andrewsullivan.com
Unfit to Print
 The Daily Dish
Email ArticlePrint VersionSwitch Colors

HomeLettersTipping PointBook ClubInterviews
HomosexualityFaithPoliticsCulturePeopleThe War

The Iraq Process
 No Need for Panic
- Sunday Times, (August 28, 2005)


Not Dead Yet
 An Apology
- The Advocate, (July 5, 2005)


This I Believe
 An American Creed
- NPR, (July 4, 2005)

 Email MeBuy My BooksBiographyLinks
 Copyright 2001 Andrew Sullivan



 IT'S OUR FIFTH ANNIVERSARY!
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION.

Saturday, November 08, 2003
 
MARSHALL COMES UP EMPTY: Desperate to prove the notion that the administration did too call the threat from Saddam "imminent," Josh Marshall, becoming ever more stridently anti-Bush, came up with a contest. He asked his readers to send in the best administration "imminent threat" quote. Well, you can judge for yourself. But, to my mind, he comes up completely empty. No administration official used that term. None. The best Marshall can come up with are reporters' off-the-cuff formulations in questions to Ari Fleischer which evinced the response "yes." He links to Rumsfeld testimony in which the secretary of defense specifically spells out the core of the administration's case:
So we are on notice: An attack very likely will be attempted. The only question is when, and by what technique. It could be months; it could be a year; it could be years. But it will happen, and each of us need to pause and think about that. If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today would be able to honestly say that it was a surprise, because it will not be a surprise.
So we have no administration reference to an "imminent threat" and a chief spokesman saying that the threat could be as much as years away and, at the least, months. We have the president himself saying explicitly that "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

THE DEEPER ISSUE: We can fight over words in this way, but the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall's case. The point about 9/11 is that it showed that we were in a new world where we could be attacked by shadowy groups with little warning. The point about Saddam is that he was a sworn enemy of the U.S., had been known to develop an arsenal of WMDs, was in a position to arm terrorists in a devastating way, and any president had to weigh the risk of him staying in power in that new climate. The actual threat hangs over us all the time. It is unlike previous threats from foreign powers. It is accountable to no rules and no ethics. We know it will give us no formal warning. But we cannot know it is "imminent". If we had such proof - that the U.S. was under an imminent threat of attack - there would have been no debate at all. Of course a country has the right to defend itself when it is faced with an imminent threat. The debate is over how seriously to take the threat we now face. The strongest argument of the anti-war crowd is that we now know that the WMD threat from Saddam was much less than almost everyone (including most of them) believed. They're right - at least from the evidence so far. But that doesn't resolve the question of what we should have done before the war, when we had limited knowledge and information. Josh implies we should have risked it, and kept Saddam in power, with fingers crossed. But then Josh wasn't president. He wasn't responsible for guessing wrong. The question we have to answer is a relatively simple one: do we want a president who will veer on the optimistic side when it comes to Islamist terror, or do we want a president that will veer on the side of caution and aggression? Do we want one who will hope for the best or one who will act, assuming the worst? I thought 9/11 ended that debate. It clearly hasn't. But it's the central debate of the coming election.

- 6:33:50 PM

Friday, November 07, 2003
 
PRINCE CHARLES' WHATEVER: This non-story story is getting weirder and weirder. On Thursday, the Prince of Wales' office put out a statement denying as completely untrue an allegation that no-one in Britain or the U.S. has yet published. This might be a first. The idea that you quash a rumor that no one has yet published by publicly referring to it is not exactly a brilliant P.R. initiative. If you're also the heir to the British throne, it guarantees putting the story on the front pages. The allegation of a witnessed "incident" between Charles and another man which the Guardian elegantly refers to as "not a boating accident" may well be completely untrue. But it is now a story, with details in the European press and even - for twenty minutes or so - in the New York Times. I can't help but concur with the Guardian:
[Y]ou would need a heart of stone not to feel some sympathy for the House of Windsor at the end of such a week. The pay's good, the hours are hardly onerous and the perks - free travel, lavish accommodation and hot and cold running servants - are to die for. But the near daily humiliations involved in being a Windsor at the start of the 21st century must surely be starting to outweigh the purely material benefits of the royal life.
Poor Charles. The days when monarchs got their heads chopped off are beginning to seem preferable to today's privacy-free Internet sewer.

- 9:27:23 PM
 
CLASSY NRO: That John Derbyshire. What a card. He gets to put a caption on the moment when Gene Robinson became a bishop - "Pass the Miter, Sweetie!" - and now gets to make fun of the way some African-Americans speak: "Al [Sharpton]: We're all fine, Aunt Eustacia, just fine. I just wanted to ax you about cousin George." When conservatism becomes mere mockery of black people, you really don't have to ask why so few African-Americans vote Republican, do you? (There's also a riff on the Liebermans which veers on anti-Semitism, and the whole post drips with cheap 1950s gags about fags - they all go to fashion school and make tchotchkes for their mothers.) Congrats, NRO. Give a bigot the run of the place and you'll soon tarnish yourselves. Well, you already have, haven't you? Does no-one there wince at this know-nothing drivel?

JFK AND GWB: During the primary season (the last go-round) I wrote a speculative (and somewhat hostile) piece comparing then-candidate George W. Bush with former president John F Kennedy. I meant it as a useful mind-exercise, but as time has gone on, I think the analogy strengthens. The backgrounds are similar: unruly scions of political families, young men who got their start in politics through pure nepotism. Their frat-boy garrulousness, their effortless patriotism, their family loyalties - it all works until you get to the moment when GWB gave up the wild life at 40 and JFK kept his going. But on policy, they're also much more similar than either the right or the left is comfortable conceding. They both came into office in a disupted election after a two-term president who presided over a major boom. President Kennedy fought an election on hawkish foreign policy; the current President Bush walked backward into hawkishness through the drastic orientation of 9/11. Both cut taxes and unleashed periods of economic growth. And both argued uncompromisingly for democracy across the world. Some boomers may also see in Iraq the same pattern as president Kennedy's early foray into Vietnam. I'd disagree strongly, but history will surely judge in due course. Perhaps more tellingly, both used powerful and moving rhetoric to assert the exceptionalism of the United States at a time when it was being attacked. President Bush's speech Thursday at the National Endowment for Democracy was perhaps the highpoint of this president's transformation into an old-style Democrat in foreign policy. Too bad the Democrats can neither see this nor profit from it.

