The Dish

The most effective poster of the current British election campaign is a Tory one about Tony Blair. It shows a hugely pregnant Blair (you can do anything with computers and photographs these days) above the slogan, “Four years of Labour and he still hasn’t delivered.” The voters seem happy to give Blair another chance but his abject failure to do anything to improve the dismal public services in Britain is a sign of something. Simply put, shoveling money into failed government bureaucracies solves nothing and wastes a lot of resources. New Labour, like the New Democrats, were supposed to forge a Third Way in which they believed in government but were somehow able to reinvent it along more effective lines. They couldn’t. So now, according to the liberal Guardian, a secret report from Tony Blair’s private think-tank is proposing radical privatization of many parts of public services, including hospitals, schools, and local government. Four years of the Third Way and Blair is resorting to Thatcherism to get any kind of results. He’ll probably win anyway – but he knows deep down that he has failed. The Third Way was a public relations campaign to persuade the middle classes to vote for the left again. It lasted eight years in America – buried by Gore’s populist campaign. I give it eight years in Britain – max.

SHE’S BACK!: Awesome Dowd column on Hillary today. How can Senator Clinton profess shock at how the F.B.I. “mislaid” important documents on the McVeigh case, when she narrowly escaped prosecution because she “mislaid” so many of her own? Ahem. Almost makes me want to have the Clintons back so I can enjoy Maureen more. W seems to have eluded her grasp so far. But maybe we just need to give her time to get her better barbs back.

EUROPE THE PURITAN: The health Nazis have crossed the Atlantic. Hold on to your Gauloises as the EU cracks down on smoking. And I mean Nazis literally. Hitler was the first author of an anti-smoking public health campaign. You’d think that might give us pause.

ALL RIGHT ALREADY: Yes, I know the Mormon church no longer supports polygamy. I also know they no longer ban African-Americans from being priests of the Church – but they very recently did – until the late 1970s, after almost every other social institution had long since opened its doors to black Americans. I also know that no-one is proposing to make polygamy legal, as they are same-sex marriage. I just think that a Church that was once founded on a principle different from traditional marriage and one that was racist to its core until very recently might be a little leery of weighing in on civil rights matters in the public square, using tax-exempt dollars to swamp media markets in Alaska and Hawaii to protest gay civil rights. Clear now?

Fascinating piece in the New York Times today about polygamy in Utah. For the first time in eons, there’s an actual attempt to prosecute it. But more fascinating to me is the following nugget: “Despite the strictures against it, polygamy continues to thrive in Utah, where state officials estimate as many as 50,000 people are part of families with more than one wife. In keeping with their desires to live on the fringe of mainstream society, most of the families reside in small, isolated towns like Partoun, but they are not unknown in larger places. A Salt Lake City prosecutor said she knew of one man in the city who the authorities believe has fathered 200 children by an assortment of women.” I point this out simply because it’s amazing to me that more on the Christian right aren’t in an uproar over this. Vast resources are devoted to stigmatizing and preventing same-sex marriage, but not a peep about the alternative lifestyle of over 50,000 Americans who are clearly exercising a choice in a way no homosexual truly does. It’s also worth pointing out that by far the biggest financial backer for campaigns against same-sex marriage rights in California, Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont is … the Mormon church. A pot and kettle moment if ever there was one.

Fascinating and highly timely story in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times about research into the medical properties of marijuana. It turns out that your basic pot may give you an all over high, but if you analyze it more closely, it’s actually affecting several discrete points in the brain and body. In fact, the brain has several “cannabinoid receptors” affecting all sorts of human functions, including higher thinking and perception, learning and memory, body movement coordination, nausea and vomiting, and appetite. Scientists in Israel, after studying the effect of marijuana (sorry: volunteers no longer needed, folks), found a particular natural chemical in the brain which latches onto the same cannabinoid receptor as pot. They called it “anandamide,” from the Sanskrit word for “bliss.” The point, and I do have one, is that illegal drugs aren’t inherently illegal. They’re just drugs. Like any compound, they can do good and harm, depending on dosage and application. But they can also be very helpful in combating disease and understanding the human brain and body. Like new research into Parkinson’s, which was sparked by observing a Parkinson’s patient on Ecstasy, research into cannabinoid receptors would not have been possible without observing the effects of pot. Other drugs that stimulate appetite, reduce obesity, calm anxiety, and so on, will now perhaps be possible, thanks to the weed. One day, I think we will look back and be completely embarrassed that we made this essentially benign and curative plant an object of prohibition.

