The Dish

The fish rots from the head down.

GAY MARRIAGE COMES TO BRITAIN: Well, they’re not going to call it marriage. But everything but the m-word seems now in the cards in Britain. What’s truly striking is that the brightest Thatcherite in the Tory party, Oliver Letwin, has also said that the Conservatives will back the move:

“Whilst we attach a huge importance to the institution of marriage we do recognise that gay couples suffer from some serious particular grievances,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “If what the government is coming forward with is indeed a set of practical steps to address a set of practical problems that affect people, then we will welcome them.” He denied that it would undermine the “special” status of marriage, insisting there was nobody in his party who saw a contradiction between believing in marriage and accepting that gay people have concrete grievances about their current legal status.

Contrast this with the hysterical response from some on the American far right, and you see the difference between conservatism and reaction. Rather than even go slow on this sensible reform, some American rightists want to meddle with the Constitution itself to stop this even being discussed.

The Iraqi deadline is fast approaching and it’s worth trying to figure out what could happen in the next few days. Saddam’s current ploy is to welcome inspectors as a way to prove he has no weapons of mass destruction. Without taking experts out of the country and interrogating them, the inspectors almost certainly won’t find any. That’s surely why the December 8 deadline is so important. It’s the first clear trip-wire for war. What if Saddam produces a list of mainly civilian-use technology and the Bush administration declares that it knows it’s incomplete. What then? The administration has long argued that the point of the U.N. inspections is not to find well-hidden weapons but to provide Saddam a mechanism by which to disarm completely. If his December 8 declaration is a lie, then Saddam is clearly violating the terms of the 1991 truce and the U.N.’s last chance option. So we declare war. We could be on a direct war-path by next week. In fact, I think it’s highly likely we will be. And then the counter-strikes in Northern Lebanon and throughout the West may well be ramped up. This is the calm before the storm. As snow blankets much of us, we should savor it while we can.

THE FRUITS OF AIDS ACTIVISM: Congrats to all the activists pummeling the drug companies for high-priced HIV drugs. The latest data show a 33 percent decline in new HIV drugs in the research and development pipeline since 1997. “We have lost the battle with the activists, and now the market is less profitable. The result is that we are spending less R&D time on anti-retrovirals. Why bother to innovate these products when any advance will not be profitable?” one drug company honcho tells TechCentralStation. There may be other reasons for the decline – a saturated market, a better winnowing out process for failing drugs – but the impact of the assault on the drug industry is almost certainly part of the picture. Now watch the mainstream media ignore this. Far better to run a fatuous piece by Bill Clinton on World AIDS Day than confront the real threat to drug innovation so critical to halt a fast-mutating virus.

GETTING IT:“I appreciate your attention to the tax haven absurdity in the Homeland Security Bill. One gripe: I wish you would stop using the phrase, so and so “gets it,” when they agree with you. The phrase implies some higher plane of knowledge that a select few attain when they tap into your opinions, or at least a point of view that you agree with. Those who disagree with you don’t just then disagree; they don’t get it; don’t understand; they’re stuck in the cave. It sounds a tad arrogant. Can’t one get it – and disagree?” – from the Letters Page today.

WHAT THE BRITS BAN: Here’s what happens when you don’t have a First Amendment. You not only get hauled into jail for insulting someone’s religion, you can’t even run TV commercials making fun of George Bush! An ad which portrayed the allegedly dumb president trying to put a video-cassette into a toaster was ruled too cruel. You could broadcast it on a regular, approved show – but not in an ad. Go figure.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it! …”Tolerate” means you’re just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! ” – Mr. Garrison, South Park. More words of non-lefty wisdom from South Park can be found here. Warning: lots of naughty words but no “horrific, deplorable violence.”

KURTZ’S BAIT AND SWITCH: Stanley Kurtz is still insisting that the minute one state legalizes equal marriage rights for gays and straights, gay marriage will be nationalized. He therefore argues that we need to take the drastic step of barring gays from marriage in the U.S. Constitution itself. That’s how urgent he thinks this matter is; that’s how big a threat to the entire fabric of our society this is; that’s how likely such a nationalization is. I disagree – as do the vast majority of Constitutional scholars. In his first piece, Kurtz propagated the idea that the Full Faith and Credit Clause will mandate such a nationalization. Presented with legal evidence that shows that that clause has never succeeded in nationalizing one state’s marriages and that it is extremely unlikely to be successful in doing so in the future, he has now wisely reverted to another argument. This time, he argues that same-sex marriage may one day be nationalized the way inter-racial marriage eventually was – not by full faith and credit but by an equal protection argument. In fact, he now believes that equal protection arguments are far more likely to nationalize same-sex marriage than Full Faith and Credit. Well, I’m glad he’s acknowledged that the scare tactics by the far right on Full Faith and Credit are just that. That was the point of my post earlier this week; and he has essentially conceded the point.