- 9:11:27 PM
 
BAD LINK: I screwed up the link to Bob Wright's excellent adventure, The Meaning of Life. Here it is.

- 12:50:38 PM
 
SPINNING GLASS: I'm astonished that a university like George Washington U is hosting Stephen Glass on a panel today to discuss "“Pressure, Plagiarism and Professionalism: A Panel Discussion Concerning Ethics in Journalism.” And I'm mighty outraged by the way this panel is being spun:
The panel will discuss current ethical issues facing journalists and professionals including: how organizations facilitate and sometimes promote unethical behavior; whether it is appropriate for professionals and others to profit from their unethical behavior; and the role of educational institutions in instilling integrity in future professionals.
Is Glass trying to play the victim here? Let's put it nicely: yes, there's pressure in journalism. Yes, twenty-somethings making a name for themselves can get stressed out. But there's a difference between forgivable screw-ups and a conscious, sociopathic attempt to break every ethical rule in sight.

- 12:06:13 PM
 
WE CAN WIN: Victor Davis Hanson is particularly impressive this morning - because he criticizes as well as praises. This point strikes me as critical:
If we are outnumbered in particular theaters, it is only through laxity, not through an absence of resources. This is a country, after all, that bickered over the cost of a single destroyer in 1937 and then built over 87,000 warships less than a decade later when it was at war. If we are convinced that Iraq must be stabilized, and Syria and Iran must cease aiding and abetting the terror and killing of Americans, then surely we have the resources to defeat our enemies in short order. The problem is not might, but will — or perhaps worry about our affluence, gas prices, and self-image.
In the last two years, on each occasion when the United States finally said "enough is enough" and began to apply itself in earnest — after the fourth or fifth week in Afghanistan, pouring it on through a sandstorm in Iraq, or rounding up terrorist cells here at home — the enemy was impressed and faltered. And in contrast, each time we caught our breath and thought we were done — allowing the Taliban to sneak back into Pakistan in droves, watching looting with impunity, concerned more about immediate reconstruction than the destruction of the Iraqi Baathists, or worried about pressuring neighbors not to allow terrorists into Iraq — our enemies became emboldened. We are all products of the Enlightenment and value sobriety and moderation, but that ensures neither that our enemies share such confidence in reason nor that predictability is a virtue in war.
At this point in the war, we should be enraged by Baathist counter-attacks, not rattled.

- 11:57:07 AM

Thursday, November 06, 2003
 
A PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT: We've been waiting for this speech. Critics of the war in Iraq and a huge change in American foreign policy in the Middle East will no doubt play up the negatives. They will argue that the president is changing the subject from the difficult occuation of Iraq, the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the case for war both in Afghanistan and Iraq has always been a complex and varied one, despite the attempts of the cynics to reduce it to one issue (and then blame the administration for simplisme). The fundamental lesson of 9/11 seems to me to be the following: it was no longer possible for the West to ignore or enable the poisonous and dangerous trends in the Middle East. The combination of autocratic fragility, huge wealth, new technology, and an Islamist ideology modeled on the National Socialism of the past was and is an enormous threat to the world. The odd cruise missile strike; diplomatic initiatives to failed despots; appeasement of terror; and acquiescence in Euro-cynicism about the Arab potential for democracy - all these were made moot by 9/11. They were no longer viable options. We either aggressively engaged or we hunkered down and prayed that a calamity would not at some point strike us all. To its historic credit, the Bush administration resisted its own early isolationist impulses and took the high road. To their eternal shame, the French and Germans, the far rights, the far left, and many (but not all) of the Democrats opted for inaction or a replay of the failed policies of the past. What this president did was radical, progressive, risky.

THE SPEECH: And what he needed to do - as any leader needs to do in wartime - is constantly remind people of the context of the struggle, to bring their attention from the day-by-day exigencies of any war, with its casualties and battles and setbacks, to the bigger picture. We are fighting for the defense of liberty in the world - again. And we are now trying to bring it to the one region and culture which has been untouched by it for so long: the Middle East. Money quote:
In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has, and I quote, "barely reached the Arab states. They continue this freedom deficit, undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development."
The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences for the people of the Middle East and for the world.
In many Middle Eastern countries poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling, whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead.
These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
This latter is a critical point. Islamism is not a religion. Islam is. Islamism is a political ideology as dangerous and as evil as the totalitarianisms of he past century. It is abetted by tyranny; and requires a huge effort to defeat. What the president said yesterday was the first front in the task of spreading this message across the region. He didn't pull punches. Nor should he have:
Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems and serve the true interests of their nations.
The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long many people in that region have been victims and subjects; they deserve to be active citizens.
I particularly liked the following analogy: "As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test." That's precisely the right way to frame this battle. This isn't a replay of Vietnam. It's a replay of an earlier, nobler war that changed the world for the better. Those are still the stakes today. And we cannot let cynicism or partisanship prevent us from winning the fight.

- 11:11:24 PM
 
CLARK ON IRAN AND SYRIA: He wants to engage the Baathists in Damascus and the Islamofascists in Tehran. He doesn't want them to feel threatened. And he wants to "internationalize" a force, while few foreign governments have either the means or the will to help out. I'm glad he's not moving toward Kucinich-style isolationism. But what this amounts to is an end to a war on terror, which targets states as well as terrorist entities. It's back to the 1990s. Which means, in reality, back, at some point, to another 9/11.

- 11:10:04 PM
 
ANOTHER MODO GOOF?: I caught this throw-away in Maureen Dowd's latest anti-Bush screed:
If [Bush] gets more explicit, or allows the flag-draped coffins of fallen heroes to be photographed coming home, it will just remind people that the administration said this would be easy, and it's teeth-grindingly hard.
More calumnies follow. Now the question is: can anyone find a statement from any administration official who said that the post-war reconstruction in Iraq would be "easy." Notice she wrote: "said." Not implied or hoped or suggested. Said. So here's a challenge for all my anti-war readers or anyone else to find such a statement. If none shows up by next week (maybe I'm wrong and missed something), we should make a stink. In the meantime, I refer you to this posting of last week, where I laid out the many statements of the president predicting a hard post-war period in Iraq. One representative quote from the president:
The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.
That was February 26, a month before the war. They "said this would be easy." Does she think we can't read?

