The Dish

I can’t blog about Carter’s Nobel Prize. It’s too predictable, too depressing and too easy. All I can say is: some of the nastiest and most vicious dictators in the world must be very happy right now. Their best buddy is a hero.

I got an email this morning that channels what the big gay organizations really feel about the gay-baiting Montana Democratic ad:

I think you’re coming across pretty partisan on this one, Andrew. Baucus is a co-sponsor of ENDA and has a 57 percent pro-gay voting record which is quite impressive given that he’s from Montana. The only Republican west of the Mississippi to equal his score is Gordon Smith … from Oregon, of course. After him, there isn’t a remotely close second. If this ad helps put the last nail on the coffin (which was practically sealed shut to begin with) for Mike Taylor (who is another social conservative a la Grassley or Brownback) then it should be celebrated. This is why HRC/NGLTF, etc. isn’t saying anything. And it’s obvious to anyone that Republicans would practically foam at the mouth for such juicy footage if it existed. The ad was not a mischaracterization of Taylor (not all hairdressers are gay, if that’s what poor, poor Republicans want to infer, then that’s much more revealing, doncha think?), and Baucus is hardly on an anti-gay tirade. It’s politics as usual.

Notice that my position that gay-baiting is wrong, period, is described as “pretty partisan.” Notice how running a gay-baiting ad is okay if it helps elect people who support some aspects of the gay organizations’ agenda. Actually, it’s not just ok – it’s to be “celebrated.” Still no word from HRC or NGLTF. This confirms their status as front-operations for the Democrats, even when it means condoning anti-gay bigotry. But how can HRC still criticize Jeb Bush for his ugly comments lately when they don’t object if a Democrat does far worse? One group has actually taken a principled stand, the Stonewall Democrats. Their executive director, a decent man called Chad Johnson, said the following: “Any gay-baiting tactic is contrary to the fundamental principals [sic] of the Democratic Party. As gay Democrats, we are required to hold all levels of our party accountable regarding gay and lesbian equality.” Hey, Chad, I’m afraid you forgot which party you’re in. Meanwhile, for every sleazebag bigot who wants to smear an opponent, the sluice gates have just been opened – wide.

A solid win in the House and almost certainly an emphatic one in the Senate. More interestingly, the polls show that Americans get the president’s arguments about Iraq in a post-9/11 world. According to a Pew Center poll, reported by ABCNews,

86 percent of those surveyed believed Saddam had nuclear weapons or was close to acquiring them, and 66 percent believed he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Bush cites the attacks as demonstrating the need to act against Saddam, and has linked his campaign against Iraq to the “war on terrorism” he launched last fall, but he has not established a direct link between Sept. 11 and Iraq. Bush has also warned that Iraq could build a nuclear weapon within a year if it can get enriched uranium. “Clearly, the president’s major arguments in favor of taking military action against Iraq are resonating with the public,” the Pew center said in its report on the poll. Furthermore, 85 percent of those surveyed believed that the Saddam must be ousted – rather than simply disarmed – to deal with the threat posed by Iraq.

Meanwhile, a Fox News poll finds that 48 percent of Americans believe they would be less safe if Al Gore were president. I think that voters have listened carefully to both Bush and Gore these last two weeks. And they have drawn their own conclusions.

THAT AD: I’m unimpressed by some of your attempts to justify it. I refer to the political ad that prompted state senator Mike Taylor to withdraw from the Montana U.S. Senate race yesterday. Yes, there was some kind of legitimate argument about diversion of school loan money, but the issue was pathetically tiny. As the Billings Gazette noted,

Taylor denies wrongdoing and pointed to a 1999 settlement with the U.S. Education Department in which no violations were admitted and he paid a total of $27,250 to the federal government and the state of Colorado.

I’m also unimpressed by the notion that Taylor’s own apparent homophobia somehow detracts from the attempted smear. Yes, it’s offensive that Taylor thinks that being called gay is a “loathesome” accusation. But that doesn’t mean that the ad wasn’t a clear attempt to use homophobia to attack another candidate. I’ve watched the ad now a few times. The music is really central – it sounds like a ’70s porn video. The clips show Taylor with limp wrists fussing over a male model. The final shot is Taylor touching up the cosmetics under the guy’s eyes. Please. Acording to Taylor, plenty of such clips exist showing him fussing over a woman. So why did the Dems choose this one? The final sentence was also hardly subtle: “That’s not how we do business here in Montana.” I’m sorry, but this was gay-baiting. The real story, then, is how Democrats have responded and will respond. If they do nothing, if they do not condemn the ad, then the next time some know-nothing bigot tries a similar tactic on a Democrat, what are the Dems going to say? More depressing, but absolutely typical, is the non-response of the gay organizations. If this had been a Republican ad, can you imagine the outcry? So far, nothing on the website of the Human Rights Campaign or the National Gay Lesbian Task Force. HRC does have an item condemning Governor Jeb Bush for an ugly joke in Florida – but that merely confirms their double-standards. The locals aren’t much better. According to the AP:

