« November 19, 2006 - November 25, 2006 | Main | December 3, 2006 - December 9, 2006 »

Saturday, December 2, 2006

02 Dec 2006 09:05 pm

The Rumsfeld Memo

The Bush administration is leaking like a spigot right now. The latest is interesting because it gives a glimpse into the thinking of the man who ran the occupation for three years of failure. I find it significant that, in the memo, it doesn't even occur to Rumsfeld that the U.S. ever needed or needs more troops to succeed. His memo recommends a drastic reduction in U.S. goals in the country - "go minimalist." Minimalist is, of course, as good a description as any of his policy for the last three years as well. And he gives us a candid admission of his own miserable failure:

Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

Even then, of course, he sees no connection between "what U.S. forces are currently doing" and himself, their defense secretary. But at least he sees the writing in the sand:

Below the Line (less attractive options):

¶Continue on the current path.

Meanwhile, blame, blame, blame: blame every other government agency; blame the Iraqis; blame the country; blame the soldiers. And, of course: never take responsibility. Same old Don. But here are, to my mind, his main proposals:

¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007...

¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government...

¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

So he was favoring a drastic reduction in troops and goals before he quit. (Why he couldn't have secured the Iranian and Syrian borders in, say, 2003, is another matter.) So the Bush strategy of Full Steam Ahead is undermined again.

Here's a mischievous thought. What if the two most recent leaks - the Hadley Memo and the Rumsfeld Memo - came from the same source? What if they were designed to kill any attempt by Bush and Cheney to pretend things are okay, that Maliki is viable, and that a revamped effort can work?

And what if the leaker were a man who just got fired and who's skilled at bureaucratic payback? Just musing.

(Photo: Haraz Ghanbari/AP.)

02 Dec 2006 07:37 pm

Denialists Dig In

Both National Review and the Weekly Standard aim for the Baker-Hamilton Group this week. But when you examine what the Kristol-Kagan team sees as the alternative to a gradual retreat from the South and Anbar into Kurdistan, you can't help wondering how serious they really are. Money quote:

We hope that he will now take the steps necessary to accomplish his stated objectives in Iraq, including a substantial increase in the number of U.S. forces in Baghdad and throughout the contested parts of the country, as well as a long overdue increase in the total size of American ground forces so that higher force levels in Iraq can be sustained.

How much higher would make a difference? At this point, close to 50,000 to 100,000 extra troops to halt the centrifugal force of societal disintegration in Iraq. Does the Weekly Standard seriously believe that is either politically or militarily possible with the urgency necessary? Of course not. Would, say, another 20,000 troops work in a pitched battle with Sadrite forces to retake parts of Baghdad? Unlikely - and with massive casualties probably prompting an uprising in the South. Anbar is all but gone. The South is a battleground for various Shiite militias and sending U.S. troops in to police the conflict is madness. But even if you reduced troops in the South and West, and focused on 20,000 more troops just for Baghdad, it's a stretch. As even Fred Kagan acknowledges:

It is certainly true that only the 20,000 or so troops now programmed to deploy to Iraq in the spring are ready to go. Others could be made ready only in months, and would require accelerated training schedules.

We need at least 50,000 NOW. The only way to do that is sending untrained and ill-prepared or exhausted forces into a combat zone as chaotic and as opaque and as deadly as urban warfare in Baghdad. it would mean re-taking Baghdad three years after we did the first time, with far fewer advantages. And the massive surge in U.S. casualties it would mean would provoke massive opposition at home. If Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush had done this three years ago, it might have had a chance. But they were too arrogant to do what was obviously needed when it mattered, and the window of opportunity is over. To ask for such a radical re-upping of the ante now - after the American public's patience has been exhausted and the Iraqi population has been massacred and thereby embittered on a large scale - is simply a non-starter.

The attempt to belittle the efforts of Baker-Hamilton is therefore pure positioning. In Margaret Thatcher's phrase, there is tragically no alternative to some sort of retrenchment and retreat right now. I agree we need an effort to expand the military by several divisions. That was Al Gore's position in 2000, by the way, the candidate the Weekly Standard hounded as insane and weak. It was Kerry's position in 2004, another candidate the WS smeared as Jane Fonda in drag. Maybe a period of retrenchment and rebuilding of US forces could mean a new offensive in a year or so. But the idea that it can be accomplished swiftly enough now to make a difference in a "country" that has already disintegrated into Hobbesian hell is pure fantasy and Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan must know it.

