The liberal baby bust
By Phillip LongmanTue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future - one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont - the first to embrace gay unions - has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.
Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.
Single-child factor
Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.
This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.
It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Rewriting history?
Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.
Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.
Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.
Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
The president's tin ear & this from the Washington Times Bush ass kisser)
The president's tin ear
By Barry Casselma
Published March 10, 2006
The Washington Times
Once again, President Bush's popularity has gone down, this time to near its previous bottom. His friends and supporters are dismayed, especially since the economic and other news is not that bad. It is certainly not as bad as it has been, or as it might be.
The intensity and duration of this unpopularity is not unique. Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton aroused similar emotions. Only Nixon did not recover from this after his presidency (although his foreign policy skill has been vindicated).
What did Presidents Truman, Reagan and Clinton have in common? They were good communicators, and they had an ear for what the American public thought and felt (although they often went against what political pundits told them was what Americans thought and felt). The worst thing an American politician can have is a tin ear.
This is not about public policy. I have defended Mr. Bush's policies in the Middle East and his long-term vision, and I continue to do so. His attempts to reform Social Security and create health-savings accounts are on the right track.
Although I think his proposals so far are not enough, he is right to try to reform education and health care. I applaud his new efforts to reduce American dependency on foreign oil imports, and in insisting on drastic U.N. reform
What is not commendable is a pattern of personal unwillingness to engage and include the American public in building support for his own policies.
There are some obvious reasons for this. Mr. Bush, who is quite capable of being charming, likeable and effective to small, friendly audiences, apparently does not enjoy his role as communicator in chief to the nation, a role that is as much part of the job as commander in chief of the armed forces. This role is not specified in the Constitution, but it has been a necessary part of the job since the first president, George Washington.
Much of the national media opposes Mr. Bush, and makes no secret of it. Many of his loudest critics make no effort to evaluate what he says and does fairly. Those in the entertainment industry, who are often badly informed, have relentlessly made fun of him. Sometimes satire was deserved, and no one denies the inherent role of the media to be critical. But there has been a venom in the media/cultural left for Mr. Bush, who has apparently long mistrusted the media, and from his 2000 campaign on has kept it at arm's length. His first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was skillful, but his assignment was not to be forthcoming. His current press secretary, Scott McLellan, is neither skillful nor forthcoming. It is a formula for a communication disaster.
The latest flap is over a deal to allow an Arab-owned company to manage six American ports. This is a large company which is already managing several world ports, and doing it well. They submitted the best bid. The fact that this company is owned by an Arab ally raises a question of political sensitivity to our allies and to the Arab world at large. But it is a tin ear that does not realize how this would be received by not only opponents and the media, but also by supporters and the public at large. This is the same political ear that nominated Harriet Myers for the supreme court and avoided going to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina.
This suggests that the kind of advice the president received during his first term is no longer reaching him in his second. Some explain that this is because Mr. Bush's penchant to replace outgoing cabinet and sub-cabinet officers, and his personal staff, with their juniors is a compulsive resistance to counsel from outside. (This should not be confused with the president's stubborn adherence to his foreign and domestic policy vision and ideas, which remain valid and laudable.)
This is about implementation, strategy and communication, which are the other half of the executive equation. As the first U.S. president with an M.B.A., Mr. Bush is inexcusably performing only half the job when he places loyalty and self-imposed isolation above good management.
Even more egregious is the president's timing for this executive muddle. The mid-term elections will soon enter their final campaign months, and the president risks hitherto safe margins of control of both houses of Congress. Where is Karl Rove? A contrarian political trend which began only a few months ago, giving the Republican Party unexpected opportunities in national races, e.g., in Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington and elsewhere, would evaporate if a tidal wave against the administration were to develop.
It's one thing to be loyal, and another matter to be loyal to those who do not appear to be really up to the job.
Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
By Barry Casselma
Published March 10, 2006
The Washington Times
Once again, President Bush's popularity has gone down, this time to near its previous bottom. His friends and supporters are dismayed, especially since the economic and other news is not that bad. It is certainly not as bad as it has been, or as it might be.
The intensity and duration of this unpopularity is not unique. Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton aroused similar emotions. Only Nixon did not recover from this after his presidency (although his foreign policy skill has been vindicated).
What did Presidents Truman, Reagan and Clinton have in common? They were good communicators, and they had an ear for what the American public thought and felt (although they often went against what political pundits told them was what Americans thought and felt). The worst thing an American politician can have is a tin ear.
This is not about public policy. I have defended Mr. Bush's policies in the Middle East and his long-term vision, and I continue to do so. His attempts to reform Social Security and create health-savings accounts are on the right track.
Although I think his proposals so far are not enough, he is right to try to reform education and health care. I applaud his new efforts to reduce American dependency on foreign oil imports, and in insisting on drastic U.N. reform
What is not commendable is a pattern of personal unwillingness to engage and include the American public in building support for his own policies.
There are some obvious reasons for this. Mr. Bush, who is quite capable of being charming, likeable and effective to small, friendly audiences, apparently does not enjoy his role as communicator in chief to the nation, a role that is as much part of the job as commander in chief of the armed forces. This role is not specified in the Constitution, but it has been a necessary part of the job since the first president, George Washington.
Much of the national media opposes Mr. Bush, and makes no secret of it. Many of his loudest critics make no effort to evaluate what he says and does fairly. Those in the entertainment industry, who are often badly informed, have relentlessly made fun of him. Sometimes satire was deserved, and no one denies the inherent role of the media to be critical. But there has been a venom in the media/cultural left for Mr. Bush, who has apparently long mistrusted the media, and from his 2000 campaign on has kept it at arm's length. His first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was skillful, but his assignment was not to be forthcoming. His current press secretary, Scott McLellan, is neither skillful nor forthcoming. It is a formula for a communication disaster.
The latest flap is over a deal to allow an Arab-owned company to manage six American ports. This is a large company which is already managing several world ports, and doing it well. They submitted the best bid. The fact that this company is owned by an Arab ally raises a question of political sensitivity to our allies and to the Arab world at large. But it is a tin ear that does not realize how this would be received by not only opponents and the media, but also by supporters and the public at large. This is the same political ear that nominated Harriet Myers for the supreme court and avoided going to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina.
This suggests that the kind of advice the president received during his first term is no longer reaching him in his second. Some explain that this is because Mr. Bush's penchant to replace outgoing cabinet and sub-cabinet officers, and his personal staff, with their juniors is a compulsive resistance to counsel from outside. (This should not be confused with the president's stubborn adherence to his foreign and domestic policy vision and ideas, which remain valid and laudable.)
This is about implementation, strategy and communication, which are the other half of the executive equation. As the first U.S. president with an M.B.A., Mr. Bush is inexcusably performing only half the job when he places loyalty and self-imposed isolation above good management.
Even more egregious is the president's timing for this executive muddle. The mid-term elections will soon enter their final campaign months, and the president risks hitherto safe margins of control of both houses of Congress. Where is Karl Rove? A contrarian political trend which began only a few months ago, giving the Republican Party unexpected opportunities in national races, e.g., in Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington and elsewhere, would evaporate if a tidal wave against the administration were to develop.
It's one thing to be loyal, and another matter to be loyal to those who do not appear to be really up to the job.
Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
How they are all out-Bushing Bush
How they are all out-Bushing Bush
The Financial Times
>By Edward Luce
>Published: March 10 2006 19:34 | Last updated: March 10 2006 19:34
>>
President George W. Bush’s stinging defeat over his approval of Dubai Port World’s taking control of container operations at five American ports marks a new low in his fortunes. That a majority of Republicans ignored the White House’s pleas to show reason on what ought to have been a routine transaction speaks volumes about how much of a liability Mr Bush has become. Doubtless, Republicans will be looking for new ways to signal distance from Mr Bush between now and mid-term elections in November.
