The Dish

Today is the last day of Bear Week in Provincetown. Alas, I came down with bronchitis the past couple of days so missed some of the festivities. In case you want a primer on what bear culture is, here's a link to my 2003 Salon essay, which seems to have become something of a manifesto for this movement. This year's was about double last year's attendance. Given how good a time most people seem to have had, I predict an even bigger turnout in the future.

What's it about? In part a celebration of mature masculinity – untweaked, unshaven, full-bellied masculinity. Simultaneously, it's an attempt to subvert a little of that masculinity. The atmosphere is almost aggressively gentle, good-humored, accepting, and friendly. These are not men trying to impress anyone, or to throw their considerable weight around. Mostly over forty, these men are not traumatized by having a gut or some flab. They're not afraid that back-hair tumbles over their collar. They're not afraid to embrace their sexual orientation as fully as their gender. They are what happens, I think, when an entire generation of gay men reach maturity having always been out of the closet in large numbers, already over much of the psychological damage of past generations, and eager to move forward, together, and have some fun.

I remain convinced that this is the cultural future of mainstream gay male America. In its Whitmanesque embrace of fraternity, in it disavowal of body-fascism, in its democratic spirit and sense of play, it's also something straight America could learn from. Many straight men, for example, lack good friendship networks and an image of masculinity that isn't laced with violence, machismo or sexual ego. Bears are an antidote to that. Maybe straight guys will notice.

(Illustration: Walt Whitman, bear icon.)

Or fun with subtitles:

A reader writes:

I think you, as someone whose view of the war in Iraq has evolved over the last year or so, might be able to appreciate how my opinion is suddenly undergoing a major transformation.

I have been against the war from the start. In fact, I was even skeptical of our mission in Afghanistan, although the Taliban, in offering sanctuary to Al Qaeda, gave us little choice but to invade. As for Iraq, I viewed it as pure folly, and everything I predicted — sectarian strife, unleashed tribal and ethnic passions, a breeding ground for terrorists, seeds sown for more blowback — has come to pass. The only thing I found surprising was the sheer incompetence of the American operation — and the ongoing, unrelenting blundering, with one absurd mistake piled atop another. No one, not even the fiercest Bush critic, could have predicted how horribly he and his cronies have managed this war. From the very beginning, and from every angle, the incompetence has been mind-numbing. Thus, like many, I’ve been clamoring for us to do the only sensible thing: get the hell out before things get worse (and they can get much, much worse for both the coalition soldiers and the Iraqi citizenry).

That said, the more I turn the problem over in my mind, the more I realize I can’t morally excuse a U.S. withdrawal. The Pottery Barn Rule is cliché, but the underlying principle is not. No matter how horribly we have failed in Iraq, and no matter how ill-conceived the mission was from the start, we own the mess. Yes, Bush and Cheney and Rice and Powel lied through their teeth to sell the war. But as Americans and as citizens of a democracy, don’t we all have to take ownership of this colossal fuck-up? Isn’t it all of our problems, not just the administration’s and its knee-jerk supporters’?  Consider how awful it is now, with more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and trying to maintain order. Now imagine what it will look like when we leave. It will make the exodus from Saigon look like a holiday. There was a reason why Saddam was so brutal. He had to be to keep a lid on all the centuries of brewing tensions. (Thus, any sane person with a grasp of history, while despising Saddam, viewed the invasion as an impossible task.)

But here we are. Is it possible, however unlikely, that the U.S. and Iraq can survive 1 1/2 more years of Bush incompetence and hand the problem over to a more competent administration? It may sound like a pipe dream — and I recognize that a shit load of tragedies could still play out over the next 18 months. But don’t we owe it to the Iraqi people, having invaded their country and having unleashed all these demons, to do our best by them, even if it means emptying our treasury and sacrificing many more of our soldiers’ lives? Doesn’t a democracy that voted for Bush twice (and/or looked the other way while he stole the office) have a responsibility to the world to rebuild everything he has methodically destroyed? Isn’t Iraq our responsibility as much as it is his? Can we really just wash our hands of it and walk away, as if the problem belongs only to W?

In some ways, it isn’t my liberal side that is countenancing withdrawal at this point. It is my cold conservative side. I do think the moral costs of withdrawal are immense. I fear the moral and strategic costs of staying are higher.

(Photo: Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty.)

Dubai gets in on the act.

"Surely you can’t be serious." Airplane.

Just some data points:

At a news conference Friday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of battle-ready Iraqi battalions able to fight independently has dropped from 10 to six in recent months despite an increase in U.S. training efforts.

Pace said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem was partly attributable to losses in the field.

"As units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment," Pace said.

In another development Friday, Bush’s top spokesman appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and other benchmarks designated by the United States.

However, Tony Snow said, "Let’s also see what happens because quite often when parliaments do not meet, they are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I’m sure on a number of fronts."

On two critical benchmarks – training of Iraqi troops and moves toward constructing the semblance of a national government – Iraq is going backwards not forwards. 

I mentioned it here. It’s now outside the Atlantic firewall. Enjoy.

Poor Jake. If you’re talking with Republican propagandist Hugh Hewitt on the radio or on a podcast, you really aren’t talking with someone in good faith. It pays to know that in advance.

"BILL MOYERS: Bruce, you wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Why did you think he should be impeached?

BRUCE FEIN: I think he was setting a precedent that placed the president above the law. I did not believe that the initial perjury or misstatements– that came perhaps in a moment of embarrassment stemming from the Paula Jones lawsuit was justified impeachment if he apologized. Even his second perjury before the grand jury when Ken Starr’s staff was questioning him, as long as he expressed repentance, would not have set an example of saying every man, if you’re president, is entitled to be a law unto himself. I think Bush’s crimes are a little bit different. I think they’re a little bit more worrisome than Clinton’s. You don’t have to have–

BILL MOYERS: More worrisome?

BRUCE FEIN: More worrisome than Clinton’s– because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don’t have any right to know what he’s doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He’s claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law," – from Bill Moyers’ Journal on PBS yesterday.

The largest gay money group, the Human Rights Campaign, has now backed down from excluding one of the few Democrats to support gay and lesbian equality forthrightly, Mike Gravel, from their Democratic debate. Here’s an email they sent yesterday to a complaining member:

Thank you for taking the time to express your views regarding Senator Gravel and the Presidential Forum on Logo Television. It is a welcome sign to see members of our community so engaged in following the 2008 Presidential campaign and the platform of the various candidates. The goal for the forum has always been to provide our community with a chance to hear from the candidates on issues most important to GLBT Americans.

Although we stand by the notion that having a criteria for candidates is important for a political forum, we also heard an enthusiastic response from a portion of the community who wanted to hear from Senator Gravel. Therefore we extended an invitation for him to participate in this year’s forum. It is also worth noting that HRC’s original decision is not unique or completely without precedent. Senator Gravel was also not extended an invitation to the CNN Presidential debates but petitioned the decision and was consequently invited by CNN.

"Although we stand by the notion that having a criteria for candidates is important for a political forum…"  A criteria? And what exactly was the unmentionable criterion? Money. The main focus of the Human Rights Campaign.