SHRINKING PENISES: Mark Steyn made a little fun about crazy Islamists claiming that Zionists were somehow shrinking their penises. The panic was spread by text-messaging, apparently. But the phenomenon is real and has the priceless name of "Genital Retraction Syndrome." I kid you not at all. Big in the east.

- 11:08:54 PM
 
SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: "Coetzee doesn't write realism: His novels cannot be pinned down to a history, be it apartheid South Africa or Bush's increasingly authoritarian America. Yet it's hard to believe that the Nobel committee, in coming to its judgment, wasn't moved by the way Coetzee's most astute writing speaks to this moment. A moment when an ill-conceived campaign against an ill-defined enemy risks creating in its wake a culture of surveillance, military hubris, anonymous internment, torture, more violence and counter-violence, and, among America's citizenry, an immobilizing paranoia." - Rob Nixon, in the ever-more leftward Slate.

THE MEANING OF LIFE: Yes - and all on a tv webpage. The irrepressibly astute Bob Wright launches an experiment of sorts. Listen to Steven Pinker talk about ... his hair. And other things.

THE TRIPPI REVOLUTION: Noam Scheiber looks at what's really making the Dean campaign take off.

- 11:08:13 PM
 
WHY McAULIFFE? What does he have to do to get fired? A terrible general election campaign, historically bad mid-term elections, losing three governorships this year already (and a fourth ready to drop) and on and on. Broder piles on today. And TNR gets mad at the Dems for not sticking the boot in. But as long as the Clinton corporate-Hollywood nexus controls da money, who's going to do the job? Not until Dean is nominated.

- 3:26:19 PM
 
KUCINICH - SETTING THE AGENDA: Peter Beinart notices a slow but inexorable drift among the Democratic candidates to either propose meaningless solutions to the Iraq situation (getting more foreign troops when no one will send them) or dangerous non-solutions (reduce our troop levels in a way that makes Iraq less stable). At this point, Dennis Kucinich is more coherent than anyone else. But they are all slowly meandering toward his isolationist and utterly reckless position. Money data:
A CBS poll in late August found that 53 percent of Democrats wanted the United States to either increase troop levels in Iraq or hold them steady, versus 37 percent who wanted to decrease the number. By last week, that figure had reversed itself. In a late October Washington Post/ABC News poll, 54 percent of Democrats said the "U.S. should withdraw forces from Iraq to avoid casualties," while only 40 percent wanted to keep them there.
Maybe this is 1972 all over again, after all.

- 3:14:32 PM
 
THE PRODUCTIVITY NUMBERS: How can you look at the recent data and not be somewhat stunned at the resilience of the U.S. economy? I'm not sure I'm as bullish as Larry Kudlow, but the notion that we will not get job growth, a real wealth effect, and economic optimism by next year's elections is just Krugmanian in perversity. When you combine it with the president's superb speech today on bringing democracy to the Middle East, you begin to see a better picture of what Bush will look like next year: a JFK-style Democrat. (I'll be commenting on the speech in detail later, when I get off my other deadlines.)

THE FULL INTERVIEW: The full Commonweal interview with Gregory Maguire is now up on their website.

- 2:30:43 PM

Wednesday, November 05, 2003
 
AN ARAB APOSTATE: Fascinating article appearing in the usually anti-American Arab News. It's from a columnist, Fawaz Turki, who was opposed to the war and still argues that "I have no illusions about the shenanigans and hypocrisies of a big power like the US, including its neocon ideologues, who are more cons than neos," has nevertheless begun to change his mind:
Is it too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq and for this column to admit its mistake in having vehemently opposed it from the outset?
At issue here is whether the Iraqi people have benefited from the overthrow of the Baathist regime and whether the American occupation will eventually benefit their country even more. I’m convinced — and berate me here from your patriotic bleachers, if you must — that what we have seen in the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates in recent months may turn out to be the most serendipitous event in its modern history... Washington may not succeed in turning Iraq into a “beacon of democracy” but it will succeed, after all is said and done, in turning it into a society of laws and institutions where citizens, along with high-school kids, are protected against arbitrary arrest, incarceration, torture and execution.
Wouldn't it be ironic if this war - now so reviled by many Americans - was only finally appreciated in the region it helped liberate? I'll take that over the partisan snipes in Washington any time.

- 11:41:45 PM
 
HITCH ON IRAQ: As usual, a must-read. He's sharpest in pointing out how leaving Saddam in place was rapidly becoming a non-option, despite the Scowcroftian bromides (and weird last-minute attempts at deals, newly reported in the New York Times). Money quote:
This already lousy status quo was volatile and unstable. Saddam Hussein's speeches and policies were becoming ever more demented and extreme and ever more Islamist in tone. The flag of Iraq was amended to include a verse from the Quran, and gigantic mosques began to be built in Saddam's own name. Even if, as seems remotely possible, he was largely bluffing about weapons of mass destruction, this conclusion would destroy the view maintained by many liberals that, for all his crimes, Saddam understood the basic logic of deterrence and self-preservation. (That he was "in his box," as the saying went.) Not only was he able to defy the United Nations, but with French and Russian collusion, he was also increasingly able to circumvent sanctions. The "box" was falling apart, and its supposed captive was becoming more toxic. As he became older and madder, there emerged the real prospect of a succession passing to either Odai or Qusai Hussein, or to both of them. Who could view that prospect with equanimity?
Er, most of the Democratic candidates.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY? New Jersey's Superior Court (a single judge, not an appellate panel) just ruled against same-sex marriage, but subsequently urged the legislature to pass a domestic partner bill. The other post-Lawrence court decision - in Arizona - also ruled against equal marriage rights. So much for the wave of judge-imposed marriages predicted by the far right to justify their proposed Constitutional Amendment. You can read a PDF version of the full ruling here.