There is a mood on the right at this moment that is not entirely rational. They are lashing out at the people who can rescue them from the folly of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policy in Iraq. They are viciously attacking those who have had the temerity to expain why they lost the last election. And they are throwing the vilest of epithets at James Baker. Please. This is not 1991. They are as graceless in defeat now as they were hubristic in premature victory three years ago. Or to put it more precisely, they are exactly what National Review accuses the Baker-Hamilton Commission of being: "driven by their own internal dynamics rather than by any connection to the real world."

It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did. You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams.

02 Dec 2006 07:00 pm

Blogging Drunk

A reader asks:

Have you ever blogged while drunk? BUI? This is not a criticism. I'm with you 99.9 percent of the time, including supporting, then not supporting, the Iraq War, but excluding the 'men are attractive' thing. I actually want to know if you've ever blogged while intoxicated. I should ask Instapundit. Think he's ever blogged drunk? I bet he hasn't. He's too geeky. But you strike me as a potential drunk blogger. Which of your posts was a BUI post?

What's the .01 time which we don't agree? I dunno. Too sloshed from post-work drinks to remember. Love your website.

Well, I have now posted an email obviously composed while drunk. The answer - honestly - is no. The reason is that, despite my Irish genes, I don't really drink much. Never liked alcohol much. In fact, I'm almost exclusively an occasional Jagermeister shot-drinker (regular coke to chase) and if I'm doing that, it means the workday is over. My regular hangout - the Duplex Diner in DC - is used to the combo. A friend asked for it at the bar last Thursday night (power-fag night in DC) and he was asked, "Oh is Andrew in?"

Still, writing round the clock means that you really do write while your life is going on. If you're human, you have moods. Normally a writer can disguise this a little, waiting until he or she feels better or cheerier before publishing or writing a piece. But not on a blog. The writing follows your actual life like a shadow.

This means, of course, that there are some things I have posted over six years of daily blogging that I wish I hadn't. There are things I also haven't said that I should have. I have blogged angry or exhausted or depressed or giddy. I have blogged after fighting with my boyfriend; I have blogged with a beagle baying in the background; I have blogged in airports and trains and many, many Starbucks. I've blogged on Xanax and on protease inhibitors - but I swear I haven't blogged drunk. But I'm sure, for some readers, it seems like I do on a regular basis.

02 Dec 2006 05:50 pm

A Pariah's Triumph

Jon Rauch pays tribute to a civil rights legend.

02 Dec 2006 01:50 pm

Freedom River

An animated gem, narrated by Orson Welles, on the need for vigilance in protecting our precious liberties. Its message has rarely been as timely. YouTube is so great.

02 Dec 2006 12:31 pm

Living Till You Die

A reader writes:

I don't have AIDS but I was recently treated for a cancer that could come back and finish me off, and I was struck by your mention of "spiritual blessings." I agree that I have found a greater connection to God (and to the suffering of others) as a result of my illness but I didn't get there as a result of praying.  I got there because I was an agnostic who found herself really, really angry at God, realized for the first time in my life as a result of that anger that I had a personal connection to God and somehow went from there, from shaking my fist in the air, to acceptance and gratitude.

Prayer and hope are lovely but you can also get there through bile. And isn't the redemptive power of anger something that us cancer patients learned from AIDS patients?

Another writes:

I don't have HIV ‚Äì but I do have Hepatitis C, I was diagnosed 5 years ago, at age 51. I knew how I got it - about 25 years earlier - in a bad state of mind I did a very foolish thing with drugs and put some in my arm. Something I did exactly twice, but as you and I now know, some things you only need to do once.  I tried the treatment drugs, but my system reacted badly to them and the doctors pulled me off them. They would only put me back on if I would take a whole slew of other medications. I tried that, but I didn't even feel alive. I didn't feel anything. I couldn't live like that, so they are not an option.

After I got over the sense of despair and doom that initially enveloped me I decided to do everything I could to enjoy whatever life I might have left, while still taking care of myself as best as I could. The first and best move was to get over and out of 'oh, poor me'. Once I disposed of the 'If only I hadn't' crap, things started getting better. I started writing (song parodies and occasional poems) and doing whatever things I could. It took me a while to get grounded again.