That is the good news for Mr Bush. The bad news is that many have concluded that he has already joined the likes of Lyndon B. Johnson and Calvin Coolidge as a long-distance waddler – condemned to being a lame duck well beyond November for the almost three years that remain of his term. Given Mr Bush’s low approval ratings – 34 per cent was the worst of the recent crop – it is tempting to agree. But it would not necessarily be correct. There is a more unsettling way of interpreting the events of the last few weeks. While congressmen from both parties were bidding to see who could most loudly condemn Mr Bush’s approval of the Dubai PW deal, they were quietly following his lead on a question of genuine significance to American freedom.
Last week, the Senate intelligence committee gave the administration a free pass to continue wiretapping an unspecified number of Americans without having secured a warrant beforehand. In exchange for calling off the threat of legislation to regulate a practice that many lawyers say is illegal, a group of senators would get monthly briefings from the White House about its surveillance activities.
Lame duck or otherwise, on this momentous question Congress decided not to clip Mr Bush’s wings. To recap: Mr Bush is unable to push through a simple transfer of ownership from one foreign company to another of a tiny fraction of America’s container terminal operations. But his security agents have congressional permission to continue interpreting a key aspect of America’s eavesdropping laws pretty much any way they choose. How to reconcile these two developments? The answer is public opinion.
One clear lesson from the Dubai PW controversy is that Democrats and Republicans alike chose to follow rather than to shape public opinion. According to the polls, up to
>three-quarters of Americans opposed an Arab company operating US terminals. This number did not fall when they were informed that the Gulf-based company would have no say over security and screening operations in America’s ports.
Public opinion is also hawkish on illegal immigration – another issue on which Mr Bush finds himself on the wrong side of the fence. America has an estimated 11m illegal immigrants. In December the House of Representatives ignored Mr Bush’s request to set up a guest worker programme that would bring many of the illegals into the open when it passed a bill that focused on enforcement, such as building new detention centres and providing unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol America’s borders.
As with the Dubai PW vote in the House appropriations committee last week, in which only two of the 64 congressmen dissented, many Democrats supported the immigration bill. The issue is now before the Senate, which tends to be less prone to populism than the lower house. But even were the Senate to water down the bill, it is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it.
In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil. Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years.
Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats. Without this – and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative – Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004.
Mr Bush’s numbers are now in freefall, with some polls showing a majority no longer trusts him on this pivotal issue. In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush.
It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy. It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: “We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue.” This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were. It is to be hoped that this was a uniquely unusual moment. But we should not bank on it. The Democrats are hungry for victory.
>
The writer is the FT’s Washington commentator
>
The Financial Times
>By Edward Luce
>Published: March 10 2006 19:34 | Last updated: March 10 2006 19:34
>>
President George W. Bush’s stinging defeat over his approval of Dubai Port World’s taking control of container operations at five American ports marks a new low in his fortunes. That a majority of Republicans ignored the White House’s pleas to show reason on what ought to have been a routine transaction speaks volumes about how much of a liability Mr Bush has become. Doubtless, Republicans will be looking for new ways to signal distance from Mr Bush between now and mid-term elections in November.
That is the good news for Mr Bush. The bad news is that many have concluded that he has already joined the likes of Lyndon B. Johnson and Calvin Coolidge as a long-distance waddler – condemned to being a lame duck well beyond November for the almost three years that remain of his term. Given Mr Bush’s low approval ratings – 34 per cent was the worst of the recent crop – it is tempting to agree. But it would not necessarily be correct. There is a more unsettling way of interpreting the events of the last few weeks. While congressmen from both parties were bidding to see who could most loudly condemn Mr Bush’s approval of the Dubai PW deal, they were quietly following his lead on a question of genuine significance to American freedom.
