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

HomeLettersTipping PointBook ClubInterviews
HomosexualityFaithPoliticsCulturePeopleThe War

Austin vs Dr Evil
 The Edwards-Cheney Contrast
- Sunday Times, (July 10 2004)


UnPrivate Ryan
 The Press's New Low
- Sunday Times, (July 4, 2004)


The Human Anti-Histamine
 Kerry Bores Upward
- Sunday Times, (June 29, 2004)


Federalism and Marriage
 The Case for Prudence
- The Stranger, (June 28, 2004)

 Email MeBuy My BooksBiographyLinks
 Copyright 2001 Andrew Sullivan


 PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BLOG!
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION.

Saturday, July 24, 2004
 
POLAND ON MOORE: Well, they used to live in a dictatorship fuled by propaganda. So they are perhaps better suited to see through Michael Moore's vile techniques.
- 4:49:04 PM
 
ACADEMICS FOR KERRY: An astronishing yet unsurprising statistic unearthed by blogger David M. Of all Ivy League faculty donations to candidates, 92 percent went to Kerry. The highest rate of donations to Bush in any Ivy League University is 16 percent - at Princeton. Meanwhile, blogger Michael Petrelis has done some digging on mega-rich socialist, Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation. She has donated around $145,000 over twenty years to various candidates and organizations.

ONLY IN AMERICA: Regular readers will know what I think of Robert Byrd - a bloviating, bigoted thief of other people's money. But his family lineage nevertheless makes for fascinating reading. This is from his bio on his website:
He is married to the former Erma Ora James, his high school sweetheart and a coal miner's daughter. They are the parents of two daughters, Mrs. Mohammad (Mona Byrd) Fatemi and Mrs. Jon (Marjorie Byrd) Moore. Senator and Mrs. Byrd have been blessed with six grandchildren -- Erik, Darius, and Fredrik Fatemi; Michael (deceased), Mona, and Mary Anne Moore -- and four great-granddaughters: Caroline Byrd Fatemi and Kathryn James Fatemi; Emma James Clarkson and Hannah Byrd Clarkson. In February 2004, Senator and Mrs. Byrd welcomed their first great-grandson, Michael Yoo Fatemi.
From a member of the KKK to Michael Yoo Fatemi in two generations. Not bad.

MORE DISHONEST SPIN: Once again, the anti-marriage forces have been spinning a little too heavily. Anti-gay senators Brownback and Cornyn have been claiming that the late Senator Moynihan would have opposed extending the responsibilities of civil marriage to gay couples. Not so fast, says his wife.
- 4:09:39 PM

Friday, July 23, 2004
 
GLENN ON SANDY: Curiouser and curiouser.
- 3:49:11 PM
 
HE SAID IT! The Washington Blade has found a reference by the president to the word "gay." He said the phrase "gay marriage" in Pennsylvania, referring to someone else's question. He knows that gay people exist! Now if he could only apply to adjective to actual human beings. But it's a start. And don't give me the pablum abhout not treating people as members of a group. Today, at the Urban League, Bush asked: "Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party? Have the traditional solutions of the Democrat Party truly served the African-American people?" That's the difference between a group of people you respect and want to win over and a group of people you marginalize for political gain.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: "Your blog links to an inaccurate statement in a Fox report which claims that wives should be subservient to their husbands, when the word Judge Holmes used was subordinate. Subservient implies obsequiousness or servility while subordinate implies submitting to the authority of another (which can arguably be considered a sign of strength). You use the incorrect word in your blog." The strength to be subordinate! And this comes from a religious tradition that began with a man who defied almost every social convention of his time and treated women - even single women - as his equals; who never married and broke up the families and marriages of his disciples; who told his own parents as a teenager that they had no final control over him; and whose best friends were a single woman and a single man who is described in the Gospels as resting his head on Jesus' breast in an act of profound intimacy. How you get the subordination of women and the persecution of homosexuals from all that is beyond me.
- 3:45:50 PM
 