- 11:41:25 PM
 
ANOTHER GAY PARENT: And a wonderfully articulate man of faith. His bio reads as follows:
Novelist Gregory Maguire is a prominent figure in the world of children’s literature. Best known as a fantasy writer, Maguire, forty-nine, has written more than a dozen books for children. He also writes for adults. A musical adaptation of his adult novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West opens this month on Broadway, with lyrics and music by Steven Schwartz (Godspell), and Joel Grey as the Wizard.
A Catholic faith and vision suffuses Maguire’s work, and is explicit in novels and stories such as Missing Sisters and “Chatterbox.” ... A practicing Catholic, Maguire is also a gay father of three.
In an interview with the Catholic magazine, Commonweal, Maguire responds to the latest decrees from the Vatican, decrees describing his committed relationship as "evil" and the love he has for his adopted, minority children as the equivalent of "violence":
I must share with my children my faith, its dramatic promise and possibilities, its murky history and contradictions, the guidance it can lend, and the challenges it must pose. Andy and I will tell them — when they're old enough — about the courage it took to adopt them in this climate, about the heartache the church from above can sometimes provoke, and the help that the church from below sometimes can provide. We will choose not to whitewash the complications, and will hope the children see us as brave and devout, not craven and hypocritical. That is what I wish for my children: not to be indoctrinated, but to question, and perhaps to be persuaded to value the gospel message as I do.
Then he puts his finger on it:
I sometimes feel the Vatican says of the fringe members of the church: "The Church: Love It or Leave It." I stay in the church because I must, because it is the mystical body of Christ; it is the most palpable metaphor or nexus in which my frail human spirit and frailer body can know itself to be at home. In the church, when I take Communion, I am joined by my dead father, by my dead mother, by the unremembered relatives who passed their faith along through the centuries. I am joined by the children of my children, by everyone who cherishes the gospel of love, and who strives, however inconsistently, to put others before one's self.
And I deal with the pain, in part, by continuing to be a Catholic as an act of defiance as well as an act of faith (and are they different things, even?).
Alas, the full interview isn't available online, but it was a real blessing for me to read. As it happened, I was walking past a church last Saturday in Manhattan, and couldn't stop myself from attending mass. The support and solidarity of men like Maguire and so many others brought me back inside a church after a long absence. When I read words like these, I simply know that our struggle is one that we have no choice but to bear witness to. Yes, defiance can also be a part of faith.

- 11:40:52 PM
 
BLOGGING FROM VENEZUELA: A new angle if you're interested in figuring out what the heck is going on there.

TRUE BELIEVER: "I'm afraid I can't quite agree with your assessment of Letterman. I fear your image of him is largely dated from who he was in the 80s and perhaps even early 90s. The self-effacing wit and cutting irony are still there. However, his cynicism is much less broadly targeted now than in the past. It might seem at first glance that it is merely a matter of him mellowing with age, but I would argue it is more a development of maturity. You'll still find it targeted at especially vapid celebrity; watching the show for a while will give you the impression that Letterman would rather skip 90% of the celebrities that fuel the late night talk show furnace and just stick with normal folks off the street.
The flip side to the acerbic critic of such a nature as Letterman is when he is serious, and when he believes in something, it is powerful. Even before 9/11, he would bring units of the military on the show to demonstrate, although not as a spectacle. I wish I had a video capture of his first show back after 9/11. I strongly suspect you have not seen it. If you had, and still written your Leno/Letterman piece I would be surprised." - more feedback on the Letters Page.

- 11:40:22 PM
 
ISLAM AND VANISHING PENISES: Worth a headline. Mark Steyn teases out some implications with his usual candor:
There's something pathetic about a culture so ignorant even its pathologies have to be imported. But what do you expect? The telling detail of the vanishing penis hysteria is that it was spread by text messaging. You can own a cell phone, yet still believe that foreigners are able with a mere handshake to cause your penis to melt away.
Sometimes we forget that there are two things to say about resurgent Islamic anti-Semitism. Yes, it's disgusting. But it's also pathetic.

ZELL MILLER ON THE MEMO: On the accidentally leaked memo from Senate Democrats, strategizing how to use intelligence hearings to damage the Bush administration:
I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized. If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.
Ouch.

- 11:39:45 PM
 
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND: A reader reminds me that, although the DU posts are indeed the product of a far left fringe - and equally repugnant posts can be founf on far right sites - the mentality is not completely alien to contemporary left-wing politics. Here's Salon's executive editor, Gary Kamiya, in April of this year:
I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.
Serious, intelligent - but not morally serious, I'm afraid.

AL-JAZEERAAAHHI recently gave the impression that a particularly deranged piece of anti-Semitism published on a website called "Al-Jazeerah" was related to Al-Jazeera, the Baathist/Islamist/Loony broadcasting service. I was wrong, as a reader reminds me:
Regarding your post titled "Anti-Semitism Watch I," the site where this appeared, "Al Jazeerah.info," is, in fact, not associated with the Al Jazeerah network, but is run by a man named Hassan El Najjar, who is an associate professor of sociology at Dalton State College in Georgia. I've run into Mr. El Najjar's site before, but from the looks of things, he is getting a bit more sophisticated in his deception. However, he at least now notes at the bottom of his page that he is not associated with "Saudi or Qatari websites with similar names;" this wasn't the case some months ago (Jeez, even the guy's disclaimer's are somewhat disingenuous). In addition, please note that he has evidently also acquired the web address "Amazonepress.com."
Thanks for the correction.

- 11:39:04 PM
 
ENGLAND'S 9/11: It happened in 1605. Or, rather, it didn't happen. A bunch of religious fanatics tried to blow up Parliament and would have succeeded in destroying a vast area of central London, if they hadn't been busted in time. The plot was made much of by the authorities and made anti-Catholicism an integral part of British culture almost to this day. I wonder how long the memory of 9/11/2001 will endure.

- 3:03:35 PM
 
2004, RELOADED: Will a Bush boom change politics? My take.

- 12:27:27 PM
 
NAMAPALOOZZA! It's Vietnam day at the New York Times. Even for the boomers who obsess about it, this was a big edition. Belgravia Despatch has all the citations. They even interviewed George McGovern for good measure.

- 11:34:56 AM
 
THE POST: Here's what Democratic Underground didn't want you to see:
I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq
Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won't be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I'm fighting something bigger.
I'm a 58 year old broad and I can tell you that what is going on in our country isn't the usual ebb and flow of politics where one party is in power and then another; where the economy goes through ups and downs.......yawn, yawn--just wait a bit and things will turn out peachy keen. That stupid la-la land is over.
I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.
I'm not saying this represents anything but a radical fringe. Implying that liberals or Democrats support his kind of poison is absurd. But this exists. And it's part of what's fueling the anger of the far left. (By the way, Democratic Underground has more traffic than this site, Instapundit, the Nation or the New Republic. It boasts over 30,000 subscribers.)