But skip to present ‚Äì I found a new job that suits me better than my old one. While I have some digestive issues I am otherwise healthy enough to play basketball and play ping-pong competitively with guys from work in their 20s and 30s. I beat one of them last night at basketball AND ping-pong. Yes, I am fully enjoying life now ... I write, I participate in active sports activities at a level that most guys my age cannot do, I fully rediscovered my love of music that had gone a little sour over the years.   

I don't know how long I have and I don't think about it all that much – I will have what I will have. I will do whatever I can to sustain it as long as there are still quality things I can do.

Live till you die. Be able to say: "I was alive when I died."

02 Dec 2006 09:13 am

The View From Your Window

Melbourne, Australia, 10.15 am.

Friday, December 1, 2006

01 Dec 2006 09:07 pm

Litvinenko

Tracing the path of the poisoned Russian.

01 Dec 2006 08:52 pm

Miracles

For Aaron. On World AIDS Day.

01 Dec 2006 07:40 pm

Levin

A reader writes:

How is Mark Levin's post on Chester Finn's article a "sign of health"?  He simply links to Finn's article and labels it "a prescription for disaster." In other words, it simply amounts to trying to cast out another conservative because he has dared to challenge the far-right fringe that now dominates debate in conservative circles.

Finn's article was a sign of health and sanity, providing reassurance that "intelligent conservative" is not an oxymoron. Levin's post is a sober reminder that dysfunctionality and radical (non-conservative) ideology are still core components of today's so-called conservatism.

01 Dec 2006 07:18 pm

The Minimum Wage

A sane, smart argument against raising it - from Greg Mankiw.

01 Dec 2006 07:10 pm

The Mortgage Deduction

Some readers have asked if I favor its abolition. I sure do. That's probably why I'm a blogger and not a politician.

01 Dec 2006 06:56 pm

The View From Your Window

Jefferson City, Missouri, 10.30 this morning.

01 Dec 2006 06:54 pm

Small Town Boy

A reader writes:

I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for linking to the video for Smalltown Boy. It was, and still is one of my favorite songs, and to this day, I have it, as well as a Jimmy Sommerville version of "I Never Can Say Good-Bye" on a CD in my car, (along with other songs by Bronski Beat, The Communards, UB40 et all).

Being from a small town and being gay in the '80's was never easy. I was a teenager in a small town in the 70's, and it was even harder. I endured black eyes, broken bones, ostracism, and generally being the town "fairy".

Needless to say,  on the day I turned 18, I was gone. By the time this video came out, I had already met the love of my life (this past Sept was our 26th anniversary), but even now, some of the scars surface. I had forgotten how gut wrenching some parts of that vid is.

Can I just say this to my straight readers: when you think of gay people, and the "gay agenda," please think of this guy as well, will you? He went through all that, found a husband and committed to him for 26 years - and the Republicans now tell him that his committed relationship is a a threat to the family and to civilization. In my view, someone who endured that and committed to a relationship for almost three decades should at least be given the same civil rights as Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock. Anything else adds insult to injury.

01 Dec 2006 06:15 pm

"Dear Jim And Chuck"

David Kuo writes an open letter to two leaders of the Christianist right.

01 Dec 2006 05:01 pm

Bush's Game Plan

A reader writes:

I'm no shrink but it seems to me that W will stick to his guns in Iraq for one simple reason: When things finally change upon his retirement (and, as you know better than I, it's going to get rough for a while when it does) he can say "if they'd just continued my policy everything would have been OK. They changed it, and now you've got a disaster. I told you so."

I'll rant, and state the obvious. He's a cosseted son-of-the-establishment who failed all the way up to presidency. Just as in everything that's come before in his life his Dad and his Dads' buds are going to bail him out. Problem this time is that he's president. He has the wherewithal - and an enabler in substitute father-figure Cheney - to put them off. It's only two years. It'll be a disaster of Iraq, and for us, but he'll go into his dotage thinking he's a success.

And that's all he cares about. He already said it's going to be someone else's problem.

If this is an accurate assessment of the president's motives, he really is a danger to the republic and a disgrace to his office. But I suspect that he has already also rationalized it in his head as the statesmanlike option. He's blind even to his own pride.

(Photo from yesterday in Kirkuk by Marwan Ibrahim for AFP/Getty.)

01 Dec 2006 04:46 pm

Two Months

That's now Charles Krauthammer's timeline for the Maliki government to prove it is more than just a front for al-Sadr. But he gives the Hadley stay-the-course strategy some short-term cover:

We should ... make a last effort to change the composition of the government and assemble a new one composed of those — Kurds, moderate Sunnis, secular Shiites, and some of the religious Shiites — who might be capable of reaching a grand political settlement.