EQUAL PROTECTION: As to equal protection, you could indeed argue that granting a very basic civil right to a majority and denying it to a minority is an obvious case of inequality. Perhaps one day in the distant future, SCOTUS will see this. I certainly hope so. But is it likely now? Or immediately? Or even soon? One should recall that it’s still constitutional in some states to single out gays in the privacy of their own homes and arrest them for sexual acts that, when performed by hetersoexuals, are entirely legal. (With any luck, SCOTUS is going to end that blatant injustice soon. And Kurtz, to his great credit, supports such a move.) But it’s a huge leap from there to the Court’s mandating gay marriage across the country on the grounds of equal protection. I don’t know many scholars or legal observers who expect SCOTUS to take such a drastic meaure any time in the distant future. Of course, it’s possible (whereas using Full Faith and Credit is almost certainly impossible). But it’s extremely unlikely. Remember it took well over a century for the Court to rule on inter-racial marriages in this way. The relevant question is whether it is so likely in the short term that we have to take the drastic step of amending the Constitution of the United States itself to prevent such a thing from happening. That’s where Kurtz and I disagree. I believe individual states should be able to decide for themselves. I believe that state courts – where marriage questions rightly belong – should also rule on a state-by-state basis. I think that when that happens, other states should have the chance to recognize or not recognize such out-of-state marriages acording to their own laws, constitutions and public policy. I hope that when that process unfolds, and marriage is seen to be profoundly strengthened (rather than weakened) by including everyone in its reach, fears will give way to evidence and we’ll eventually have marriage rights for all. It will take time and persuasion and argument and experience, but that’s the genius of a federal system, a system Kurtz wants to upend. I want that slow federal process to take place. Kurtz wants to pre-empt it now by writing an anti-gay plank into the Constitution of the United States. He wants to prevent the process even starting. I think that’s unconservative, anti-federal, extremist and deeply divisive. W
hich is as good a description of some elements of the far right (and the far left) in this country as you can find.

It’s been a big week at the New York Times. My sources tell me morale is at or about bottom as Howell Raines continues his manic attempt to corral news stories and now columns to reflect a party line. The Times has now run over 40 stories or columns on the Augusta National Golf Club non-story, all parroting the same line. The resignation of one out of around 300 club members made it to the front page of a national newspaper. The Times has now spiked two dissenting columns and, according to the columnists, the reason was their dissent from the official position. Even a Raines defender, Jack Shafer, has given up, while Raines’ critics, ahem, are feeling vindicated. Perhaps sensing how much damage has been done to the Times’ reputation, Gerald Boyd, Howell Raines’ underling, sent out this priceless leaked memo yesterday. Boyd is unapologetic about the Times’ crazed fascination with the Augusta National Golf Club, comparing it in the same sentence with the need to report on Afghanistan: “There is only one word for our vigor in pursuing a story – whether in Afghanistan or Augusta. Call it journalism.” Boyd then denies that the two columns were spiked for ideological reasons. But his memo shows nothing of the kind. First off, Boyd concedes that David Anderson’s piece was spiked because it took on the position of the editorial page. But isn’t that exactly what the Times is accused of? Here’s the rationale:

One of the columns focused centrally on disputing The Times’s editorials about Augusta. Part of our strict separation between the news and editorial pages entails not attacking each other. Intramural quarreling of that kind is unseemly and self-absorbed. Discussion of editorials may arise when we report on an issue; fair enough. But we do not think they should be the issue.

Where to start with this? First off, a self-confident paper would be perfectly happy to have some internal debate. Second, if you really had to, you could ask the columnist to remove the direct reference to the Times editorial page and make his argument instead. But notice the slipperiness of this Boyd’s logic in any case. Intramural civility is the rule. Which means no open disagreement with the editorial page. Which is dictated by Raines. So “civility” is a euphemism for conformity – especially on contentious issues. And then notice how self-defeating it is. The fact is that the Times has become “the issue” – but not because of dissenting columnists but because of the ham-fisted way in which those columnists have been treated.