- 11:20:14 AM
 
THE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ: A great perspective from someone who's actually living there:
If you think that Iraqis aren't doing enough, then you're being mislead by your media. Thousands of people are applying to be members of IP, FPS, and the civil defense force. They are begging for the security to be in their hands. We know how to handle those scum. The Americans are more interested in being nice and all about human rights and free speech and stuff. We have our own Law and court systems which we can use but the CPA won't allow us to. They are being too lenient and forgiving on our expence. If you think that is what is required to build a successful democracy then you're too deluded. You don't know the first thing about the Iraqi society.
Iraqis are providing intelligence to the CPA hourly. Just ask the soldiers here. Iraqis are cooperating in every way they can. They're losing their lives for it goddammit. If you aren't seeing it on tv, it isn't my fucking problem.
The poor guy is thinking of giving up blogging he's so disgusted with Western attitudes, especially the press. Email him and encourage him in telling the truth as he sees it. Better still, bookmark him. He's as much a fighter in this war as any soldier. He needs your support.

- 11:07:53 AM
 
THE 9/11 GENERATION: More pro-Bush, more pro-gay marriage, more pro privatizing social security - according to Gallup. Party affiliation? 45 percent Independent; 30 percent Republican; 24 percent Democrat. Talking about my generation. (Actually, I'm an old fart by now, but my general ideology, on these polling numbers, seems to be younger.)

- 10:55:10 AM
 
ANYONE HAVE THE ORIGINAL? On the off-chance someone has the original DU posting, could you send it to me? I'll post it in full.

- 10:45:43 AM
 
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND DECIDES TO EDIT: Hmmm. After I linked to a truly hideous posting celebrating bloodshed in Iraq, they take the page down. I should have copied the page. First CBS. Now DU. Shine a light on them and they scram.

- 10:42:12 AM
 
DEAN'S COJONES: Score one for Howard Dean. There's no need for him to apologize for his confederate flag remarks. The fact that he held firm under fire last night struck me as a good sign of his tenacity and refusal to give in to p.c. lynch-mobs. He's absolutely right to say that the Dems need to appeal nationally again - wasn't that Zell Miller's point? But the true test of a serious pol is if he can hold fast when being pummeled for the wrong reasons. Dean won the exchange in my eyes.

- 10:27:08 AM

Tuesday, November 04, 2003
 
A NEW MEDIA TRIUMPH? Matt Drudge is interpreting CBS's welcome decision to punt on its anti-Reagan biopic as "the beginning of a second media century." Terry Teachout concurs:
Of course it’s a new-media story, and of course it wouldn’t have happened five years ago. I’ve been following Big Media’s coverage of the flap over The Reagans, and just two days ago I noted with interest and amusement a wire story claiming that CBS would be pleased by the controversy, since it would inevitably increase the series’ ratings. That is soooooo last year. Those of us who blog, whatever our political persuasions, know better. Boycotts of Big Media have always been feasible in theory. (Newspapers, in case you didn't know, take cancel-my-subscription-you-bastards letters very seriously—if they get enough of them.) In practice, though, they rarely worked, because it was too difficult to mobilize large-scale support quickly enough. No more. Fox News, talk radio, and the conservative-libertarian sector of the blogosphere have combined to create a giant megaphone through which disaffected right-wing consumers who have a bone to pick with Big Media can now make themselves heard.
One way of testing this is to see whether Jim Romenesko followed the story - a good indicator of whether it really is damaging to the media liberal establishment. He ignored it, buttressing Drudge's and Teachout's case. I take all of Matt's and Terry's points. But, from all the excerpts Drudge has exposed, this biopic seems to me to be almost one of a kind. It was so egregiously designed to attack a beloved president in his waning years, so riddled with obvious lies and distortions, so hateful in its intent, that I doubt any major network would have gotten away with it in any time. Even Leslie Moonves, the Castro-loving lefty who runs CBS, was forced to concede: "It's biased." Can you imagine how bad it is if even Moonves sees through it? In some ways, I think Drudge has inadvertently rescued CBS. If the miniseries had run, the backlash would have been so great, the exposure of the poisonous bias in parts of CBS so final, it might have helped destroy the already-flailing old media network. So the new media saved the old media. That in itself, of course, is a major story. And Drudge deserves credit for reporting it. Yes, reporting it. Why do the old media never give him credit when he does journalism as well as any of them?

- 11:54:39 PM
 
LUSKIN AND ATRIOS: This is how the blogosphere should deal with disputes. Congrats to both of them.

FROM THE 'DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND': A new low for the far left: a post titled, "Why I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq." I kid you not.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: "One is, Do I think [a Catholic schism with liberals leaving the Church en masse] would be better that way? No. Do I think it's possible? Do I think it's possible for someone who believes in the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of life, the sanctity of family, over a period of time to choose to survive with people who think it's OK to kill women and children or for -- quote -- homosexual couples to exist and be recognized? No, I don't think that's possible. I don't know how it's going to work itself out, but I know it's not possible, and my hope and prayer is that it does not end in violence. But, unfortunately, in the past, these types of things have tended to end this way. If American Catholics feel that's troubling, let them. I don't feel it's troubling at all." - Revd John C. McCloskey, Opus Dei priest and guru to the paleocon set. He's referring to his own prediction of a future Catholic Church in which all dissenting remnants have been purged - leaving it with perhaps 30 percent of its current membership in the U.S. I have no idea what he means by "killing women." (Abortion?) But to equate toleration of murder with toleration of the mere existence of homosexual relationships seems to me to be a revealing hyperbole. (Notice how he won't even deign to call gay relationships "homosexual couples". Such a term would accord them too much dignity.) Subsequently, McCloskey also makes the following statement:
"There's a name for Catholics who dissent from church teachings. They're called Protestants. As someone who's really a Catholic - and if you asked me, I'd say I consider myself a Catholic - it's something that you hope doesn't interfere with your citizenship, but that's reality. What I'm saying is, a lot of Catholics who were totally faithful to the church started to assimilate, but the assimilation was not simply in terms of 'I'm a Catholic, and I'm also an American.' It was also giving in to the Protestant secular ethos of the United States of America."
What McCloskey is saying is that the old canard about Catholic dual loyalties is not only true but admirable! McCloskey's radicalism is echoed by Senator Santorum, who has also attacked president John Kennedy's distinction between public life and private religious faith. This is the new face of ultra-orthodoxy.