But he also concedes that the political culture in Iraq makes this a pipe-dream. What he doesn't concede is that the Bush administration's management of the war and its acquiescence to anarchy made the chance for a grand compromise in Iraq all but impossible. It's hard to do a deal with people who have been busily murdering your in-laws for three years with impunity. But then Charles pivots and seems to favor an even swifter withdrawal than many Democrats:

The U.S. should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: If he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the U.S. will abandon the Green Zone, retire to its bases, move much of its personnel to Kurdistan where we are welcome and safe, and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone–protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a new coalition that would.

Or they might just say: fine. See ya later. And then what do we do? I'm afraid Charles is relieving himself into a gale-force wind. Maliki has had many months to prove himself. And waiting some more merely adds to the chaos and actually weakens our leverage. But, hey, two months is not too bad. Maybe there is a realist-idealist compromise out there. Give Maliki two months, then withdraw to Kurdistan. Wait and see if anyone emerges from the slaughter who can deliver order. But don't be surprised if it's someone we really don't like.

01 Dec 2006 03:50 pm

Quote for the Day II

"Basically I see the provision of basic civil rights and domestic partnership benefits [as] a campaign against [then-House Speaker] Tom Finneran. I see Tom Finneran and the Democratic leadership as having opposed the application of domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples and I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples," - Mitt Romney, in a Bay Windows interview published Oct. 24, 2002.

The poor theocons. They don't have anyone bigoted enough to support in 2008.

01 Dec 2006 02:18 pm

Today

I'm not big on p.r. stunts like World AIDS Day. I remember my old friend Patrick once saying he would die of red ribbons before he died of AIDS. But he died of AIDS. He was 31. In many parts of the world today, 31 is an achievement for people with HIV. Please give to HIV/AIDS charities, support research, defuse stigma (remove the federal travel ban on HIV-positive foreigners!), and work for better diagnosis and treatment. I'd say that Africa is indeed a valid priority. But many African-Americans in American cities are no better off than some people with HIV in Africa. Charity begins at home. And stigma sometimes has to be conquered before charity is even possible.

But know this also if you are caught in this web: HIV need not be the end of your life. This is my 13th year of living with it. And I've never felt as alive. If you have this virus, face it, own it, beat it. It can be done. And there is great spiritual blessing to be found in such fear and pain if you pray hard enough.

01 Dec 2006 02:04 pm

Blaming Americans First

The new meme from the right: the American people - not president Bush - lost the war in Iraq. Mort Kondracke peddles the line, and I have to agree with Josh Marshall that it is a sickening piece of denialist drivel. As Josh puts it:

It really does seem as though the cardinals of DC punditry are constitutionally incapable of believing that George W. Bush has ever - in the real sense - gotten anything wrong or that they, the Washington establishment, has gotten anything wrong over the last six years.

Remember: on Fox News, Mort is the liberal.

01 Dec 2006 01:48 pm

Barney vs Bill

Congressman Frank gives Mr O'Reilly a taste of his own medicine. And Fox News Channel, for good measure. Yay! I should say, however, I agree with O'Reilly on this, and disagree with my friend, Barney.

I'm against progressive taxation and in favor of a flat tax, an end to all tax shelters (except charity), abolition of corporate welfare, and an end to agricultural subsidies. Just to scramble things up, I also favor a raise in the minimum wage. I didn't used to. But I've been persuaded by the evidence that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that its worth has been deeply eroded in the recent past. The plight of the working poor in a globalized economy deserves addressing. I'm not sure whether this policy blend means I'm a liberal or a conservative on tax issues (although it will tick off some libertarians). At this point, I dont really care about the label. I do think we should talk about fundamental reform of an inefficient, overly-complex and unfair tax system. A shelter-free flat tax might actually succeed in increasing economic efficiency and the amount of tax the very rich actually pay. Why not put it on the table?

01 Dec 2006 01:28 pm

Hindu Undies

A reader adds to our discussion of religious underwear:

Just wanted to drop our two cents or Rupees as you like.

This Hindu reader of your blog felt great empathy for the other faiths who revealed their choice of religious underthings. Many Hindus also have a religiously mandated undergarment called a Kaupin or Kaupina.