MARRIAGE AND PARENTING: A reader makes the following point:
I am gay and conservative. I am disinterested in the gay marriage cause, both in the sense of bored and distanced. I am not opposed but I agree with my Senator, the earnest Santorum, marriage is for the protection of children.
In fact, consistent with his and Dr. Dobson's position, I would wish to see its state mandated protections denied to all childless couples and reserved only for those who do breed or rear whether they are heterosexual or gay. I understand the desirability of queer ratification and I think state recognized contracts which enumerate a couple's privileges and benefits could be the acceptable alternative for same sex pairings. However I do not think that the state should be obliged to afford life sustaining support benefits to such childless couples as are automatically granted to married couples (health insurance and social security for example) in the interest of preserving the viability of surviving family if the breadwinner dies.
That strikes me as a coherent position. If you believe, as Stanley Kurtz does, that it is critical to maintain the cultural link between marriage and parenting, we do have an obvious option: give all couples civil unions and let them be converted to marriage licenses if and when the couple has or adopts children. That would honor both the marriage-parenting link, and remove the indefensible heterosexual privilege that the law now upholds. But it won't happen - because straight couples without children would be appalled at how it denigrates their relationships and makes them second-class citizens. Well, at least they would then know how it feels like to be gay.
- 3:08:22 PM
 
A JON STEWART MOMENT: The funniest guy on television (after Bill Maher) tackles the direst threat now facing America. No. It's not al Qaeda.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I know that Congress has this power [to strip courts of jurisdiction], but I don't think it should be used in this fashion even if it is not being used to disempower a particular group.
Why? Simply because I think it is dishonorable and somewhat cowardly and childish. The Constitution, to some extent, is a deal we make with ourselves. We create a government of limited powers and we give to the courts the power to determine whether our government is acting within those limitations. I don't always agree with the way the federal courts decide these issues, but so what? I'm not entitled to have the courts decide issues just the way I want them to.
If I get sufficiently pissed off, I can vote for Presidents and Senators of a particular party in the hopes of getting a "better" judiciary. Yes, it takes awhile. But I don't know how to distinguish between stripping federal courts of the power to decide on the constitutionality of DOMA, and stripping them of the power to decide the constitutionality of the 2013 Redistribute the Wealth Act - after all, the federal courts might not approve of Congress' well-intentioned effort to authorize President Hillary Clinton to seize land from people who have too much of it, by misinterpreting the constitutional provisions requiring "just compensation".
It's just a bad practice, in my view, completely aside from the fact that it seems to be part of President Bush's "Flags and Fags" campaign strategy." - more feedback on the best Letters Page on the web.

- 3:02:56 PM
 
IRAN AND KERRY: Lawrence Kaplan worries about Kerry's tendency to suck up to dictators. But he's not too high on Bush's incoherence either. Money quote:
Put another way, the administration has two Iran policies, and the result has been a mix of good and bad. Kerry, by contrast, boasts a single, coherent, and--to judge by the description of Teheran's activities in yesterday's report--utterly delusional Iran policy. Now, if only the Bush team could sort out its own, it might have an opportunity to draw a meaningful distinction.
I'm looking forward.
- 2:44:04 PM
 
THE REPORT: The WSJ has the best instant summary of the salient points. I'm haven't read the report yet.
- 9:31:24 AM
 
QUOTE OF THE DAY I: "Rolling Stone: Have you seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

Clinton: I have.

Rolling Stone: What did you think?

Clinton: I think every American ought to see it. As far as I know, there are no factual errors in it, but it may connect the dots a little too close -- about the Saudis and the Bushes, and the terror and all. I'd like to see it again before making a judgment about whether I think it's totally fair." - from Rolling Stone's interview with the former president.

WHAT CLINTON GOT RIGHT: I have to say, though, that part of Clinton's analysis of the past two years is spot on. Here's where I thought he got it right:
RS: I'm interested that you expressed a cautious admiration for [the Bush administration's] political skill. Any other places where you looked and said, "Boy, that's good"?