- 11:52:24 PM
 
"WANNABE AYATOLLAH": That's how Eric Alterman describes me in his latest screed in the Nation, defending Paul Krugman's limited defense of Mahathir Mohamed. Now I'm not unused to insults but this one is bizarre. If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know I don't pull a lot of punches in exposing what I think is dumb or malign or just wrong out there in the media and politics. If such criticism means I'm an ayatollah, then I guess Alterman is entitled to his opinion. But I'm a First Amendment absolutist, an opponent of all attempts to control people's thoughts and ideas, a long opponent of religious fundamentalism of all kinds, an anti-theocrat, a supporter of the war against Islamist terror, and a strong proponent of gay rights. How this makes me like the theocrats who run Iran is beyond me. Alterman needs to find some wit to equal his bile.

REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: Here's some interesting ideas for human bonding, from the primate kingdom:
Genital fiddling is unique to guinea baboons, but other primates invade each other's space in similarly challenging ways. White-faced capuchin monkeys, for example, stick their fingers up each other's noses in greeting.
Hey, dude. Boog.

- 11:51:02 PM
 
"A RACE OF PERPETRATORS": Am I exaggerating the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe? So how do you explain away this?

- 4:01:45 PM
 
DISCLOSURE AT THE NYT: This is an odd omission.

- 2:03:24 PM
 
THE END OF THE WORLD: Okay, if you don't like f--words, don't go here. If you feel like some da-da Gen-Y relief from world politics, enjoy.

- 12:29:47 PM
 
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION: An English friend saw this announcement today:
Hereditary Peers By-Election Result
Nominations for the by-election to replace Lord Milner of Leeds closed on 24 October.
11 candidates registered to stand for election, as follows:

Lord Biddulph
The Earl of Carlisle
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
Lord Grantchester
Lord Hacking
Viscount Hanworth
Lord HolmPatrick
The Earl of Kimberley
Lord Monkswell
Viscount Samuel
Lord Vaux of Harrowden

The result was announced by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House at 3 pm on Thursday 30 October 2003.
Three votes were cast. Lord Grantchester received two first-preference votes and Viscount Hanworth one. Lord Grantchester was therefore the successful candidate.
Yep. There'll always be an England.

KRUGMAN NEVER FAILS: With his unerring instinct for the deceptive cheap shot, Paul Krugman disinters the Dowdified quote from Congressman George Nethercutt. You can read the context of this doctored quote here. Here's how Paul Krugman puts it:
Some Americans may share the views of the Republican congressman who said that progress in Iraq was "a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." (Support the troops!) But whether or not you think troop losses are important, there's growing evidence that our Iraq strategy is unsustainable.
Here's the original quote in full: "So the story is better than we might be led to believe – I'm – just – indicting the news people – but it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day which, which, heaven forbid, is awful." Does that sound like someone not supporting the troops or, in MoDo's words, putting the casual back into casualty? Or does it sound like the Dowds and Krugmans distorting the truth again for cheap partisan advantage?

- 11:58:29 AM

Monday, November 03, 2003
 
THE 9/11 ELECTION: I keep getting emails like the following:
"If any of the Democrats want to win, they will need to get my vote. I understand that this sort of statement will ring of self-grandeur in such a way that it may dissuade you from reading further, but consider this:
Unlike in your email of the day, I knew no one who died in September 11th. But nonetheless, I consider myself in many ways a "September 11th Republican." That is, before September 11th, I was a passionate Democrat. I voted for Clinton twice, campaigned on behalf of Al Gore (despite the fact that the man had no personal charisma). And in my heart, I guess I sort of want to be a Democrat, primarily because all of my friends are, and I want them to like me. And I want to think of myself as a caring humanitarian (which embodies liberalism at its best) rather than a calculated realist. But I can't. Not after September 11th. Not with the raving lunacy that has captured the Democratic party. Not when National Security is considered dispensable, if considered at all. Not when the Democrats fault George Bush for creating French obstruction. Not when the Democrats secretly applaud American deaths because it proves George Bush is "wrong." Not for a party that hates the South, the West, anything not New York (I'm from New York, so I can say that) or San Francisco, or anyone who feels proud flying the American flag. And above all else, not for a party that panders to the protesters who waive signs blaming "the Zionists" for the world's ills. No. This former Democrat, this September 11th Republican, will vote for George Bush."
Now I'm not sure how widespread this feeling is, but I have little doubt that the key issue in the next election will be a relatively simple one: do you approve or disapprove of the transformation of American foreign policy in the wake of 9/11? Iraq will be factored into that, but I don't think trouble there will necessarily sink the president for one simple reason. The issue next November will not be: were we wrong to go after Saddam? It will be: what would either candidate do now? How do we maintain pressure on the threats that beset us? Do we decide that Bush's policy is fundamentally mistaken, that we are not as much at risk as we thought, that we can return to what John Kerry has called a "law enforcement" approach to terror, rather than outright warfare against both terrorism and its sponsoring states? Or do we stick with the guy who led us in those terrible post-9/11 months and won our trust at the time? Maybe memories will have faded by then - but I still think they won't have faded enough for a Dean-style isolationism or Kerry-style legalism to do well. This presidential election will be the first since 9/11. It will be about 9/11. And it will be critical.

- 11:03:32 PM
 
"LET ME TOUCH HIM": Thanks to Jonah, I got to see these album covers. Priceless.

HITLER IN 'HOMES AND GARDENS': A nostalgic look at the cult of celebrity and consumerism in 1938. And one weblogger's subsequent lament.

MORE BBC SLEIGHT OF HAND: A reader points out another subtle elision in the BBC's coverage of important events. The piece originally said: "A senior British intelligence official told BBC Radio 4's Today programme defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan that the September dossier was rewritten at the behest of Downing Street to make it 'sexier.'" That "senior British intelligence official" is now merely a "senior official." Good that it's now correct. Bad that you'd never know they'd ever made a mistake. The identity of the source was, of course, a critical issue in the war between the BBC and the Blair government.

- 11:02:20 PM
 
GEPHARDT GETS IT: He struck just the right tone for a Democrat yesterday:
"We have to prevail," Mr. Gephardt told reporters. "We have to bring democracy to Iraq. We cannot fail. If you think Afghanistan was a terrorist training camp, you wait. If you leave Iraq, it will be a terrorist training camp the likes of which would make Afghanistan look simple. In our own deep self-interest, to prevent future acts of terrorism, we have to succeed."
He, too, proceeded to criticize Mr. Bush. "We need a president who can get the world to work together with us to solve this problem," Mr. Gephardt said.
Criticize the president but don't junk the terror-war. This campaign may come down to Dean versus Gephardt.