THE SELF-DEFEATING MEMO: Perhaps sensing the circularity of his “civility” argument, Boyd then says that Anderson had already written a column, “arguing on October 6 against pressuring the golf club to admit women,” and a second would be too much. But a look at the October 6 piece by Anderson reveals no such thing. The piece makes no such argument; and in fact, clearly steers clear of any argument at all. Sure, Anderson reports on locals’ views that they see nothing wrong with Augusta’s men-only policy. But he also reports on those who sharply disagree. Here’s the whole column so you can see what I mean or make your own mind up. In fact, it’s less a column than a report, and in much of its language, betrays a certain condescension to the club:

Sports of The Times; Augusta National’s Neighbors Wonder What All the Fussin’ Could Be About
AUGUSTA, Ga. — AT the leafy entrance to the Augusta National Golf Club, the green iron gate next to the sentry box is slammed shut, barring access to Magnolia Lane and the white plantation clubhouse above the course where the Masters is played every April. Along the property’s perimeter, green canvas covers the tournament’s parking-lot gates between the tall pine trees and thick bushes that tower above the traffic on Washington Road.
In the weeks before the club will reopen after its usual five-month summer nap, Augusta National resembles a Confederate Army camp under siege.
And it is. The attack is with words and threats from the Washington-based National Council of Women’s Organizations: Admit a woman as a member. But most of Augusta National’s neighbors here seem to wonder what all the fussin’ is about.
Its golf neighbor is the serene Augusta Country Club, where tall pines separate the fairway of its 388-yard par-4 ninth hole from Augusta National’s famous 12th hole down there in Amen Corner where Rae’s Creek flows.
During a recent Masters, as Tiger Woods was near the 12th green, a stray shot from that ninth fairway somehow landed harmlessly near him.
”I don’t know how that ball ever got through those trees,” Henry Marburger, the Augusta Country Club’s general manager, was saying Friday. ”It had to be a freak shot, an embarrassing shot. Whoever hit it never owned up to it.”
Of the Augusta Country Club’s 1,300 members, according to Marburger, 900 are golf members, including ”30 or 40” women and ”some African-American” members. About 25 are also Augusta National members.
”If you polled any group, the opinions would be mixed,” Marburger said, alluding to Augusta National’s controversy, ”but I’m sure more of our members would be pro-National. They like the National a great deal. It’s part of our society. And during the Masters many of our members are gallery marshals there. They look forward to that.”
Opened in 1899, the Country Club was ”the” golf course in Augusta long before the National opened in 1933. Bobby Jones often traveled 130 miles from his Atlanta home to play at the Augusta Country Club. In 1930, Jones, a career amateur, prepared for his Grand Slam by winning the Southeastern Open at the Augusta Country Club by 15 strokes over the best pros of that era.
”Bobby Jones was an honorary member here,” Marburger said.
In Augusta, where there’s a Bobby Jones Expressway, don’t expect much dissent at the Country Club for whatever happens at the National, which Jones founded. And among the National’s other neighbors, the businesses across Washington Road from the club entrance, dissent was the exception.
At the International House of Pancakes, the manager, Lynn Smith, a divorced mother of two, shook her head.
”I agree with what the National’s doing,” she said. ”It’s been like that forever, no women members. I’m a women’s libber, but it’s a man’s thing over there.”
At the Clubhouse, a green-and-white banquet-reception hall where corporate groups gather during the Masters, the owner, Terry Wick, shrugged. ”I don’t see where it’s an issue either way,” he said. ”I can see the women’s side of it, but why would you want to make it an issue?”
At the nondenominational Whole Life Ministries, the senior pastor, Dr. Sandra Kennedy, was in Atlanta, but its property manager, Howard Gaither, nodded.
”Our pastor is a woman,” he said, ”but from the few comments I’ve heard around here, it seems ridiculous for a woman to break into the club. It’ll take a miracle for a woman to be a member there. It’s a private club. They can do what they like.”
Like the Clubhouse, the Ministries’ income is improved by the Masters; it leases its 700-space parking lot the week of the Masters. Another neighbor, Windsor Jewelers, also does a brisk business during Masters Week.
”The National is a good, quiet neighbor,” Donald Thompson, Windsor’s owner, said. ”Everybody I’ve talked to here, the Augusta Women’s Club, the Junior League, they say they don’t want any men in their clubs either. Many of them play golf at the National anyway. Locally, we don’t see it as a big deal. If you don’t like what the National is doing, you don’t have to go to the Masters.”
But at the Food Lion, the local outlet for the South’s popular supermarket chain, a dissenting voice was heard.
”Pers
onally, I’m not for exclusion of any sort,” said Tony Clark, a 34-year-old African-American who is an assistant manager. ”It’s perceived here that the Masters takes over the city. It’s an intrusion that week for the people who live here.”
Clark remembered a customer, an elderly white woman, talking about William Johnson, known as Hootie, the Augusta National chairman.
”This lady hates the Masters,” Clark said. ”She told me: ‘Doesn’t he have a wife? What does his wife think about all this?’ ”
Mostly, or at least publicly, Augusta National’s neighbors were defending it along Washington Road. But neighbors usually stick together. Especially when heritage or dollars are involved.