Clinton: Well, no. I would say, though -- you know, one of the great things in politics that you have to know is when not to play a card -- because you might win a hand and lose the match. And that's the mistake, I think, they made in 2002. President Bush would have been far better off in his reelection if he'd let the natural rhythm of 2002 unfold and let the Democrats pick up a few seats. We would have held the Senate and maybe increased our margin by one or two; the House would be very close. But it would have compelled him to take a more moderate position.
That's why I think the Dems may do better this year than expected, both in the Congress and the presidential race. Usually, discontent with a president is vented in mid-term elections - especially the kind of discontent fostered by something like the 2000 recount. But that didn't happen. In fact, there's been no electoral venting at Bush yet. Just as Clinton was paradoxically saved by the 1994 Republican victory, Bush may be damned by the 2002 results - and the Rove-orchestrated hubris they spawned.
- 3:54:24 AM
 
REPUBLICANS AGAINST FEDERALISM: Steve Chapman has a superb essay on Slate, delineating the GOP's long slide away from Goldwater's embrace of states' rights. The FMA is the worst example, but there are many others. Chapman gives one reason for the change:
[W]hat alienated Republicans from federalism? It's not simple hypocrisy. True, their sympathy for states' rights was partly the product of a historical accident. From the New Deal onward, state governments were generally less activist than the federal government, where the legislature was under almost unbroken Democratic control for half a century. So, conservatives preferred to keep decision-making in places where they could prevail. But their fondness for states' rights also stemmed from conservatives' sincere distrust of government power and their belief that one crucial way to constrain it was to diffuse it among 50 capitals instead of channeling it all into one.
That perspective lost much of its appeal once the GOP found it could not only elect presidents with reasonable consistency but also dominate Congress as well. Virtue is harder to practice once temptation is beckoning.
I think that's true. But I also believe the fusion of Republicanism with fundamentalist Christianity is also antithetical to the federalist impulse. If you believe you are right, and you believe that God is behind you, it becomes much harder to allow others to try other things or experiment or differ. That doesn't just apply to people, but to states as well. Today's Republicans, when it comes to something like, say, medical marijuana, cannot get past their visceral hostility to individuals' experiencing pleasure or even medical help not licensed by their God. So they seek to ban it - quick. If that means violating states' rights, so be it. Religious zeal as well as hypocrisy and opportunism are the factors here. None is conducive to the tolerant spirit of principled conservatism.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: "American policy in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad has been incompetent. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, used too few troops to secure the borders or to capture the stockpiles of weaponry. Disbanding Iraq's security forces was a foreseeable error. Backing Ahmed Chalabi for president flew in the face of wise counsel. The blitz on Falluja was a military and diplomatic catastrophe. The rather good interim government of Iraq that took power last week emerged in spite of, not because of, the United States...
I begin to think the West can purge itself of American misdemeanours only by some symbolic sacrifice. Rumsfeld would have done nicely had the president dismissed him over the Abu Ghraib horrors. He signally failed to do it. Now only the defeat of the Republican administration will suffice.
Senator John Kerry does not impress. Whereas the president has difficulty in stringing two words together, the Democratic candidate can say nothing in fewer than four long sentences, which is worse. The main charge against Kerry - a telling one -is that he is inconsistent. But is Bush less so? Was not this president elected on a platform of disengagement and did he not go on to fight two foreign wars? Did he set out for battle despising the UN and America's former allies in "old Europe", and does he not now grub about for their moral and practical support? ... For America to brush away its recent disgraces, the electorate will have to bin this administration. I never expected to say this to my American friends: vote Democrat." - Michael Portillo, one of the leading lights of the British Conservative party, and a staunch pro-American, in the Times of London, July 4.