TASTELESS HEADLINE AWARDS: Two close competitors today out there. Slate’s “CARTOON INDEX: Timothy McVeigh execution cartoons, and more.” And Jonah Goldberg’s piece on the latest McVeigh news and commentary: “Just Kill Him.”

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “Unfortunately, there’s no media frenzy to cover what happens when the state, in effect, routinely kills many Americans simply by inaction — not enforcing workplace-safety rules, or not reducing air pollution that menaces people chronically short of breath, or not providing health care for the uninsured. With the corporate-dominated state functioning as a serial killer every day, news outlets should shine a bright light on its innocent victims.” – Norman Solomon, from FAIR.

“As a cancer survivor, I am particularly susceptible to the wonderful ad in which a woman recovering from breast cancer tries to express her gratitude to the drug companies that saved her life. I know she feels the same gratitude to the doctors, the nurses, the orderlies, the health-insurance company, her best friend, her mother-in-law and many more. I know the gratitude caused by surviving cancer. I just didn’t expect to see it exploited by Big Pharmas to counter all the rotten publicity they’ve been getting for their greedy, blood-sucking, murderous behavior all over the globe.” – Yes, it’s Molly Ivins!

AMERICA THE PURITAN: The Supreme Court’s ruling against medical marijuana was no surprise, and it shouldn’t be held against the Court. The ruling clearly defers to a Congressional statute, which clearly outlaws medical use of marijuana. The problem is with the Congress and the White House who seem determined to deny sick people a genuinely helpful treatment as part of their foolish crusade against even soft drugs like pot. (For a terrific mini-essay on the injustice of this, check out Richard Brookhiser’s piece in National Review Online.) It also seems to me to be a pretty obvious case of conservative hypocrisy on states’ rights. If states like Hawaii or California want to make medical marijuana legal, why should the feds get in the way? D.C. voted for it as well – and we weren’t even allowed to see the results because Bob Barr thought it would be bad for us. This action seems to me to sum up a lot of what’s wrong with contemporary conservatism: it’s hypocritical on federalism when it doesn’t like what states do (remember the Defense of Marriage Act?); it can appear to be callous with respect to some people’s real and genuine needs; it’s illiberal when it denies individual adults freedom of choice in their personal lives. For more on this, and the left’s puritanism as well, check out my piece just posted opposite.

THANKS: For the more than 400 emails in response to my Stanford talk on C-SPAN. I’ll try and respond eventually but cut me some slack, will ya? Also sorry again for the server problem this weekend. We rely on Blogger, and they were AWOL (and still are) from Friday on. These postings are done manually by folks at Fantascope. I hope I’ll be able to post myself soon.

NOT SO SMILEY: Tavis Smiley, the avuncular host of Black Entertainment Television fame had a book-signing in D.C. last week. He’s always come across to me as a fair and balanced commentator, so it was shocking to hear what he had to say. According to the Washington Times, Smiley was a grim-faced version of Al Sharpton. On crime, Smiley observed, “Black man kills a white man, he gets executed, especially in Texas. White man kills a black man, we have riots, like in Cincinnati.” On politics, Smiley opined that Republicans are “determined at all costs to turn back the clock on the progress we’ve made.” He later described black conservatives as “self-hating” and “disturbed.” His broader message for the African-American community? “Every black person should think black first all the time.” Thus the color-blind vision of Dr King is utterly reversed. I thought identity politics couldn’t get more depressing. It just did.