It often is just a belt made of cloth with a double strip of the same fabric pulled through the legs and folded/wrapped around the back part of said belt. More common for the priestly profession (I wore it for years), it is said to be helpful in maintaining sexual chastity and is mandatory for all monastics.

Above is a 19th Century depiction of Lord Shiva in a Kaupina. More details here.

01 Dec 2006 12:21 pm

The Trouble With Pot

A reader hits the nail on the head:

The difficulty with marijuana is that it produces a side effect that our government cannot tolerate. This side effect is so severe that any drug that produces it must be severely restricted or banned outright. And it is an insidious side effect. It is so insidious that it is nearly impossible to detect through measurments of body chemistry, metabolic function, critical organ functions, or tissue damage. You simply cannot find any harm caused by this side effect, but it's there.

The side effect, of course, is pleasure. Our government will never allow it.

This is the nub of the issue, I think. Sometimes, you hear attempts at justifying the ban on pot that point to marinol, a THC-based drug that allegedly helps nausea. They're for that, if necessary. And they much prefer it to marijuana, even though smoked or vaporized THC is much more effective. Why? Because marinol doesn't provide pleasure. And pleasure, even harmless pleasure, is evil and must be prevented. Once you allow people to enjoy life, there's no end to the dangers. Unless, of course, pleasure is backed up by vast industries rendering hefty taxes, like tobacco and alcohol. Then it's fine.

For my part, I find the attempt to ban any naturally growing plant to be an attack on reality, and a denial of some of the most basic freedoms. I guess that's why today's GOP is so in favor of it.

01 Dec 2006 10:44 am

Quote for the Day

"I don't think any sitting president of the United States is a lame duck when it comes to foreign policy. There's too much power in the presidency, and the interests of our country are too great. If the president reaches out to us in the Democratic Party and really tries to work together, he has a chance to have a legacy here that could be important for our nation and, obviously, for him personally. I've offered to be helpful to Condoleezza Rice. I've called her. I hope we can all work together, but we've got to be tougher in our approach. I believe personally -- and I've said this publicly -- that you have to set a date for the expectation of when the Iraqis will take over their responsibility. And if you don't get tough and have those kinds of benchmarks, then they have an excuse to avoid it altogether," - Senator John Kerry on CNN.

01 Dec 2006 12:27 am

Six Months

That's Maliki's timetable for taking over security from the U.S. Whatever president Bush says or does, whatever James Baker says or does, that seems to me the actual timetable. If Maliki tells the U.S. to leave in June 2007, what will Bush do? He said today:

"We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done so long as the government wants us there."

So he's got six months. Not even ten.

(Photo of Western Baghdad yesterday by Mohammed Ameen/Reuters.)

01 Dec 2006 12:12 am

Sero-Sorting, Ctd.

A reader makes some good points:

There may well be good evidence that serosorting is one of the factors keeping the rate of new HIV infections down, but the comparison with the syphilis rate isn't one of them - for two reasons.

Petrelis notes one of them in the blog entry you cite:

"What's not footnoted by DPH is the fact that in 1999 the CDC launched a national syphilis elimination effort, one that significantly drove up the number of syphilis tests performed and also enhanced surveillance."

If you look for syphilis and test for it more often and increase surveillance and contact tracing, then you're going to find more of it, regardless of what's happening with other STDs

The other was reported widely a year ago:

"A recent rise in syphilis rates in the United States is probably due to natural cycles rather than an increase in unsafe sex or other behaviors.... [Nicholas C.] Grassly and his colleagues argue in this week's issue of the journal Nature that syphilis infection follows a natural cycle that peaks at eight- to 11-year intervals. Though sexual behavior certainly influences the overall number of people infected, the researchers concluded, those regular ups and downs are an intrinsic property of the disease itself."

The article above goes on to note:

"Because [syphilis and gonorrhea] spread the same way, if changes in sexual behavior had caused the oscillating pattern in syphilis they should have created a similar pattern in gonorrhea. Yet gonorrhea rates show a steady rise from the 1950s through the 1970s, followed by a steady fall."

Because of the above, I'd be a lot more impressed by the slide both you and Petrelis highlight if it compared HIV infection rates with gonorrhea rates.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

30 Nov 2006 11:13 pm

Priceless

From the NYT:

"When Mr. Bush, at one point, asked prime minister [Maliki] if he wanted to continue taking questions from reporters, the prime minister swiveled his head toward the president and shot Mr. Bush an incredulous look."

At least one of them is sane.