Now, does that read to you like a column “arguing against pressurizing the golf club to admit women”? A column that analogizes the club to a Confederate Army Camp? A column that ends by implying that defenders of the club are motivated by money? And yet this is the basis on which Boyd argues that Anderson’s “freedom to argue that way was not – is not – in question.” The truth is: Anderson’s freedom to argue that way is precisely what’s at question. And Raines knows it.

THE SECOND SPIN: The second spiked piece was turned down, according to Boyd, because its logic wasn’t sound enough. I will resist the temptation to point out that they publish Maureen Dowd twice a week, but this line is just as dubious. It’s impossible to know whether it has any validity without reading the drafts. But suffice to say that I’ve had plenty of editors in my time who have not seen the “logic” in an argument with which they disagree. And the way in which Boyd described Anderson’s October 6 column suggests the Times’ editors’ view of logic is somewhat subjective. Here’s the only way in which the Times can now prove to their readers that their columnists actually are free to argue what they believe: run the two columns and prove me wrong.

I spoke too soon. Read John DiIulio’s letter to Esquire about the Bush administration. If I were in the White House, I’d take large parts of it to heart. It’s sane, smart, generous when merited, no more than usually self-interested and at times very telling. There is a lack of a coherent, compelling social policy agenda in this administration. And some of this seems to come from an overly politicized and intellectually incurious management:

Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking – discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue.

One exception was stem-cell research. But after that, the well runs dry. DiIulio is particularly shrewd about healthcare policy:

During the campaign, for instance, the president had mentioned Medicaid explicitly as one program on which Washington might well do more. I co-edited a whole (boring!) Brookings volume on Medicaid; some people inside thought that universal health care for children might be worth exploring, especially since, truth be told, the existing laws take us right up to that policy border. They could easily have gotten in behind some proposals to implement existing Medicaid provisions that benefit low-income children. They could have fashioned policies for the working poor. The list is long. Long, and fairly complicated, especially when – as they stipulated from the start – you want to spend little or no new public money on social welfare, and you have no real process for doing meaningful domestic policy analysis and deliberation. It’s easier in that case to forget Medicaid refinements and react to calls for a “PBOR,” patients’ bill of rights, or whatever else pops up.

The result is a slow drift toward socialized medicine, as dictated by the agenda of the Democrats. Ditto with education, where Teddy Kennedy has had more influence than any Republican, neocon or neolib. I understand why the war has usurped some of these priorities – and rightly so. But the lack of any substance behind the domestic agenda is a very worrying sign – and one reason, I think, that Bush’s re-elect numbers are so low. People like what he’s done but have no clear idea of what he wants to do domestically in the byears ahead. Reading DiIulio, I wonder if the president does either.

FISKING THE SOCIAL RIGHT: Stanley Kurtz gets the full treatment from young libertarian, Julian Sanchez.

No dissent allowed in the New York Times. Writers who don’t follow the party-line are purged. Now Pulitzer Prize winners are spiked; and sports columns killed, because they don’t conform to the views of the big guy. Howell Raines surely understands the spirit of open debate, doesn’t he?