I’ve criticized him before but Frank Rich’s column today is a home run. It truly is a good cultural sign that Mel Brooks and Tony Soprano are taking the bland entertainment industry to the cleaners. I think it’s more anti-p.c. backlash. Yayy!

OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH: Canada’s National Post finds that 55 percent of Canadians now support equal marriage rights for gays and straights. More significant, a whopping 73 percent of the 18 – 29 year old age bracket supports them. All in all, some 44 percent approve of homosexuality up from 22 percent just five years ago. Straw in the wind?

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “After eight years of the extremist, anti-people, anti-access policies of the Clinton administration and its overzealous application of the Endangered Species Act and the shutdown of recreational access to public lands as well as the commercial access, we’re now going to have more of a balance,” – Mike Hardiman, legislative director of the American Conservative Union. Anti-people? If only Clinton had stuck to hugging trees.

Interesting remarks from Scott Evertz, the new director of the White House AIDS office. “I can absolutely, positively, categorically confirm that, in President Bush, we have a friend and we have a decent human being,” Evertz told a black-tie dinner May 5, according to the Washington Blade. “And by the way, he asked very good questions about HIV/AIDS,” Evertz added. “So lest anyone think that he’s a man of few words and a man who doesn’t get it – he gets it. He really gets it.” According to the Blade, “Evertz said that, to his amazement, Bush switched gears briefly during the Oval Office meeting to talk about how he did among Gay voters in the 2000 presidential election. “He said, ‘I did pretty well in the Gay community, didn’t I?’ I said, ‘Yes, Mr. President, you got a million votes, 25 percent of the Gay vote.’ And he said, ‘Yea.’ He had that look on his face and that glee in his eyes.”” That sound you hear is the sound of a taboo cracking.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE EVIL DRUG COMPANIES: Stirring news about an anti-cancer miracle drug, Gleevec, that doesn’t only seem to be highly effective against leukemia but also against intestinal tumors. According to the Times, “Gleevec, formerly known as STI- 571, is made by Novartis. It is a new kind of drug that acts like a guided missile, killing only cancerous cells while generally sparing healthy ones. That any drug can have such striking benefits against two seemingly different cancers has surprised even the most optimistic researchers who have long been hailing the potential for what are called molecularly targeted drugs.” Guess what? It’s expensive. Up to $2400 a month. So I guess we can wait a couple of days before the Times editorializes against the evil capitalism that actually asks for a reward for its miracles.

FRANCE, ITALY, BRITAIN?: Striking, isn’t it, that neo-populist conservative parties have been gaining ground in Europe recently. Silvio Berlusconi’s victory in Italy clearly marks a trend, after the conservative sweep in France’s recent municipal elections. Berlusconi campaigned on a tax-cut, on some restrictions on immigration, and against the perceived arrogance of left-wing rulers. The Washington Post quotes this old Italian on her reasons for moving rightward: “”This election is all about change. I voted for the left in 1996 and I was very disappointed,” said Berlusconi supporter Anna Maria Bucci, 71, as she cast her ballot in Rome’s working-class Testaccio neighborhood. “I don’t like the way they decided everything for themselves and left out the views of the people.”” Meanwhile, in Britain, my old friend William Hague has, by all accounts, got off to a flying start in the election campaign. Vowing to cut taxes, crack down on illegal asylum seekers, keep the pound, and resist liberal elites, Hague is widely predicted to lose terribly. Why am I not so sure?

The Timothy McVeigh news could surely be a pivotal moment in our consideration of the death penalty. Here we have the highest profile case imaginable, federal authorities running the show, rather than some local sheriff, a smart, white defendant, good lawyers … and they still screw it up! What chance a poor black guy with a state defender? I’ve always opposed the death penalty on moral grounds. But it seems to me the prudential grounds are getting overwhelming as well. To my mind, it would be a wonderful irony if this hideous and evil crime eventually turned into something good: an end to capital punishment in America.