Last week, the Senate intelligence committee gave the administration a free pass to continue wiretapping an unspecified number of Americans without having secured a warrant beforehand. In exchange for calling off the threat of legislation to regulate a practice that many lawyers say is illegal, a group of senators would get monthly briefings from the White House about its surveillance activities.
Lame duck or otherwise, on this momentous question Congress decided not to clip Mr Bush’s wings. To recap: Mr Bush is unable to push through a simple transfer of ownership from one foreign company to another of a tiny fraction of America’s container terminal operations. But his security agents have congressional permission to continue interpreting a key aspect of America’s eavesdropping laws pretty much any way they choose. How to reconcile these two developments? The answer is public opinion.
One clear lesson from the Dubai PW controversy is that Democrats and Republicans alike chose to follow rather than to shape public opinion. According to the polls, up to
>three-quarters of Americans opposed an Arab company operating US terminals. This number did not fall when they were informed that the Gulf-based company would have no say over security and screening operations in America’s ports.
Public opinion is also hawkish on illegal immigration – another issue on which Mr Bush finds himself on the wrong side of the fence. America has an estimated 11m illegal immigrants. In December the House of Representatives ignored Mr Bush’s request to set up a guest worker programme that would bring many of the illegals into the open when it passed a bill that focused on enforcement, such as building new detention centres and providing unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol America’s borders.
As with the Dubai PW vote in the House appropriations committee last week, in which only two of the 64 congressmen dissented, many Democrats supported the immigration bill. The issue is now before the Senate, which tends to be less prone to populism than the lower house. But even were the Senate to water down the bill, it is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it.
In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil. Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years.
Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats. Without this – and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative – Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004.
Mr Bush’s numbers are now in freefall, with some polls showing a majority no longer trusts him on this pivotal issue. In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush.
It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy. It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: “We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue.” This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were. It is to be hoped that this was a uniquely unusual moment. But we should not bank on it. The Democrats are hungry for victory.
>
The writer is the FT’s Washington commentator
>
The President and the Scientists
The President and the Scientists
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-03-13
Posted 2006-03-06
This week in the magazine, Michael Specter writes about the uneasy relationship between science and government in the Bush Administration. Here, Specter discusses the article.
THE NEW YORKER: In your article this week, you write about the Bush Administration’s hostility to science. Broadly speaking, what does that mean?
MICHAEL SPECTER: I’m not sure I would use the word “hostility.” The Administration simply doesn’t seem to rely on the advice of scientists on a wide range of issues: climate change, pollution, and biomedical research, for example. Previous Administrations have taken science as an area that is above the political fray—this one does not seem to operate that way.
The opposition to science seems to have a number of strains, many religious. You write about how the Administration is vehemently opposed to “any drug, vaccine, or initiative that could be interpreted as lessening the risks associated with premarital sex.” Do policymakers have some other rationale, or is this more of a straightforward agenda?
Well, the Bush Administration is squarely on the record in favor of abstinence as the main approach to issues such as H.I.V. and abortion. Few groups, by the way, oppose abstinence as an approach, and many see it as an excellent first line of defense. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t always work, and, when it does, it rarely works for long. Nonetheless, the Administration—and many of its allies among conservatives and the religious right—places far more emphasis on abstinence than on teaching children other methods of birth control and protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
What are some of the other branches of science that are suffering? For instance, you write about stem-cell research in your article.
Stem-cell research is considered by many to be the most exciting area of biomedical research. But, because it relies on human embryos, President Bush decided in 2001 that public funding for the work would be limited to those lines of cells that already existed. There are other difficult issues in the current Administration, though. The scientific recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency have often been ignored by this Administration, and sometimes decisions on environmental policy have been heavily influenced by former, or even current, allies of industry. Climate change is another area, and so, in many ways, is nasa. President Bush has said he wants to send people to Mars. But critics say that such a program would simply take money away from more useful research.