Karl Olson, executive director of PRIDE, a Helena gay rights organization, said he believes the ad was an attempt to suggest Taylor is gay. He said he was bothered more by Taylor’s reaction. “To me, what’s more of a problem is that an adult, an intelligent person, is going to flee from that and not just stand up and say, `You know, OK, so I looked like a gay hairdresser. What’s wrong with looking like a gay hairdresser? Let’s get on with the campaign,'” he said.

This is a transparent attempt to blame the victim. I repeat: If this ad had been run by a Republican against a Democrat, then it would be front page news in the New York Times and the subject of denunciations from gay rights “leaders.” But because it’s a Democratic ad, it’s a non-story. That tells you a huge amount about groups like HRC and the Democratic Party.

HELLISH TECH DAY: No sooner do I get my Powerbook working again, than the DSL line goes down. Grrr. I lost several hours today just trying to do the basics. This technology is wonderful if it works, isn’t it?

SIGN OF THE TIMES: Riding through Commercial Street tonight, I saw something new. Around the entrances to various bars, there were mounds of strewn cigarette butts. They banned smoking in bars here a week or so ago. I wonder if these piles of debris, all gathered in one place around exits and entrances to buildings will one day be deemed the hallmark of this particular time. And what people in the future will think of that.

DEPT OF AMPLIFICATIONS: My reader who commented on the Weekly Standard screw-up on the Buzzcocks got it slightly wrong. The story wasn’t made up; it was heard third hand and the name of the group was wrong. Everything else pans out, as this gracious correction shows. (Hey, Krugman, take a leaf from this guy’s book!)

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “As Flanders & Swann said: “Examine the Irishman, Welshman, or Scot / You’ll find he’s a stinker as likely as not…” Certainly no responsible person should give a moment’s thought to these Celtic fringes, vegetating in their aboriginal squalor.” – John Derbyshire, National Review Online.

Another Senate candidate has dropped out. This time, it’s state senator, Mike Taylor, a Montana Republican, because, in part, his Democratic opponents dug up an ancient television show in which he is seen

applying lotions to the face of a man siting in the barber chair and discussing techniques. The ad shows Taylor, then slender, sporting a full beard. He is wearing a tight-fitting, three piece suit, with a big-collared open shirt ala John Travolta in “Saturday Night Fever.” Taylor’s top two or three shirt buttons are unbuttoned, exposing some bare chest and a number of gold chains. “I cannot believe they would stoop to that level,” Taylor said.

This is a classic – destroying a candidate, who once ran a business selling hair-care products, by playing on the cheesiest anti-gay imagery. And now it’s being used by the Democrats. I say: get Racicot to replace him. But only if the electoral law allows it. And let’s see what the national gay groups say. If the Republicans had done this, there would be hell to pay.

Tom Edsall pens a gloomy piece about the impact of the war on the Democrats. Hardcore Democratic donors – Streisand et al – are demoralized by the party leadership’s final acquiescence to the Bush administration. So funding is down; and the anti-Bush base may not show up in November. So far, very few Dems have pandered to this base mercilessly: Gore and Kennedy are the obvious exceptions to the rule. The broader implication is an interesting one: the more successful Bush is as a war president, the more generally popular he will be, but the more reviled he will become among the hard-core Dems. So the Dems lose money and votes. I’m not predicting anything. I still think this Congressional election is way too close to call. But the dynamics Edsall illustrates would have me very depressed for the medium term if I were a Dem.

ROMENESKO’S BLINDERS: A reader points out:

[Romenesko’s] boycott of “conservative” sites is so complete that it causes him to miss stories he’d otherwise be all over. Like The Weekly Standard yanking a small story about what exactly happened at a Buzzcocks concert, a story that turned out to be made up, as far as anyone can tell. Wednesday’s Opinionjournal, having linked to the story the day before, noted the apparent retraction. No sign on media”news” though.

