The Dish

A racegoer arrives for the second day of Royal Ascot 2007 on June 20, 2007 in Ascot, England. By Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images.

A reader writes:

I’ve been reading your coverage of Obama lately, as well as the rest of the of the Democrats statements on faith. I am my brother’s keeper, feed the hungry, tend the poor, generally look out for each other; it all sounds like the mission of the Church to me. Has the church failed that miserably that we now have to look to secular government, which is fundamentally less efficient than individuals looking out for each other, to fix the woes of society? If the answer is yes, that saddens me. 

What also saddens me is the number of young Christians who are jumping on the band wagon. Sure, we should be doing all the things Obama preaches; but why should we create a massive government to do them? Why can’t we just go out and tend the sick, feed the poor, look after the widow, etc? Even Christians have forgotten this personal, Christian responsibility, an idea that can exist very well with Republicanism. It seems that my generation has truly abandoned the Church to its fate. And the sad part is, maybe, for now, that’s the best option.

The problem with Christianity for those who seek earthly power is that Jesus explicitly renounced such power. Socialism and left-liberalism and "compassionate conservative" are really devices with which the state assumes the moral obligations of the individual – and increasingly robs the individual of the resources to be charitable herself. Christianism – of both left and right – is not just a variation of Christianity. It’s an attempt to coopt Christianity to empower the political leader. That’s why the politicians like it: it gives them the moral highground, and more money, and eventually more power. All of which leads to less freedom and less genuine faith.

Rude Pundit opines:

What Hersh’s article tells us is not just that the decisions about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib came from the highest levels of the Defense Department (and the Bush administration). It’s that the very nature of the men who were creating the policy led naturally to the abuses. It’s what they know. It’s what they do. It’s who they are. For if they can treat an American two-star general like a syphilitic camp follower, what chance did Iraqis have?

The point of torture is always torture.

A brilliant stroke, if it comes off. Good for Rice for thinking of it. She still needs a counter-weight to Cheney. But it will be controversial in Britain, I bet. A former prime minister going to work for an American president? Somewhat humiliating.

Move along now. Nothing to see here.

The wonder-drug for politicians:

A notable vote occurred yesterday: the New York State Assembly passed a bill allowing gay couples to have the same marriage rights as straight couples. The vote was 85 – 61, after governor Eliot Spitzer’s ballsy and principled support. Now it’s up to the State Senate. New York follows California’s legislature in passing a legislative bill for marriage equality. This occurs after the state supreme court said the issue was up to legislators – not the judiciary. One small but pertinent fact for cowardly Democrats like Obama, Clinton and Edwards: since Spitzer actually said what he believes about gay rights, his approval ratings have only improved.

Ryan Lizza casts a brutal light on Bill Richardson’s Iraq war flim-flam:

Note to the Richardson campaign: if you are going to change your position on Iraq and then rid your Web site of all evidence that you ever held that position, you’ll want to take down every incriminating example. You missed this one.

Longtime readers will know that I have long opposed the genital mutilation, aka circumcision, of male infants. New studies showing that it can be very effective against the transmission of HIV may well tip the balance of the argument. Nonetheless, it behooves us to be honest about what is being done and has been done to millions of men without their consent. They are having their capacity for sexual pleasure drastically reduced. A new study shows exactly how serious the mutilation can get:

Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a "penile sensitivity map" by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.

For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision — all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

When your most intense sexual pleasure comes from scar tissue, something has gone wrong. My own view is that forcing boys to have most of their sexual pleasure zones destroyed without their express permission is a form of child abuse. If men want to have mutilated penises, that is their choice as adults. It shouldn’t be their parents’. And mercifully, many more parents seem to be agreeing.

You can detect a whiff of panic in David Frum’s latest column:

Ross Perot had an issue, the deficit. John Anderson had a constituency, the traditional liberals abandoned by Jimmy Carter in 1979-80. Bloomberg will have neither.

Yeah, there’s no parallel here at all is there? There’s no fiscal problem in Washington unaddressed by both parties, is there? Traditional conservatives have not deserted Bush, have they? He’s not regarded as Carter was, is he (his ratings are, in fact, lower)? And when a sane, secular candidate promises to tackle entitlement spending and climate change, no fiscal conservatives will warm to him, will they? Naah. Marc Ambinder thinks out loud about the potential impact of Bloomberg on both parties here.