THE WEEKLY FISK: Time to take on Andy Rooney.

THE HALLIBURTON CON: Just because the left wants to believe that Iraq is for sale to campaign contributors doesn't mean it's true. Dan Drezner investigates.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: "Few can deny that Iraq under US occupation is in a much worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein." - Tariq Ali, the Guardian. Tariq Ali now puts his full weight behind the murderers and terrorists in Iraq. So has ANSWER. How long before the rest of the anti-war left follows suit?

- 11:02:03 PM
 
ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH I: "While the majority of Americans may at present be walking around in a state of semi-hypnotic denial concerning the war in the Middle East and the role of Israel in all of it, the rest of the world most assuredly is not. Elsewhere, in nations not as infected with the corrupting influence of Zionist power, the people have maintained with perfect clarity their understanding of the picture posed by the connecting dots of political events. The rest of the world has been able to note names like Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Sharon, and a whole host of others of similar stripe going back 50 years, and whose ethnic and religious loyalties are no mystery. The “elephant in the room” described recently by a Jewish reporter at the New York Times, the elephant which America seems unwilling or unable to recognize is clearly visible to the rest of the world community whom America seems to disregard. Therefore, when Bush & Co. start talking about “freedom, liberation, and the war on terror,” the rest of the world which has not swallowed the blue pill knows that the marionette dancing in Washington DC is directed by hands attached to the centers of power in Tel Aviv." - Mark Glenn, in a commentary for Al Jazeerah. Thus Nazi-style anti-Semitism entrenches itself in the Arab media.

- 11:01:38 PM
 
ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH II: Another email sends chills down my spine:
I attended a doctor's party the other night with my partner. A film-maker myself, I always find this other world interesting to say the least - another "bubble".
I settled into a chat with a young doctor, born in the US of Egyptian parents. He was charming and very 'LA' - well-coiffured, soft-spoken and well-dressed. We chatted a while about his world in the forensics department at LAPD which I found interesting as a film-maker. We started chatting a little about the Middle East. I assumed he knew I was Jewish. And I thought, wow, what a great place America is - I can chat with an Egyptian as a Jew without any of the sorry overtones of the current crisis in the mid-East; Jew and Arab are bonded by our common Western upbringing.
I expressed reasons why I supported Israel, we both agreed Arafat was a bandit, but he explained why the Palestinian cause had such support in Arab countries. It was a very civil, pleasant conversation despite our differences...
And then it started coming out... I listened, because I wanted to hear what anti-Semitism was about, and also because I was in a situation where my partner's professional colleagues were involved and I didn't want to cause a scene... Clearly, this doctor was fooled by my South African accent, and didn't conceive of the fact I could be Jewish.
The diatribe began with the stuff about how Jews truly control the American government and society - how policy in the mid-East was completely driven by Jewish American interests - this was the same man who had agreed with me moments before how many of the problems in the Mideast were the result of Islamic fundamentalism and corrupt Mideast governments. But, of course, the US intervenes there because of a Jewish plot. OK, my feathers were ruffling, but I realized what a great opportunity this was to be a fly on the wall of what people were saying when they didn't know I was Jewish.
And then came the clincher... this educated doctor, a US citizen, told me in all seriousness how there was a detailed Jewish plot that if Al Gore had become president, he would have been assasinated so that Joseph Lieberman could assume the presidency of the United States. Since the Jews knew they would never get a Jewish president elected directly, the Lieberman VP bid was a Jewish conspiracy to gain control of the presidency by underhanded means.
I felt sick in the pit of my stomach. What was really worrying was he felt safe to say what he did in a gathering of middle class physicians in a wealthy neighborhood of Los Angeles.
It's real. Nazi ideology is alive and well and in the minds of many even in this country. Now just imagine what they're saying in polite company in Paris.

- 11:00:07 PM
 
THE BBC FIXES: Yep, they went in and changed the text which had said that "peace" had been declared in Iraq last April. It's not my error. The Beeb is one of the few news organizations which simply rewrites posted copy without any indication that they have done so. Sometimes with simple typos etc. this makes sense. But in factual errors, it's a form of deception, a rewriting of the record, with no accountability. It's a sign, I think, of the general level of integrity at today's BBC - i.e. frayed.

- 4:27:58 PM
 
LENO ASCENDANT: I found myself watching Jay Leno the other night. By and large, I've given up TV, don't have cable and watch the box maybe once every couple of weeks or so (usually at the boyfriend's). But it was late, I couldn't sleep, so I found myself watching the cheesiest, crudest, lowest-common-denominator humor I've seen in a long while. It had Dolly Parton in the same joke as a couple of melons, for Pete's sake. And that was a high point. But I still watched it over Letterman. The NYT today tries to explain why Leno is now so dominant. It's relatively easy, I think: Leno is a conservative voice in an unsettled time. His hackneyed humor and old-as-the-hills jokes, and non-confrontational suck-ups with Hollywood-approved celebs are more comforting than Letterman's snarling irony. More to the point: IRONY IS DEAD. It died years ago - even before 9/11. Letterman, much as I admire him, is a relic. It's over, Dave. Over.

THE LEFT AND ANTI-SEMITISM: The latest example: a story in the left-wing Scottish paper, the Sunday Herald, implicating Israelis in the 9/11 attacks. This is not a fringe paper. Money quote:
THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.
Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.
Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.
It really is happening again. (While on the subject, check out Natan Sharansky's take on anti-Semitism in the new Commentary.)

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "Whatever happened to the gender gap? I've always thought of my sister as a classic Democrat. Pro-abortion, actually cares about the poor and thinks that government aid is a good thing (Ah!) Voted for Clinton twice.
Problem for the Democrats is that she used to work on the 102nd floor of the World Trade center (North-south-I forget-It doesn't matter, really-no one made it down from either) She left that job in 2000, but a lot of her friends and coworkers didn't.
Needless to say, I haven't heard her complain once about Bush, and definitely said "Thank God Gore lost"
She left her six-figure job to become a teacher (classic idealism). She discovered that the Democratic education machine seems to value bureaucratic jobs a lot more than results. When Edison took over her Philadelphia school, she was all for it.
I think she will vote Republican this time. I don't know if its a national trend, but it may explain some of these numbers."