I like this idea from Noam Schreiber at TNR. The Democrats should stop whining about tax cuts and instead argue for different, more populist tax cuts, like a payroll tax holiday. If I were a Dem, I’d also argue for outflanking the administration in the war on terror not by quibbling over Iraq, but by insisting on a strategy for regime change in Saudi Arabia and Iran as well. If Gore had a brain, he’d be saying these things as well.

MAKING LIGHT OF TORTURE: What to make of this astonishing article at Slate? Am I hallucinating or is Tim Noah actually equating Saddam’s torturing of political enemies with consensual safe sado-masochistic sex between adults? Here’s one memorable phrase, glibly posited by Noah as if he is saying something clever: “[O]ne man’s recreation is another man’s torture.” Excuse me? Tell that to those tortured to death by Saddam. This moral equivalence is far worse, I think, than equating Miss World contests with forcing women to wear burqas. It trivializes enormous evil; and makes light of the hideous suffering inflicted on Saddam’s enemies. Somewhere in some dark prison right now, someone is being electrocuted, or burnt, or pummeled or tortured by Saddam’s henchmen. And Noah finds a way to equate that with free, consensual, sado-masochistic games: “It would be less awful if [Saddam’s] victims were willing. But how much less awful?” The answer is: less awful by a universe of awfulness. One has to ask: What universe is Noah in that he can even begin to think this way? How desperate is he for something to write that he can come up with this angle? Would he equate Stalin’s gulags with leather-fetish clubs? Would he trivialize Hitler’s holocaust by remarking how similar it is to some bondage games? Maybe he thinks he’s being funny. He’s not. He’s being depraved. Maybe he’s just peddling titillating details about S&M into what’s supposed to be credible journalism. Or maybe his goal is to stigmatize people with unusual sex lives just for the hell of it. But to do so by equating it with political torture is unequivocally vile. And there’s something about his chirpy repetition of the third person “Chatterbox” device while making light of the hideous torture of political prisoners that is truly sickening. Of course, he has the disclaimer: “By no means does Chatterbox mean to make light of these horrible practices. Quite the opposite: Chatterbox is trying to add a little weight to decisions about personal pleasure that shade into voluntary mutilation.” Maybe Chatterbox should take a tour of Saddam’s gulags before he writes such obscenities again.

Spinsanity makes the case against Gore and some of his detractors.

“I have argued with him on almost every subject in the world, and we have always been on opposite sides, without affectation or animosity…. It is necessary to disagree with him as much as I do, in order to admire him as I do; and I am proud of him as a foe even more than as a friend.” – G.K. Chesterton on his relationship with George Bernard Shaw, from Chesterton’s autobiography.

ONE DEM GETS IT: Peter Beinart makes a strong case for the Democrats to make hay about the federal munificence to corporate tax-evaders.

THE ENEMY’S TACTICS:Here’s a useful summary of Saddam’s police methods. This is what anti-war “progressives” want to protect from outside interference.

A BRITISH VIEW: “Sport is the arena in which men parade the virtues that are the essence of masculinity: courage, athleticism, strength, endurance, will, magnanimity in victory, dignity in defeat. Many women find that fantastically sexy, which is why you’ll rarely see a sports star with an ugly girlfriend. And many men find it sexy, too, which is why they stick pictures of their heroes all over their bedroom walls.That’s what’s so crazy about all the gay sportsmen rumours. For I don’t care how straight you are, how many women you shag or how many kids you’ve produced. When it comes to loving sport, we’re all a bunch of poofs.” – this, a defense of Al Gore’s “fifth column” remark, and an attack on Al Gore’s ‘fifth column” remark, all on the Letters Page.

THE ENEMY’S ENEMY: This transcript is worth reading. It’s an interview with a Bangladeshi writer, Taslima Nasrin, who lives under the threat of death because of her criticisms of Islam. She fears for her life each day. And she specifically disputes the idea that there are several Islams, most of which are peaceful:

TN: … [I]t is written in the Koran that if you are not Muslim, or if you are you know disbeliever, then you should be killed. Islam divides the world in two parts: Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. Dar al-Harb means land of infidels and Dar al-Islam means land of Islam. So it’s the Muslim’s duty to make, to kill all the infidels or make them convert and to make all the land Dar al-Islam, means land of Islam.
ES: What about the idea of tolerance?
TN: There is no tolerance. There is no tolerance in Islam because, you know if it is, if a law say, because a law says that disbelievers would go to hell if you are a Muslim but you reject Islam and if you deny Allah or Prophet Mohammad, then you should be killed. You know fundamentalists issued fatwa against me. Many people, the so-called liberal Muslims, say that: no, it’s not real Islam, Islam is for peace, Islam doesn’t allow any fatwa. Actually, it is not true. The fundamentalists are following, are practicing Islam correctly.