HATE MAIL: Here’s a good one: “Mr. Sullivan, I wish you all the best and hope for your continued good health. I must tell you – you all too often come across as a WHITE BOY- a smug white boy at that. Wait – smug white boy – that’s redundant.” Do you think the writer of that email has even considered that this might be an example of simple racism? The guy’s a liberal from the rest of his email. It seems to me to be increasingly common that anti-racism has now become almost indistinguishable from racism itself. And therein lies a lot of liberalism’s current dilemma.

THE TIMES SCRAPES A BARREL: You’ve got to hand it to the op-ed page of the New York Times. They’ve now run almost a piece a day since January against any kind of tax-cut, and now they’ve run a piece saying it will actually increase traffic jams! No, I’m not kidding. Check out Robert Frank’s op-ed today. It has some interesting points about income inequality and traffic but the tax cut twist is almost self-parody.

EUWWWW: You thought China was a problem? Check out what Gerhard Schroeder is planning for a European federal state. My take is posted opposite – in the new TRB.

NOSTRADAMUS AWARD: “Ah, but the details. The Krugmans and the Chaits will shortly have a cow, if not a whole herd of them.” – TRB, The New Republic, last week.
“The Bush Tax Cut Is A Lie – Part I” – by Paul Krugman, The New Republic, this week.
“The Bush Tax Cut Is A Lie – Part II” – by Jonathan Chait, The New Republic, same issue.
Honest, I had no idea when I wrote my piece.

I’m going to argue against the pharmaceutical companies. Yes, I know that overall, I think they’re way too demonized. But I have to say I see a lot of sense in the proposal featured in today’s Washington Post that would take three big allergy drugs off the prescription list. That would make them available over the counter and force consumers, rather than insurance companies or HMOs, to pay for them entirely. Presto! The insurance companies save a whole lot of money. And we all get to stop sneezing. In England, you can get Claritin over the counter as I found in a major nasal explosion last June. Some FDA types worry about long-term use and say that we still don’t know whether these drugs can do real damage. So put a big ol’ warning label on them. There are probably many other drugs that are just as harmless and useful that could be taken off the prescription list – for headaches, diarrhea, ulcers, and so on. Why not set up a commission to study which ones? Taking doctors out of menial treatments for common woes helps free them for the more sophisticated work they’re better at anyway. So lets liberalize the system some, treat people more like grown-ups, and make drug costs more susceptible to genuine market forces. A deal?

SATURDAY NIGHT TAPED: This Saturday on C-SPAN, they’ll be broadcasting a talk I gave recently at Stanford University on “The Politics of Homosexuality.” It’ll be on at 8 pm Eastern and again at 11.30pm Eastern. Check it out. A lively question and answer session as well.

THE NANNY-STATE VERSUS AIDS RESEARCH: Interesting piece in the Times today about advertising for HIV drugs. Not only do drug companies now have to remove any images of healthy, active people from their ads, they are advised to tell consumers that the drugs are no cure. The revealing statement, however, is buried in the piece. It’s from a gay marketing executive, Todd Evans, who places some of these ads in gay publications and elsewhere. “Since the warning letters were sent, Mr. Evans said, he was told by executives at one maker of AIDS drugs that they “are going to sit it out for a couple of months” and stop advertising “to see where this goes.” “I’m concerned as a gay person that if you take the profitability from H.I.V. drugs, the companies will go on to larger markets with greater profits,” he added.” Hey, Todd. You’re not the only one.

NMD MOVES FORWARD: Revealing column in the left-wing Guardian today. It’s by Hugo Young, a generally Europhile man of the left whose skepticism of all things American can be taken as given. He dropped by the first attempt by the Bush team to soft-sell National Missile Defense in Europe. His judgment? It’s working: “[O]ne part of [Europe’s] scepticism has begun to evaporate. Countries that were scornful of the rogue-state threat now acknowledge that there could be a threat, even though they’re not persuaded how best to deal with it. Jacques Chirac periodically spits at Washington, but even official France does not always demur. One of the most lucid recent studies of NMD, stating that “the hypotheses of US policy-makers cannot be easily dismissed”, was written by an official at the French defence ministry.” The lesson for Bush? If you lead and if you make sense, they will follow. Even, God help us, the French.