How much of this is a response to lobbying forces, such as fundamentalist Christian pressure?
It’s not so easy to disentangle the Administration and the Christian right. The President is an evangelical Christian and so are many people in his Administration. On many issues, though, industrial lobbyists hold sway. It must also be added that stem-cell research poses moral dilemmas that many Americans find hard to resolve—so to say that it’s blindly immoral to even question stem-cell research is, in my opinion, not fair.
What are the issues of federal funding in stem-cell research? Are they so prohibitive that they have essentially hamstrung a generation of scientists?
Well, the government does not fund research that involves stem cells, because you have to destroy an embryo to carry it out. Many people feel that destroying an embryo is akin to killing a living person—and the Bush Administration has drawn a moral line at that. Such research—all major biomedical research these days—is complex, and expensive. If you are at a university and you want to do embryonic stem-cell work, you could do so only with private funds; nothing from the government can pay for the work. This can get tricky even for rich institutions like Harvard, since equipment in labs can be very expensive and groups routinely share equipment. When stem-cell research is involved, the equipment needs to be accounted for in a different way and often bought with segregated funds.
Your article also touches on a number of personnel and staffing issues—scientists who have quit in protest over the Administration’s decisions, advisory boards that have been dismantled or remain unstaffed as a result of new vetting procedures. Does the Bush Administration require that its scientists agree with its political goals? How do past Administrations compare in this regard?
No Administration is eager to hire people who are virulently opposed to its goals. Yet, in the past, there has usually been a general feeling that scientists are above—or at least on the sidelines of—politics, and that they should be given jobs based purely on their ability to carry them out. That is a little utopian, and, of course, it doesn’t always work that way. But this Administration, more than any in memory, seems very aggressive about making certain that its scientific advisors support its ideas. And, if they don’t, their advice is often ignored.
Many of the scientists and public-health officials in your article talk about science as being apolitical. But is it? Ethics and science go hand in hand, and scientists are faced with moral questions all the time. Is there such a thing as a disinterested scientist, in this sense?
It’s naïve to assume that science is apart from, rather than a part of, society. Still, there is such a thing as a man or a woman pursuing an idea solely for the intellectual fruit it might bear, and trying to work it out without regard to who votes for whom or what the ethical implications might be. (This, by the way, is not necessarily a good thing. We do need scientists to think about the possible implications of their work—which these days can touch on the most fundamental issues in life.)
Are we losing ground in science as a nation? Are other countries doing better science, and doing more of it? Are there economic as well as medical costs?
We are still immensely powerful, successful, and full of talent. Yet the sense that we are invincible as a nation of scientists is starting to fade. If the investments that China, South Korea, India, and the European Union make in research and education continue to grow at such a rapid rate, then it is hard to see how the result can be anything but a loss of prominence, innovation, and prestige.
How do you think America will compare with India and China ten years from now?
It depends. We still have the largest and most sophisticated institutions and lots of smart people. We just need to keep open the lines of education and the ability to pursue intellectual solutions to basic problems.
There have been some recent victories for science—most notably, the defeat of intelligent-design instruction in Dover, Pennsylvania. Are there signs that there may be a backlash against anti-science sentiment, and a resurgence of science?
Except for Dover, which was driven by an unusually thorough, cogent, and powerful federal-court decision, I can’t say that I see many signs of a resurgence of support for science.
What about global warming? What does the science tell us, and how is this Administration responding to it? How is the American population responding to it?
Global warming is coming—or is already here, depending on your interpretation of the data. The government has responded by worrying about its economic place in the world rather than about the physical future of the world. It’s complicated, because we need not just to burn fewer fossil fuels, but to be sure China and India do the same. Still, America needs to lead, and it has stopped doing that. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, and that is well within the intellectual and technical abilities of this country. Still, most Americans will worry about global warming seriously only when it affects their wallets in a demonstrable way, or when their health, or that of their children, becomes measurably worse. We are not exactly known for our foresight on these issues.
