, it’s a symbol of white male supremacy? Does no-one even edit this drivel?

James Taranto had a very sane column yesterday rebutting Stanley Kurtz’s tireless efforts to describe homosexual equality as inevitably leading to polygamy, bestiality, incest, prostitution, child-abuse, or whetever the latest bogey-man might be. (Isn’t it strange that the only thing some conservatives never associate homosexuality with is the one thing it is most like: heterosexuality?) Taranto makes a sharp point in this respect:

Echoing Santorum, Kurtz raises the possibility of a “slippery slope” leading from same-sex marriage to polygamy. But one can easily draw a distinction. The widespread practice of polygamy would have great social costs. It would distort the sexual marketplace by creating an undersupply of marriageable women. (Polyandry, the practice of women having multiple husbands, is too rare to be worth discussing.) The result is the creation of what Jonathan Rauch calls a “sexual underclass” of “low-status men” whose prospects for marriage are virtually nil… By contrast, it’s hard to imagine any great social harm arising from official recognition of same-sex unions. Just about anyone who would consider “marrying” someone of the same sex is outside the ordinary marriage pool anyway…

Precisely. Taranto sees no real social costs to encouraging this formerly marginalized group to have relationships that are recognized and faithful and durable. But then he says he doesn’t see any actual social advantage for granting gays marriage either. But surely the obvious conservative reason to back same-sex marriage is that it would encourage gay couples to care for each other, build responsible families and reduce promiscuity. All of these are conservative goals. So why can’t conservatives endorse them for homosexuals? I made this point way back in 1989, and I still haven’t heard a convincing argument against it. Taranto posits a compromise for those who worry that marriage would somehow be tainted by the inclusion of gays. He suggests ‘civil unions’ as an alternative way to foster gay responsibility and ensure gay equality, while leaving ‘marriage’ exclusively heterosexual. I disagree, but I can certainly see the rationale for such a proposal. Civil unions are backed by almost every Democratic candidate, and by many consistent conservatives. If I were trying to avoid gay marriage, I’d push civil unions as an obvious alternative. But the religious right won’t even tolerate that. If they have to choose between exclusion and true conservative principles, they pick exclusion every time.

More evidence of the secret service and local cops policing free speech. Did this happen to some extent under Clinton as well? Either way, the notion that people trying to express their opposition to the president’s policies must be shepherded into areas where the president could never see them strikes me as deeply worrying.

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD: A mischievous emailer informs me that Senator Rick Santorum’s Scranton District Office is located at 527, Linden Street. At 523, Linden Street, there’s the “Silhouette Lounge,” apparently recently named the “Best Gay Bar in Northeastern Pennsylvania.” Not that there’s that much competition, I’m afraid. I hope Rick drops by sometimes for a cocktail. It might be a good thing for there to be a bit of dialogue there.

There are, it seems to me, two big trends going on in religious faith right now. The first is an obvious upswing in fundamentalism, Islamic and Christian, a fundamentalism that challenges the separation of church and state, and that opposes internal debate about theology in favor of the rigid imposition of orthodoxy. But the other trend is that many faithful believers are working out their own views within their own religious traditions. Those who mock this development call it “cafeteria religion;” I’d prefer to think of it as religion informed by reason and individual experience. In America especially, new religions are popping up all over the place that partake of this cafeteria paradigm. A lively piece in the recent Reason magazine provides an overview of some of the wackier as well as more mainstream versions of this:

There is a wide gulf, of course, between someone who merely fine-tunes her Catholicism and someone who replaces the Virgin Mary with the goddess of chaos; between a Jew who mixes milk with meat and a Jew who practices witchcraft. If I am describing a trend, it is one that covers a wide spectrum of behavior, from the ordinary to the outré. As a journalist, I have naturally focused on the latter – but it’s the former, obviously, that is reshaping society.

Well worth a read.

FEMINISM AND LACROSSE: Some fascinating discussion going on at the Ms Magazine bulletin board. It’s a classic feminist controversy: are we for gender equality or for protecting girls from big bad boys? Oddly enough, some of these anti-male feminists might have some allies on the far right. They wouldn’t want a boy playing on a girls’ lacrosse team either.

CIRCUMCISION DATA: It behooves me to link to a new study arguing that there is no difference in sensitivity between circumcized and uncircumcized men. The Reuters piece doesn’t tell us exactly how such things were measured and the squeamish probably don’t want to know. My own anti-circumcision view, however, is not based on the idea that mutilated men have less pleasure. It’s based on the simple notion that individuals’ bodies should not be permanently altered without their consent, unless the medical evidence for such a procedure is overwhelming. It isn’t. So I’ll stick to my guns.

ANOTHER BUSH NOMINEE: This time to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, former Jesse Helms campaign press secretary, Claude A. Allen. According to the Washington Post,

A Senate Judiciary Committee aide said Democrats are scrutinizing Allen’s statements about abortion and gays. During the 1984 campaign, Allen was criticized for his response to Hunt’s description of Helms’s backers as right-wingers. Allen said Hunt had links “with the queers.”

Inclusion just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?

Baghdad Bob is apparently negotiating surrender. Will Roger Ailes offer him a talk show before the military nabs him?

BAGHDAD BROADCASTING CORPORATION: Guess what term they use to describe one Osama bin Laden? Sit down:

It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident – blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks – to justify violence against the United States and its allies.

Sakharov, Walesa, bin Laden. That’s the mind of the BBC.

BUSH AND “INCLUSION”: The Washington Post nails it. The president’s rhetoric simply doesn’t match his own reality. On April 9, for good measure, the president nominated Bill Pryor, Alabama attorney general, to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Pryor is a strong defender of anti-sodomy laws, wrote an amicus brief defending the Texas law for the Supreme Court, fought for the discriminatory Colorado law that was struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer vs Evans, and has associated homosexual relationships with “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing).” Does president Bush believe that Pryor is “an inclusive man?” Or will he and his defenders keep saying they don’t even have to answer that question?