To be fair to Romenesko, “boycott” strikes me as too strong a word. He links occasionally to the Journal and has my site up as one of many media links. It’s just that he has blind spots and tends to believe that non-liberal journalists aren’t real ones. And he loves the new hyper-lib Times.

Delivered to Ptown today completely fixed. A wonderful Machead friend, who saved my hard drive, reinstalled all my data. I feel restored. Great service: a few days, urgent delivery and all seems well.

THOUGHT POLICE IN BRITAIN: A man has been convicted of “hate speech” and may face jail time because he got into an argument with some Muslims in which he said things he probably shouldn’t have. Notice that the Muslims, who opined, in the argument, that September 11’s victims “deserved to die” face no such state-enforced sanctions. After all, they weren’t insulting anyone’s religion! Britain is now a country where free speech doesn’t really exist. With no First Amendment, the anti-hate do-gooders have complete license to intimidate and jail people whose views they find objectionable. The same characters are doing all they can to achieve the same result here. In Provincetown, for example, people are being encouraged by the cops to report not just hate crimes, but “hate incidents” in which politically incorrect speech can be monitored by the authorities. Chilling – especially in a place where free speech has traditionally been upheld.

THOUGHT POLICE IN FRANCE: Writers are not immune either. Oriana Fallaci is now facing criminal charges for speaking her mind against extreme Islamism. Her lawyer is the exquisitely named Christophe Bigot.

MORE CATHOLIC CORRUPTION: Jimmy Breslin has a great, tabloid column on a very spoilt New York bishop. Hey, but at least he’s not gay!

FRENCH ANTI-AMERICANISM: Really interesting review of some recent books in France analysing the role anti-Americanism plays in French culture and politics. It’s from the Herald Tribune and includes this quote from Philippe Roger’s “L’ennemi americain“:

At the highest point of discord in a divided France (in 1898), anti-Americanism is the only ‘French passion’ that calms the other passions, effaces antagonisms and reconciles the harshest adversaries. Patching things up at the expense of the United States or, at the least, halting hostilities between French factions in the face of a supposed common enemy will remain a constant of political and intellectual life.

In other words, the tide may be turning a little, at least among some self-aware elites.

ROMENESKO WATCH: Jim Romenesko’s MediaNews blog is probably the most-read journalism blog on the web. He covers every minor story out there on the media and most major ones. So why won’t he link to stories criticizing the new slant of the New York Times? This week, for example, major pieces in the Weekly Standard and the New York Post, not to mention Kausfiles and this site, all alerted readers to what seems like extraordinary bias in the presentation (yet again) of a New York Times poll. Romenesko won’t touch the story. Previous mentions of criticism of the Times get filed in small print as a the whinings of a bunch of right-wing loonies. Romenesko is free to link to whatever he wants. But he has an agenda for the left and pretends he doesn’t. Of course, that’s precisely what endears him to the New York Times.

NO WONDER HE’S SO OUT OF IT: Leftist brontosaurus Lewis Lapham of Harpers’ doesn’t have a computer. Figures.

CLINTON’S LOOT: No it’s not a huge scandal. And they’ve donated their loot to the Presidential Library. But what’s amazing about the gifts showered on the Clintons by criminals, influence peddlars and occasional statesmen is that the givers obviously thought they could try it on. In Denise Rich’s case, it was a gift that kept on giving.

RACE MATTERS: Fascinating science story in the Times Monday, which a reader alerted me to. It tells a disturbing story of the possible distortion of science to ensure that racial differences be understood entirely in terms of environment, rather than having anything to do with genes.To those of us who have witnessed first hand the brutal intolerance displayed by some social constructionists on the matter of racial and ethnic differences, the pressure for this kind of scientific sleight of hand is no surprise. But the latest discovery of earlier fudging shows how deep this politicization of science has gone:

The new report raises the issue of whether an earlier generation’s efforts to play down the role of genetics in fields like behavior and racial variation may not have been carried to extremes. Dr. Steven Pinker, who assigns a larger role to genetics in shaping behavior in his new book, “The Blank Slate,” said it was not Boas but his disciples, including the anthropologists Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Ashley Montagu, who “helped establish the blank-slate, social-constructionist, antibiology mindset of the social sciences.” Dr. Thomas said that “once we anthropologists said race doesn’t exist, we have ignored it since then.” In that context, the reanalysis of Boas’s data “really does have far-reaching ramifications,” he said.