30 Nov 2006 10:05 pm

Best '80s Video Nominee

If you were gay and young in the 1980s, the pop music was a form of emancipation and revelation. Early PSBs, Erasure and Bronski Beat captured the breakthrough. Many of us as teens lived in small towns and yearned for the big city. And no music video spoke to our lives as powerfully as "Smalltown Boy." Even now, it chokes me up. The video is a record of the beginnings of a revolution. You can feel it coming.

Click here to see the other entries...

30 Nov 2006 09:31 pm

Sero-Sorting: The Data

Why has San Francisco been so successful in bringing down HIV transmission rates? That's a good question for public health officials. Many now believe it is because of "sero-sorting." This is a technical term for sex between people of the same sero-status. So HIV-positive men stick to their own and vice-versa. In those contexts, using condoms is not as essential to curbing the epidemic. So check out this blog-post from Michael Petrelis, and one of the slides from a recent San Francisco Department of Public Health study:

You'll notice an alarming increase in syphilis, but relatively stable rates of HIV transmission. The syphilis is not good news, obviously. But it suggests a silver lining: a lot of sex going on without condoms, yet without any spike in HIV rates. That's almost certainly because most of the people who get syphilis already have HIV. This isn't good for people with HIV (but syphilis can be treated effectively if detected). But the pattern does seem to be keeping HIV within the boundaries of the existing HIV-positive population. And that's good news for the uninfected.

30 Nov 2006 07:58 pm

Conservative Civil War Watch

NRO's Schmittian blogger, Mark Levin, attacks Chester Finn's article ... on NRO. More fights, please. They're a sign of health.

30 Nov 2006 07:30 pm

On Fabulous Catholicism

A reader makes an obvious point:

Yes, but ... surely the combination of a fairly (at least comparatively) flaming Pope with the harsh homophobic rhetoric issued over his signature must be not just saddening, but enraging. At least women don’t have to contend with blatant self-contradiction from Rome—Rome doesn’t prop up women in positions of power from which they oppress women, while it seems that many members of the Vatican bureaucracy spend their days condemning homosexuals before heading out to enjoy the delights of the “homosexual culture” of the city. So, yes, the fabulous pageantry is amusing, and pretty transparent to anyone with a modicum of gay-dar, but it dresses up a vicious and deadly culture of denial in the hierarchical Church. Didn’t Jesus have something to say about those who impose impossible burdens on others but don't lift a finger to help?

Though I will attempt to learn from your lead, and at least smile at the show.

My rage continues. But it is humanly impossible, thank God, to feel it for ever. And so I try and make the best of it.   

30 Nov 2006 06:52 pm

Obama vs Clinton

The game's on.

30 Nov 2006 06:25 pm

The Feds vs the Sick

People talk about the immorality of the government not funding experimental embryonic stem cell research to cure or treat certain diseases. And yet we already have a drug that requires no elaborate production, has no bad side-effects, that actually cures serious illness and helps the sick - and the federal government doesn't just not fund this; it bans anyone from using it, and throws sick people in jail for it. This policy is despicable; it's immoral; and it's a scandal that marijuana is not available for any sick person it could help. Here's riveting, intelligent first-person testimony from a medical marijuana user for 35 years. It saved his life. He testified in Michigan yesterday. How dare the government ban this substance?

30 Nov 2006 05:57 pm

Vive La Resistance

Chester Finn calls it like it is - in National Review! The times they are a-changing. Money quote:

What’s gone wrong with the GOP? Let me start by quoting a friend who is both gay and conservative (yes, I know several such): “I’m for low taxes, strong defense and limited government. Why doesn’t the Republican party want me?”

There’s a two-part answer to that question and neither half is good news. The first is that today’s GOP doesn’t really want gays — and it yearns to supervise everybody else’s bedroom and reproductive behavior as well as (implicitly, at least) their relationship to God. The second is that Republicans are no longer really in favor of limited government. Besides having their own version of a nanny state, they want to spend and spend, start program after program, ladle out the pork, make deals with influence peddlers, and spin the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. Yes, they still pretend to favor low taxes but that’s an illusion; they pay for limitless government via huge deficits that will mean high taxes for my granddaughter.

30 Nov 2006 05:37 pm

Marriage In South Africa

Equality formally arrived today.

30 Nov 2006 05:36 pm

The Bushite War Spin

Josh nails it:

We're now down to the Iraq people or the American people as the primary culprits for George W. Bush's disaster.