What are we to make of the latest study from Dr Robert Spitzer that some highly motivated gay Christians can, with intense therapy and support, eventually function as heterosexuals? The answer, I think, is: not much. Plenty of studies have “found” this before. This study is, in fact, one of the weakest empirically on the table. All the evidence about the change comes from the subjective statements of the people themselves, who were all recruited from ex-gay ministries or psychiatrists, and who have an obvious reason to engage in wishful thinking. They were all interviewed on the telephone, which makes such thinking easier. There’s no clear definition in the study of what is meant by “gay” and what is meant by “straight.” Plenty of the subjects could have been bi-leaning gay or bi to start with and plenty acknowledge that they have gay thoughts and feelings to this day. Moreover, the “success” stories mean: “being in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.” Sex once a month with your partner, while often thinking about members of the same sex, is not what I would call a “cure.” It’s what many gays have done for centuries. It is obviously possible to train or force yourself into such a context, especially if you’re deeply uncomfortable with your sexual orientation. (Likewise, if equal pressure were put on some straight guys, in an all-male context, they might be able to function sexually as homosexuals as well. Prisons and aircraft carriers have pioneered many experiments of this kind.) But I think it’s churlish to dismiss “ex-gay” people’s stories, to call them liars, and so on. If this is the difficult path they have chosen, and that is how they want to live their lives, it’s their choice. Their integrity and sincerity should not be questioned or ridiculed. But by the same token, it’s only fair not to extrapolate from this study that all gays can change this way, or that there’s any conceivable reason that they should. Tolerance surely means accepting “ex-gays” at their word, and accepting “gays” at theirs’. The difference is that gays are quite happy to support the rights of ex-gays to marry, have kids, serve in the military and so on. But the ex-gays have no desire to return the compliment.

EX-GAYS, EX-STRAIGHTS II: Shameless plug. The second chapter of my book, Love Undetectable, is a long and detailed essay on psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality, from Freud to today, and examines, I hope fairly, the literature of the ex-gay movement. If you want to read further, please check it out.

Am I the only one savoring the racial ironies of this morning’s papers? In one story, black and Hispanic lawmakers are thinking of joining forces with white conservative Republicans in opposing campaign finance reform – for very different reasons, to be sure. In another, a Republican president is proposing conservative-minded judges for Senate approval, a majority of whom are either racial minorities or women. Some Democrats may well be voting against minority candidates for judicial appointments on ideological grounds. Whatever the merits of each case, it’s surely wonderful that we’re muddying the racial waters here. It’s a positively good thing that some members of racial minority groups aren’t automatically assumed to be loyal Democrats or Republicans. Eventually, with any luck, we’ll begin to use the word diversity again in its original sense – a diversity of view, regardless of race or gender or background. Both parties deserve some credit for this. I’m impressed that Bush seems to be walking the walk on racial outreach. And I’d be truly depressed if the Dems voted for some judicial nominees on racial grounds alone.

JUDGES AND PARTIES: No, this isn’t about drugs. It’s just that I think that some conservatives are going overboard in their hostility to Democratic vetting of Bush’s judicial selections. Paul Gigot has a cow this morning about the temporary withdrawal of Chris Cox from consideration, under pressure from Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. But the Senate’s role in advising and consenting on the judicial branch is a real and important one. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on cabinet selections, as I think the president deserves to pick his own administration. But the courts are different. For the last several years, Congressional Republicans have waged a scorched earth campaign against many of Bill Clinton’s court picks, even though most were perfectly respectable and qualified. The Congress is very evenly balanced. I think Bush is right to play this more moderately. And I think Republican and conservative wails are largely misplaced.