ANOTHER BUSH NOMINEE: This one believes that wives should be subservient to their husbands. Well, the Bible says so! And that's how you interpret the Constitution, isn't it? And if the Constitution suggests otherwise, you can always amend it or strip courts of the ability to review legislation. Today's Santorumized GOP: gays in "conversion therapy," women in the kitchen, blacks in the front row of the convention line-up.
- 1:00:48 AM
 
REPUBLICANS AGAINST GAYS: The summer campaign I predicted last May has now been stepped up in the House. The bill that passed yesterday singles out gay citizens and denies them access to the federal courts to defend their right to marry. Does the Defense of Marriage Act violate the constitution? Then amend the constitution, most Republicans say. If you cannot amend the constitution, knee-cap the courts. And all this is defended with the rhetoric of a man like James Sensenbrenner, who declared, "Marriage is under attack!" By whom, sir? All gay people want is to join civil marriage, and be an equal part of their own families. To describe this deep human need, this conservative impulse, as an "attack" on an institution revered by many homosexuals and their families is itself a piece of callous demonization. And the precedent is chilling. If gays can be singled out and denied access to the courts, why not other minorities? Blacks? Hispanics? If the Republicans can do this to exclude gays from access to the courts, why couldn't Democrats one day do it to prevent conservative Christians? I loved this quote from a news story:
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law, although Democrats said opponents of civil rights legislation tried to do the same thing.
Yes, today's Republicans are now the inheritors of those Democrats who did all they could to prevent African-Americans from winning their civil rights.

A QUESTION OF RESPECT: Here's a simple question: Can you think of any other minority targeted by a single party for discrimination? Did the GOP cushion this by saying anything in defense of gay people or families? Did they signal that they could support, say, civil unions? Did they say this gag on the courts was sufficient and the FMA was now redundant? Nah - they promised to amend the Constitution as well, if they can. The only faintly civil impulse is the president's declaration that the debate should be conducted with respect. I will grant the president the benefit of the doubt on this if and when he ever says the words "gay and lesbian citizens." It is the first mark of respect to call people by their name. But he won't. We are unmentionable to him - because if he ever named us, he would humanize us, and if he humanized us, it would become clear how divisive his policies are. I am amused by the fuss made by Bush's refusal to visit the NAACP, and go to the Urban League instead. Isn't it telling that no one even asks whether the president has met with any group representing millions of his fellow gay Americans? Think about that for a minute. It will tell you a lot about this president's ability to be a uniter of this country. Some in the gay world have gone out on a very long limb to defend this president on the war, and even endorsed him when he promised to be inclusive. He has rewarded them with this kind of gambit. What are they supposed to do in return? Campaign for him?

- 12:59:44 AM

Thursday, July 22, 2004
 
WATCH A CAKEWALK: Here's a video of a 1903 cakewalk. The photograph was originally titled "An amusing cake walk, by a company of New York darkies who excel in this line of work." Here's a poster for such a thing, with the title: "Loony Coons." Another one is called "Chocolate Drops." There are others, including one called "Jolly Pickanninies." I don't think there's much doubt, ahem, about the racist message.
- 2:21:42 PM
 
"SUPER-INFECTION" REVISITED: A couple of knowledgeable readers have pointed out a wrinkle in the HIV super-infection study I cited earlier today. The study doesn't provide any data on the viral loads of the HIV-positive individuals who did not experience super-infection or did not re-infect anyone else. It does suggest that very high levels of virus in the bloodstream (or semen) could make re-infection possible - that's why the only case found was someone who had just sero-converted, when viral levels often go through the roof. But many healthy HIV-positive men have low viral loads - especially those on meds, who often have loads close to zero - and so, broadly speaking, my point holds. Two HIV-positive men with low viral loads are extremely unlikely to reinfect each other. That is a finding that should be explored in our attempt to find new ways to control the epidemic.
- 2:11:34 PM
 
GREAT MINDS, ETC.:

"The key question in this election is whether we want a wartime or a peacetime president. In this respect, the contest most closely resembles the Winston Churchill-Clement Atlee battle of 1945. With World War II just recently won in Europe but still raging in the Pacific, British voters opted to back a candidate they trusted on healthcare, jobs and social services rather than on Churchill whose wartime leadership they valued highly.
Events, more than anything else, will determine which issue has priority in our minds. The ironies abound.
If Bush succeeds too well in quelling international terrorism, he could do himself out of a job, encouraging voters to assign higher value to domestic and economic issues and hence to the Kerry candidacy." - Dick Morris, today.