And the key point is that Nasrin, like Salman Rushdie, isn’t safe even in the West. The brutality isn’t only “over there.” It’s here.

QUOTATION MARK WATCH: Have you begun to notice how some commentators (mainly on the left but also on the paleo-right) have begun to put the term “war on terrorism” in quote marks? I wonder what part of the phrase they don’t buy. That we are fighting terrorism? Or that we are at war? Here’s a recent example. It’s in the opening paragraph. Send me other egregious ones as well, would you?

CLARIFICATION: In my post yesterday about Islam versus gays, some people were confused when I posited the notion of a fundamentalist Christian group possibly calling for the execution of gays. Obviously, I was referring to what happened with extremist Muslims in Australia. But the post was a little confusing, and I’m sorry for that. But if you think fundamentalist Christians would never say or believe such a thing, you’re wrong. Check this story out. Of course, these people are fringe types. But they exist – and are particularly influential in the “ex-gay” movement. But in some ways, I respect their hideous consistency. One of the things that befuddles me about some Christian fundamentalists is why they don’t call for public executions of homosexuals. They say they believe in the Bible literally. And Leviticus clearly calls for the death penalty for sodomy. So why do they refuse to follow the Bible? Or are they cafeteria fundamentalists?

He makes some good points.

Now he really is a loser. I have to say I loved his term “Mayberry Machiavelli.” Captures Rove beautifully. But how out of it was DiIulio in the first place to expect a non-political White House?

CORPORATE SCAMS: Ignore some of the loopy rhetoric. Arianna is dead-on in this column. The idea that the feds should be shovelling money to corporations who locate off-shore is simply disgusting. If I were a Democrat, I’d make a huge deal out of this. But then if I were a Democrat, I’d probably be on the take from these corporations as well.

THE RACISM OF THE POMO LEFT: Ian Buruma provides an important follow-up to my piece on the Miss World riots in the Guardian. Money graf:

Besides snobbery, there is a worse reason for being more outraged by western vulgarity than non-western murderousness. It might be called moral obtuseness, or even moral racism. The assumption appears to be that Africans or Asians can’t be held to our own elevated standards. They are more like wild animals, whose savagery should not be provoked by our foolishness. When we do provoke them, the consequences are entirely our fault. It would be as misplaced to apply our moral standards to their behaviour, as it would be to expect tigers to talk. The murder of Nigerians or Indian Muslims, or Iraqi Kurds, is par for the course, unless we did it, or Americans, or Israelis.

I think this describes a lot of white, Western, lefty sentiment toward Islamism. Many of these people actually believe that Western standards of freedom, decency, and tolerance cannot be expected of Muslims or other dark-skinned people. The way in which much of the Western Left (and parts of the insouciant right) simply excused the mass murder of hundreds in Nigeria is a function of this condescension. So, I think, is the idea that Iraqis don’t really want to live in freedom – or at least out of the grip of a disgusting dictatorship. What parts of the left are about is maintaining their own so-called morality, while consigning the inhabitants of the developing world to the backwardness that is naturally theirs’. If this were the nineteenth century, these lefties would be Tories. And eagles would be Gladstonian liberals.

KRUGMAN WATCH: In a rip-off of E.J. Dionne’s recent column, Paul Krugman says quite baldly that in the Wall Street Journal, “key conservative ideologues have now declared their support for tax increases – but only for people with low incomes.” Read the piece he cites. See if you can find any argument for actually increasing taxes on the poor. In fact, the editorial states that “While we would opt for a perfect world in which everybody paid far less in taxes, our increasingly two-tiered tax system is undermining the political consensus for cutting taxes at all.” The bottom line is that any further reductions in net taxes should be avoided. That’s not the same as raising them. Matthew Hoy has the goods. One instructive comparison: compare Dionne’s tough but fair piece with Krugman’s. It tells you all you need to know about Krugman’s intellectual integrity.