I thought Republican denialism could not survive the last election and the undeniable facts on the ground in Iraq. Wrong. They're still spinning - into the worst of all worlds.

30 Nov 2006 05:01 pm

Putin's Nuclear War?

Now former Russian PM Gaidar, another Putin foe, is sick - possibly from some kind of poison. Polonium again? Has Putin launched a micro-nuclear war against his opposition?

30 Nov 2006 04:27 pm

Polonium For Dummies

A useful, if scary, primer.

30 Nov 2006 04:07 pm

Just Enough Troops To Lose

My preference is for a draw-down of troops in Shiite and Sunni Arab areas of Iraq, a redeployment to Kurdistan where they like us and whence we can keep an eye on any egregious terrorist activities in Anbar, and a much bigger force presence in Baghdad to prevent the capital from imploding. If the Shiite militias want to fight it out for control of Southern Iraq, fine. At least then we may have a victor we can actually talk to, instead the mellifluous Maliki. But - surprise! - the Bush administration is likely to do what it has long done: pick the worst of both worlds. We won't get the advantage of a clean or decisive break from the past, and we won't send enough troops to Baghdad:

While the White House reviews its strategy options, Pentagon planners are also looking beyond the immediate reinforcements for Baghdad to the question of whether they will need to draw more on reserve units to meet troop requirements in the Iraqi capital, military officials said. In particular, the Army is considering sending about 3,000 combat engineers from reserve units.

The proposal would not increase the overall number of troops in Baghdad, but it is controversial because it would require sending units that had already been deployed to Iraq in recent years, a step National Guard officials have been trying to avoid.

So no real attempt to gain control of Baghdad. Have we even found the captured US soldier yet? Or has he been abandoned for good? Meanwhile, we'll keep talking pointlessly to the "right guy," Maliki. Why? To save this president's face. I don't believe any American soldier's life is worth sacrificing for one deluded man's self-esteem, do you?

(Photo: Brooks Kraft/Corbis for Time.)

30 Nov 2006 03:33 pm

The Russian Danger

Here's a quote worth pondering:

Someone with access to fresh Polonium 210 (read: less than a year old, hot from the reactor) decided to use it to bump off an enemy. And the terrorism alert status hasn't risen a notch? Pull the other one.

If Putin ordered the hit, it means we have a head-of-state prepared to use nuclear material to kill enemies, and spread it globally. If someone in the Russian nuclear network did it without Putin's permission, we have an even bigger problem on our hands. Here we were worried that Saddam could hand off nuclear material to rogue actors. And we didn't think of Putin.

30 Nov 2006 02:27 pm

Bloggery

Professor Bainbridge adjudicates a blog-war; and one blogger gets parodied. This is what free speech looks like.

30 Nov 2006 01:22 pm

Pro-Gay Romney

Here's a quote for K-Lo:

"[As] we seek to establish full equality for American gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than [Ted Kennedy]."

Barney Frank? Nah. That's Mitt Romney, running for governor US senator in Massachusetts, in a 1994 letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans. The Bay Windows op-ed that brought up that quote also contained the following facts that attendees at the Republican Governors' Association might want to take note of:

During the same campaign, when he was accused of having once described gay people as 'perverse' during a religious meeting of Mormons, Romney’s campaign issued a forceful statement decrying the accusation as false and reiterating that Romney respected "all people regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation."

During his 2001 run for governor, his campaign distributed bright pink flyers at the June Pride parade declaring "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend!" During his inaugural speech, he said it was important to defend civil rights "regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race." He appointed eight openly gay and lesbian people to high profile positions in his administration. And before he decided to run for president — that is to say, before he needed to establish some strong anti-gay bonafides — Romney doubled the budget line item for the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.

Here's a simple test: can a Republican candidate in 2008 repeat Romney's words of 1994: that he respects "all people regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation." Bush has never been able to say those two words: "sexual orientation". Romney has. Will he ever say them again? Let's keep an open mind, shall we?

(Photo: Associated Press.)

30 Nov 2006 12:12 pm

The View From Your Window

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 9.45 am. Santa had a rough night.

30 Nov 2006 11:08 am

Email of the Day

A reader writes:

In the last couple of days you have given valuable space to an Australian atheist, a British/Kazakh observant jew, a stylish Catholic pontiff, an evangelical Democrat possibly running for President, a messianic Christian (that would be our President) and countless Mormons.

I truly like your spirit of inclusiveness.