"Wartime leaders have always faced the worst fear: defeat in battle. But in democracies at least, war-leaders also confront another danger: success. The qualities that make for great statesmanship in wartime - determination, a single focus on victory, a black-and-white conviction of who is friend and foe - can often seem crude or overbearing when peace comes around. The most dramatic example of this in Western history is, of course, Winston Churchill. It is no exaggeration to say that, without him, Britain may well have been destroyed by Hitler. He was the difference between victory and defeat. But almost the minute that victory was declared, the voters turned on their hero. He lost the post-war election. Even more striking, he lost it in one of the biggest electoral landslides in Britain's parliamentary history. He wasn't just defeated. He was buried..." - yours truly, Time, March 1, 2004.

- 2:05:57 PM
 
FINGER-LICKING BRUTALITY: More evidence that many parts of our agricultural industry - even with chickens now - is, with respect to treatment of animals, a moral disgrace. Money quote:
The group said its investigator also obtained eyewitness testimony about employees "ripping birds' beaks off, spray-painting their faces, twisting their heads off, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes, and breaking them in half -- all while the birds are still alive."
Just incredible - but perhaps unavoidable in a food industry that often treats animals with contempt and cruelty. (If you care about these issues, can I recommend again Matthew Scully's moving and important book, "Dominion.")

MORE CAKEWALKING: A reader writes:
Thirty years ago in the small West Virginia town where my father grew up, I participated in what was billed as a "cakewalk." The contestants simply walked around in a circle. One person standing just outside this circle was blindfolded and held a broom. At his whim he let the broom fall across the path of the circling contestants. If the broom fell behind you, you won the cake. Thus I have always assumed that a "cakewalk" referred to something accomplished by blind luck, without any element of skill. Perhaps this Appalachian contest, helps explain the etymology of the first definition of "cakewalk" provided by your reader.

- 1:40:49 PM
 
BERGER-GATE: I found this paragraph in the Washington Post account a little surreal:
The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.
At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.
This suggests that Berger was trying to purloin potentially embarrassing data on his tenure. That's astonishing. Meanwhile, the New York Times finally puts the story on A1 - but only as a device to finger the Bush administration. C'mon, Keller. You can do better.
- 1:20:42 PM
 
IRAN AND AL QAEDA: More evidence of a "collaborative relationship."
- 12:42:04 AM
 
BUSH OR CLINTON? Who said the following: "This broad agenda we will carry into the new term comes from a basic conviction: Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens. Yet government can and should help citizens gain the tools to make their own choices and to improve their own lives." It was Bush last night. It's the exact formulation Bill Clinton used to use. Bush, however, has provided no firm details for his proposals for healthcare and education. We'll see, I guess.

TEN YEARS OF BLAIR: It's a decade and a day since Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party in Britain and Oxblog gives him a worthy tribute:
He has reinvigorated centrism in Britain, as the DLC and similar organisations did for the United States. Again like his transatlantic partner [Clinton], Blair's mark was to make many of the economic reforms of Thatcherism palatable to the left. As a result, the British economy has in our lives never been stronger. Whereas a quarter-century ago it had fallen past the Federal Republic of Germany and France, and was about to fall past Italy as well, it is now closing in on Germany for the European crown, and its per capita GDP mark it as the second richest country in Europe past Luxembourg.
I'd add, however, that this achievement is essentially parasitic. Thatcher restored Britain's economy, and John Major made that transformation permanent. Blair merely made it palatable. He has failed to reform the public services in any fundamental way, and has an unfortunate authoritarian streak when it comes to civil liberties. Nevertheless, he has made Britain safe for capitalism, helped liberate the Iraqi and Afghan people from vile despotisms, made the Bank of England independent, and the Tory party close to redundant. I often post stories predicting his demise. But I'm confident he'll win the next election easily.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "You have the highest quality reader letters (blog, newspaper, or magazine) I have ever seen. I have to admit, I am sometimes so mystified by your vehemence about minor phenomena (such as Michael Moore) that I start to wonder If you are kind of nutty. (I'm a middle-aged liberal woman from Massachusetts, maybe that's why I don't get it?) Then the reader responses you choose to display redeem you." Indeed they do. Thanks to Reihan Salam for selcting the best ones - and to all of you for writing in. There's more here.