In some ways, I pity these researchers. Disturbing the doctrines of the left means payback, big time. I hope they’re ready for the backlash.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “Foremost among the attitudes which affect the making of our policy is American empiricism and its quest for certainty: nothing is ‘true’ unless it is ‘objective,’ and it is not ‘objective’ unless it is part of experience. This makes for the absence of dogmatism and for the ease of social relations. But it has pernicious consequences in the conduct of policy. Policy is the art of weighing probabilities; mastery of it lies in grasping the nuances of possibilities. To attempt to conduct it as a science must lead to rigidity. For only the risks are certain; the opportunities are conjectural. One cannot be ‘sure’ about the implications of events until they have happened and when they have occurred it is too late to do anything about them. Empricism in foreign policy leads to a penchant for ad hoc solutions. The rejection of dogmatism inclines our policy-makers to postpone committing themselves until thee facts are in; but by the time the facts are in, a crisis has usually developed or an opportunitiy has passed. Our policy is, therefore, geared to dealing with emergencies; it finds difficulty in developing the long-range program that might forestall them.” – Henry Kissinger, “The Need for Doctrine,” from the book “Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy” (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), pg. 424.

ONE IN FIVE? Gallup has just released a poll that finds that Americans believe that one out of five people is homosexual. What to make of this bizarre finding? Even the most desperate boosters of gay rights place the upper limit at around 10 percent; for what it’s worth, I incline more to the 2 – 3 percent fig
ure, but no one knows for sure. So why the exaggeration? I think it’s part of the phenomenon whereby straight people say that gay people keep talking about the subject. We don’t. It’s just that straights are still uncomfortable and notice very clearly when the subject comes up. When I was editing The New Republic, for example, we made an effort to include gay stories the same way we’d include any newsworthy or controversial subjects. But some readers thought that by mere inclusion of gays at all, we’d become a gay magazine. I remember being told by another journalist that TNR had run four gay cover-stories in a year. We’d run one. The exaggeration of the size and power of tiny minorities – mainly gays and Jews – is, in fact, a common feature of social and psychological fear of the other. That’s what we’re picking up in this poll. And it’s as disturbing as it’s out of touch.

Maybe it was seeing Red Dragon last night, but I was struck by the similarity between the D.C. sniper’s note “Dear policeman, I am God” and dialogue from the movie where Hannibal Lecter describes the serial killer as someone motivated by the desire to become God. Is there a possible clue here? Just asking … (By the way, the movie was fun but formulaic. And the script was beyond awful.)

“The point is, all empires commit crimes; in the past century, ours were by far the lesser of evils. But this sedulous denial of even the possibility of misjudgment in the hierarchy of evils protects and insulates this wing of the Left from an inconvenient reconsideration of whether America actually is the worst force on the planet. This blind spot, this stunning lack of historical perspective, robs much of the American Left of intellectual credibility. And makes it easy for idiocies large and small to be uttered reflexively. ” –Ron Rosenbaum, in a wonderfully purgative essay in the New York Observer.

The Vatican acts glacially, but it seems clear to me the direction that it may well now go. This story in the Catholic News Service is a sign of the coming purge of gay people from the priesthood and the Church itself. First, a subtle change was introduced into the Catechism. As CNS notes,

[t]he wording in the catechism that describes the homosexual inclination as “objectively disordered” was added when the definitive Latin text of the catechism was released in 1997. Earlier editions of the catechism said homosexual acts were intrinsically disordered and said homosexual tendencies represented a trial for most people.

This is the difference between saying that some people can do immoral things and saying that some people, because of whom they love, are morally sick in themselves. It’s a subtle move but a critical one as part of the process of undoing the progressive stand of the Church in the 1970s and 1980s in defending the dignity of homosexual persons. A while ago, surveying the tensions in Catholic teaching between an abhorrence of any gay sexuality and a defense of gay people as human beings, I posited two directions the Church could take. It could reverse itself away from a respect for homosexual persons, call them irredeemably sick, and purge them from the priesthood and the pews, or it could go further and integrate gay Catholics and their sexuality into Church teaching. The latter was always a very long shot; but the recent scandals in the Church has given some the opportunity to take the more obvious route. If and when this new policy is formalized, many of us Catholics will therefore face an excruciating choice: do we stay or do we leave? Can we actually attend a Church that has gone from tentative outreach to gay people to a formal theological position that describes them as sick? Can we in good conscience attend a church that blithely ignored the abuse of children, but cannot tolerate even a chaste and holy priest who also happens to be gay, a Church that keeps Cardinal Law in office but would have prevented someone like Father Mychal Judge from being the priest he was? Some will dismiss this as a minor issue. I don’t think so. When a church scapegoats a group of people for its own moral lapses, when it describes, as totalitarian regimes do, a person’s love as a sickness, when it purges priests regardless of their abilities, then it seems to me the entire moral credibility of the institution is at stake.