- 2:16:44 PM
 
THE SOMALIA STRATEGY: Another awful day in Iraq. Watching scenes of people celebrating the killing of soldiers, soliders who just liberated them from one of the worst tyrannies on the planet, is enough to make anyone want to leave the place in disgust. But that's the point. Saddam always relied on the Somalia strategy. He believed - and probably still does - that the U.S. does not have the guts to stick this out and wear down the Sunni dead-enders now combined with Islamist terrorists. He planned on this kind of war of attrition from the minute he knew he was militarily finished. That makes our endurance all the more necessary. The slow collapse of American credibility in the 1990s will take time to reverse. And moments like yesterday are classic attempts to test our determination. Saddam and what he still represents must fail in full view of the world. And we have an irreplaceable opportunity to see it happen.

- 1:10:43 AM
 
BUSH'S POLL NUMBERS: The Washington Post's latest poll is striking for two things, it seems to me. First, what happened to the gender gap? On the basic approval question, the differences between men and women are within the margin of error. Ditto on the war on terror. That strikes me as a big deal. If the Dems have lost their big advantage with women, they're in trouble. (On the other hand, the gap re-appears when it comes to handling Iraq and the economy, with men still supportive and women now disapproving. But the gap is still much smaller than in the past.) This suggests to me that the war on terror has indeed reversed the usual gender gap on military matters - because women understand the threat at home. The other remarkable thing to me is that Bush's strongest ratings come among the younger generation. Even on Iraq, the 18 - 30 year olds give him a big vote of support - more than any other age group and the reverse of the over 60s. Bush has a 66 percent general approval rating among the young, compared to 51 percent among the old. How to explain it? My theory is that we're witnessing the emergence of the 9/11 generation - a demographic cohort bigger than the boomers whose defining experience was the terrorist attack of two years ago. They are also immune to the Vietnam fixation of the boomer editors and reporters of the mainstream media. South Park Republicans? We may have a genuine phenomenon here. (One other note: Dick Gephardt does surprisingly well, in comparison with the other Dems in this poll. I'm buying Gephardt stock myself.)

THE BREAK-THROUGH: There's no question that Gene Robinson's elevation to become Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire will divide the Anglican communion. That is distressing. At the same time, it's an extraordinary moment for gay Christians. For centuries, they have kept so many churches afloat - but at the cost of their emotional dignity and personal integrity. Those days are now over. The notion that bringing previously excluded people into the life of the church is somehow antithetical to the message of Jesus strikes me as deeply misguided. Although Jesus said nothing that we know of about homosexuality, his ministry is emphatically about welcoming - not excluding - the marginalized, the stigmatized, the condemned, the pariahs. There are no Biblical verses that condemn faithful, loving gay relationships as such. And the natural law arguments against gay love are about as strained as any theological arguments I have ever tried to understand. One day, I'm convinced, those last two sentences will come to seem completely ordinary and obvious. And we'll look back on yesterday as a milestone in the ever-growing circle of Christian fellowship. I only hope we can withstand the backlash, panic and fear that will spike in the meantime.

- 1:10:17 AM
 
LIFE IN THE ARMY: I don't know much about the guy who's writing the blog from Iraq called "Just Another Soldier," but he sure can write. Maybe the true journalistic innovation of this war will not be embedded journalists but embedded soldier-bloggers. The hard reporting on what the hell is going on over there is invaluable. And then there are these classic insights into army life:
The first and second squads of my platoon share the bottom floor of a two-floor barracks. It's an open bay and we do most of our squad-level classroom type training here. If you are wondering what an open bay barracks is like, watch the beginning of Full Metal Jacket. It's just one big room with a bunch of wall lockers and bunks, except ours is seriously run down. A few days ago we're all working on disassembling and assembling the M249 machine gun (aka "SAW" for squad automatic weapon). Once again, I had the best time behind Dan. I think I could have beat him, but I believe that the politically intelligent thing to do was to just let him win. I think there is more value in him feeling superior than there is for me in the gratification of beating him. Or I could just be full of shit and this is my elaborate excuse for not beating him. :) It's probably a little of both. Anyways, after the guys got tired of this, we started working on taking it apart and putting it back together while blindfolded. This can be really tricky, by the way. While James (another city cop in real life) was taking it apart, he was having trouble with one of the parts and asked, "Does anyone have a Gerber? [multi-tool]" and he puts out his hand. Without missing a beat, M______ says, "Yeah, here.", whips out his dick and puts it in James's open hand. Everyone was on the floor in tears. For about a good ten seconds, James didn't seem to know how to handle this unprecedented violation, and continued to work on the weapon before finally taking the blindfold off and making an attempt at trying to find some sort of physical retribution for the affront. This incident has become a source of much discussion and the jury is still out on who is more gay: the guy that touched a dick or the guy that let a guy touch his dick. One could literally write volumes about the homophobically homoerotic undercurrents in the infantry.
Maybe that guy should write the volumes.

ONE LIBERAL FOR BUSH: Roger Simon joins disgruntled Democrat Zell Miller and opts for Bush in 2004.

TWO IRAQ FIBS: Just little ones. From MoDo, to begin with, as usual. Then there's this classic from the BBC:
More US troops have been killed since "peace" was declared than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself.
Who exactly declared "peace"? Er, no one. But it gives the guy a nice mock-the-Yanks sneer line.

- 1:09:30 AM
 
FROM THE EMAIL FILE: I don't know where this originated, and maybe it's old hat to most of you, but I thought this was worth passing along:
A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element has been tentatively named "Governmentium". Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you see it.
Elemental, when you come to think about it.

SUMMING IT UP: From a recent letter to the editor in Tennessee:
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage.

- 1:08:07 AM
 
GROENING WAS KIDDING: About being sued by Fox News. D'oh!

THE WAPO OVER-REACHES: After a devastating letter from David Kay, the Washington Post amends its story on the search for nuclear programs in post-Saddam Iraq.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: "Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way." "Well, if it's combined with knowing what you like. Because then you're an unstoppable force. It's easier when you're stupid, because you don't doubt as much. Also, when you're not doing things intellectually, you're doing them instinctively, which is much better. In many ways, you don't need an intellect for pop music." - Chris Lowe and Neil Tennant, respectively, peerless philosophers of pop. And what's true for pop music isn't far off for politics either.

- 1:06:55 AM




For past Daily Dish entries, view the Daily Dish archives.

Click for RSS Syndication of this site.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

copyright © 2005 Andrew Sullivan