BLOGS AND POLITICS: Dan Drezner has now co-produced a paper on the subject. He is an academic, after all.
- 12:21:15 AM
 
THE QUESTION OF SUPER-INFECTION: We've been told for a very long time that even if you're HIV-positive, you can still get infected by other strains of HIV and get what is called "super-infection" with a less manageable form of HIV. No one ever provided much hard evidence for this and studies were few and far between. But we now have a new study, the best so far, that essentially debunks the notion of super-infection altogether. It was announced at the Bangkok conference and you can read the abstract here. Bottom line:
In a study of 33 HIV+ couples who engaged in frequent, unprotected sex, researchers at the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology in San Francisco found no evidence of superinfection, the sequential acquisition of multiple HIV variants.
HIV is a highly mutable virus encompassing two quite different types around the world, HIV-1 and HIV-2. Within those types there are variations known as "subclades" that are typically subdivided further into genetically differentiated strains.
The epidemic in the U.S. consists almost entirely of a single subclade, HIV-1B, while HIV epidemics in other parts of the world involve a mix of subclades. In the study, researchers investigated potential superinfection involving variations within HIV-1B.
In 28 of the 33 couples, each participant was infected with a strain of HIV-1B that was genetically different than that of the person's partner, and the 28 couples were particularly relevant for these preliminary results.
The study also examined thirty other men who had many sexual partners and unprotected intercourse, and found only one individual had "super-infection," and he had only recently sero-converted. There may indeed be a window early in infection, when super-infection can occur. But after that ... it appears you can't get reinfected. This is important news for a couple of reasons: first, the HIV-positive men have clearly developed some kind of immune response to new viral strains. Could this be developed into a vaccine? Second, the finding opens up a new possibility for restraining the epidemic. It makes a lot of sense for people with HIV only to have sex with other people with HIV. If neither man can get reinfected, they can also dispense with condoms, a benefit that could encourage them to stay having sex within their own HIV-positive sub-population (or within a monogamous HIV-positive relationship). This has a name: sero-sorting. It's already happening informally, and may be one reason why, despite lots of anecdotal evidence of more condom-less sex, we haven't seen huge increases in infection rates. It may be that the pozzies are all having sex with each other. Long may they continue to do so.
- 12:20:06 AM
 
HAS BUSH MAXED OUT? It's hard to see where his extra votes are going to come from.

ANOSMIC DREAMS: More about life without smell.

O'REILLY: He's against outing people, except when he's in favor of it.

STANLEY AND THE DUTCH: I'm not going to wade again into the thickets of research on marriage, cohabitation, parenting and so on in Scandinavia and Holland and elsewhere. But I should note that Stanley Kurtz's latest piece is striking not only because of how modest his claims now are. His latest forumlation is:
Gay marriage is not the only cause of rising out-of-wedlock birthrates. I never said it was and it doesn't take a demographer to realize that lots of factors contribute to husbandless women having babies.
Round of applause, please. But some important context. Kurtz's lede - which he portrays as some new consensus view in Holland - is that
a group of five scholars in the Netherlands issued a letter addressed to "parliaments of the world debating the issue of same-sex marriage." The Netherlands was the first country to adopt full-fledged same-sex marriage, and this letter is the first serious indication of Dutch concern about the consequences of that decision.
Hmmm. My Dutch reader weighs in:
The Reformatorisch Dagblad is of course a small partisan conservative Christian newspaper, there are just 5 university professors who state their opinion (now what would you say if 5 Berkeley scholars would issue a letter "proving" gay marriage is healthy?) and the facts they try to connect are actually uncorrelated. Yes marriage is in decline in the Netherlands as it has been for decades and the bigger part of that happened long before gay marriage was legalized. In fact, there has been some increase in (straight) marriages lately.
The reason why out of wedlock births are on the increase is because it is simply possible to arrange proper contracts for joint parenthood quite easily without marriage in the Netherlands now and quite a few people like it that way. The insinuation that this results in unstable parenting is preposterous.
But Stanley is ghetting more inventive. Here's the latest gambit:
[T]he meaning of traditional marriage was transformed every bit as much by the decade-long national movement for gay marriage in Holland as by eventual legal success. That's why the impact of gay marriage on declining Dutch marriage rates and rising out-of-wedlock birthrates begins well before the actual legal changes were instituted.
How convenient. Now, merely campaigning for equal marriage rights weakens marriage. So you can blame the fags for the decline of an institution they have had nothing to do with. A million sighs of relief go up from the social conservatives.