CHICKENING IN: I think in his heart of hearts that Tom Friedman has a grudging respect for the Bush administration. Apart from Bill Safire, he’s the only Times columnist who doesn’t actively hate the president. But perhaps because of his audience or bosses or habit, Friedman’s always veering just this side of agreeing with the White House. This morning’s argument is a classic. Friedman gets the game of chicken that Bush is playing with Saddam. It rests on a very basic principle: only if Saddam actually believes that an invasion is imminent will he agree to disarm; and only if an invasion is imminent will he believe the threat. This bluff requires that Saddam truly believes Bush will invade Iraq, if he absolutely, positively can, and that this isn’t some elaborate game in order for the U.S. to avoid war. That’s where Friedman doesn’t get it. It’s precisely Bush’s cowboy image – the perception that he may just invade anyway – that alone can bring about a peaceful solution. And it’s because part of that image is actually genuine that the gambit can work. (That’s why Clinton never stood a chance of disarming Iraq or deposing Saddam. Everyone knew Clinton wasn’t a cowboy or could be talked out of any military course of action if needs be.) Bush is different, and the more his opponents portray him as a reckless, terroristic Caesar-wanna-be, the more they will be strengthening his hand. Like Reagan versus the Soviets, it often helps to have the enemy afraid of the president. The sterling consistency of Bush, and the tough talk of his aides, is therefore paradoxically our best insurance against war. So far, with a new sheriff behaving firmly but also aggressively, we’ve had more movement from Saddam than in years. Now let’s ratchet the pressure up some more, shall we? How about it, Mr Daschle?

PAGING ORWELL I: Delegates at an anti-racism conference in Barbados have just decided to expel all non-blacks from certain discussions. (I mentioned they were considering it last week.) It is a fact that many organizations now devoted to “anti-racism” are themselves racist. But it’s rare you get such a clear-cut case. Enjoy.

PAGING ORWELL II: As I write, the Hitch book on Orwell is ranked # 3 on Amazon. I’m really glad that so many of you are going to get a read of this book. And I hope you’ll be following the discussion and taking part later this month. If you still haven’t ordered the book, click here. Thanks again.

SELF-ESTEEM: The case against, posted opposite.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE:“It’s an election year. Turn the bums out. Stir the pot. Make political history. Cause a revolution. Don’t do it because the Republicans represent a great alternative – because they don’t. Do it because the Democrats – far too many of them – are evil, pure and simple. They have no redeeming social value. They are outright traitors themselves or apologists for treasonous behavior. They are enemies of the American people and the American way of life.” – Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily. (For a brief explanation of our various awards, click here.)

DASCHLE’S OPPORTUNISM: I’m grateful to a reader for directing me to Tim Russert’s dissection of Tom Daschle last weekend. What Russert did was confront Daschle with his rationale for supporting the threat of military force against Saddam in 1998:

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that we often cite the ’98 resolution as our precedent for this action. That’s exactly what we did in the ’98 resolution. We tied it down to the use of force. We weren’t as broad as this resolution now implies, and so I think that it’s appropriate to go back to that precedent and to work with the administration to ensure that that’s their understanding, as well as ours.

MR. RUSSERT: You raised the ’98 resolution. There was a resolution back in January of ’98, which you know well and I’ll put it on the screen. These were the words: “Resolved by the Senate…That Congress…urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs…” And you’ll see that’s one Tom Daschle from January 28. But you also went on, Senator-and this is quite striking. These are words you uttered in February of 1998
. And let me show you and our viewers. You were talking about the Clinton administration: “The administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.” The Bush White House will suggest that you were trying to give President Clinton more support when he was taking on Saddam Hussein in 1998 than you’re willing to give a Republican president in the year 2002.

Nice work, Tim. Daschle had no credible response to this. He still doesn’t have one. So he’ll give in, once it seems in his direct political interest to do so. Trust these guys with national security? You’ve got to be kidding.