CAKEWALK?? An unusual lapse into political incorrectness at the NYTimes:
All this fumbling has left Mr. Obama, the smooth-talking, Harvard-educated law professor from Chicago, looking like the only candidate in a race that may make him the only African-American in the Senate. Voters who don't know him yet surely will after the Democratic National Convention, where he will be keynote speaker. But it would be too bad if Mr. Obama cakewalked into Washington. Not just for Mr. Obama, who would take office with an asterisk ("*ran against incompetents"). Illinois voters deserve to see a capable opponent force him to answer tough questions and defend his positions. In other words, they deserve a nonludicrous race.
"Cakewalk," a reader informs me, has two possible meanings:
1. Something easily accomplished: Winning the race was a cakewalk for her. 2. A 19th-century public entertainment among African Americans in which walkers performing the most accomplished or amusing steps won cakes as prizes. 1. A strutting dance, often performed in minstrel shows. 2. The music for this dance.
You learn something every minute in the blogosphere.
- 12:19:30 AM

Wednesday, July 21, 2004
 
THE SOCKS, THE SOCKS: CNN has some sources saying Berger did too stuff his socks.
- 2:30:29 PM
 
THE WAR, OR, ER, PEACE PRESIDENT: Bush seems to be changing his tune a little on the campaign trail:
Mr. Bush noted: "The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years." He repeated the words "peace" or "peaceful" many times, as he has done increasingly in his recent appearances.
How does he know? What if Iran gets a nuke? What if there's another major terror attack? The president has obviously been worrying about his hard-edged image with women. But he needs to avoid lapsing into incoherence.

BERGER WITH FRIES: Glenn is all over this story. One more question: were they boxers or briefs?
- 2:27:42 PM
 
HAMMOCK DEATH: An environmentalist is killed by a tree. Mine, mercifully, is free-standing.
- 2:10:13 PM
 
THE NYT SPIN ON BERGER: Here's a strange discrepancy in the NYT's own account of Sandy Berger's illegal purloining of classified material from government archives. Here's one version:
Republicans accused him on Tuesday of stashing the material in his clothing, but Mr. Breuer called that accusation "ridiculous" and politically inspired. He said the documents' removal was accidental.
Then later on in the piece, we read:
Mr. Breuer, the lawyer, said Mr. Berger inadvertently put three or four versions of the report on the plots in a leather portfolio he had with him. "He had lots of papers, and the memos got caught up in the portfolio," he said. "It was an accident."
Mr. Berger also put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents, Mr. Breuer said.
So it's "ridiculous" to assert that he stuffed notes and copies of documents in his clothing, and yet he stashed them in his pants pockets and jacket. Is the critical issue here whether he stuffed them down his underpants or socks? If so, I can't wait for the fruits of the loom, I mean, inquiry.

WHY? The salient question - and we have yet to have an even faintly plausible answer - is why? What was the purpose of stashing document copies that were allegedly available elsewhere? How could such a thing be "inadvertent"? Why is such an accomplished Washington player unable to come up with a reasonable explanation for such bizarre behavior? The Washington Post reports this morning that
A government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.
All the drafts? And now they're missing? Doesn't that sound like trying to cover your back? And yet the 9/11 Commission has not complained that it lacked any important documents; and the originals are still in the archives. I still don't get it. My best bet is that Berger was engaging in advance damage control - saving the drafts to help concoct a better defense of his tenure. If so, it's classic Clinton era sleaze - not exactly terrible but cheesy subordination of national security for partisan political advantage. But at times like this, I sure am glad we have the blogosphere. Can you imagine the mainstream press really pursuing this story alone? Meanwhile, Clinton thinks the possible leaking of classified information is just hilarious. About as hilarious as his anti-terror policy.

FREE THE VIBRATORS: The woman charged in Texas for selling vibrators has now had the charges dropped. One of her crimes was not merely selling the sex toy, but explaining how to use it:
Texas law allows for the sale of sexual toys as long as they are billed as novelties. But when a person markets the items in a direct manner that shows how they are used in sex, it is considered criminal obscenity.
And there you have America's screwed-up attitude toward sex summed up in two sentences.
- 1:17:04 AM
 
THE UPPER CLASS HACK: I was sorry to hear that Paul Foot, one of Britain's most dogged journalists, died of a heart attack last Saturday. The Telegraph obit does him justice. His Marxist views were silly when they weren't fueled with anger and hatred, but he had a keen nose for actual injustice and often sniffed it out. I liked this testament: "There are more people walking the streets of Britain who have been freed from prison by Paul Foot than by any other person." They were all innocent, of course. And few journalists can claim to have done such tangible good in their lives.

TOWARD CLARITY ON IRAN: Amir Taheri agrees with the Dish that the subject should be front and center in the campaign.

SOMERBY ON WILSON: Bob Somerby's a major hater of this blog, but he's often got good things to say and a sometimes extraordinary diligence in rooting out the truth. He's no fan of Bush's, to say the least, but he can see through the Joe Wilson carapace of cant:
Let's compare two important statements—Bush’s famous 16 words, and Wilson’s amazing new admission:

BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

WILSON: I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Finally! This is what we've always told you — Wilson had no way of knowing if the 16-word statement was right or wrong. He had no way to debunk it! But throughout his thrilling and best-selling book, he calls this statement a "lie-lie-lie-lie," over and over and over again. But then, grinding overstatement like that has been the problem with Wilson all along (as the three senators correctly note). And now, alas, Dems will start to pay a price for investing so much in his presentations.
Well, they would if the media were willing to debunk the fraud they so ably hyped. But they won't, will they?
- 1:16:07 AM
 
LIVING WITHOUT SMELL: A strangely moving account of living with no sense of smell. Imagine being susceptible to drinking perfume, or not noticing a gas leak, or having no olefactory sexual instincts. It does have some advantages though:
I will have to soldier on, and draw what comfort I can from a recent exchange with an ex-boyfriend who, as we reminisced about our relationship said wistfully, "You were the best girlfriend in the world. You let me bring curry home from the pub every night and I could fart as much as I liked." I'm putting it in my next personal ad.
Here's another site exploring a world without scent. The beagle is incredulous, of course.

MORE MOORE: He doctors a date and misrepresents a newspaper headline.

ON OHIO: Another reader weighs in:
The blog seems to have it partially wrong while the reader letter is partially right. Bush is trying to cut in Kerry's Catholic base around Cleveland. The problem is that he risks further alienating liberal and moderate Republicans as well as Independents in the Cleveland suburbs. Running an abortion ad is high stakes poker because most campaigns view the risk as greater than the reward. Also the conventional wisdom says that the loser tends to be the one who brings it up. Bush is obviously convinced that his economic message isn't viable in the area and has therefore resorted to his nuclear daisy-cutter. This is about fear not opportunity. Bush has plenty of wedge issues working against Kerry among traditional Catholics without dropping the a-word.
Another thing to consider is the choice of the medium. 60 Minutes? Why would you broadcast this message to such a wide audience? Granted the audience does tend to skew older, but why run the risk when you can target the message more precisely to a more narror audience and cheaper as well?
Finally the blog does contain one piece of wisdom explaining why. "Because according to Voinovich, the Bush administration has not been doing enough to stop Ohio from "bleeding jobs." That's a fairly damning source. Even if the recovery numbers are there, Voinovich clearly doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the perception.
It's obviously knife-edge close in Ohio. And that cannot be too encouraging for an incumbent.
- 1:14:35 AM


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

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

copyright © 2004 Andrew Sullivan