What are the costs of an anti-science Administration like this one, in both the short term and the long term? Is it possible that we’re witnessing the beginning of a major shift away from Enlightenment thinking, or is that too alarmist a reading of the effect of one Administration’s policies?
That’s a little alarmist, I hope. We are in an age when almost anything is technically possible in science. We can break humans down to the smallest component parts. We can mix parts and grow new ones (or soon will). We can manipulate nature and, soon enough, we will even be able to choose the genetic components of our children. None of this is easy to take, and a reaction is understandable. The job of the Administration, and of educators, is to convince people that these powerful new tools can help immensely and not just cause harm. In the short term, that is not happening and we are probably losing some good young people who might otherwise enter science. But a few years from now—maybe 2008, to take a random date—the situation could improve markedly.
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-03-13
Posted 2006-03-06
This week in the magazine, Michael Specter writes about the uneasy relationship between science and government in the Bush Administration. Here, Specter discusses the article.
THE NEW YORKER: In your article this week, you write about the Bush Administration’s hostility to science. Broadly speaking, what does that mean?
MICHAEL SPECTER: I’m not sure I would use the word “hostility.” The Administration simply doesn’t seem to rely on the advice of scientists on a wide range of issues: climate change, pollution, and biomedical research, for example. Previous Administrations have taken science as an area that is above the political fray—this one does not seem to operate that way.
The opposition to science seems to have a number of strains, many religious. You write about how the Administration is vehemently opposed to “any drug, vaccine, or initiative that could be interpreted as lessening the risks associated with premarital sex.” Do policymakers have some other rationale, or is this more of a straightforward agenda?
Well, the Bush Administration is squarely on the record in favor of abstinence as the main approach to issues such as H.I.V. and abortion. Few groups, by the way, oppose abstinence as an approach, and many see it as an excellent first line of defense. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t always work, and, when it does, it rarely works for long. Nonetheless, the Administration—and many of its allies among conservatives and the religious right—places far more emphasis on abstinence than on teaching children other methods of birth control and protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
What are some of the other branches of science that are suffering? For instance, you write about stem-cell research in your article.
Stem-cell research is considered by many to be the most exciting area of biomedical research. But, because it relies on human embryos, President Bush decided in 2001 that public funding for the work would be limited to those lines of cells that already existed. There are other difficult issues in the current Administration, though. The scientific recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency have often been ignored by this Administration, and sometimes decisions on environmental policy have been heavily influenced by former, or even current, allies of industry. Climate change is another area, and so, in many ways, is nasa. President Bush has said he wants to send people to Mars. But critics say that such a program would simply take money away from more useful research.
How much of this is a response to lobbying forces, such as fundamentalist Christian pressure?
It’s not so easy to disentangle the Administration and the Christian right. The President is an evangelical Christian and so are many people in his Administration. On many issues, though, industrial lobbyists hold sway. It must also be added that stem-cell research poses moral dilemmas that many Americans find hard to resolve—so to say that it’s blindly immoral to even question stem-cell research is, in my opinion, not fair.
What are the issues of federal funding in stem-cell research? Are they so prohibitive that they have essentially hamstrung a generation of scientists?
Well, the government does not fund research that involves stem cells, because you have to destroy an embryo to carry it out. Many people feel that destroying an embryo is akin to killing a living person—and the Bush Administration has drawn a moral line at that. Such research—all major biomedical research these days—is complex, and expensive. If you are at a university and you want to do embryonic stem-cell work, you could do so only with private funds; nothing from the government can pay for the work. This can get tricky even for rich institutions like Harvard, since equipment in labs can be very expensive and groups routinely share equipment. When stem-cell research is involved, the equipment needs to be accounted for in a different way and often bought with segregated funds.
Your article also touches on a number of personnel and staffing issues—scientists who have quit in protest over the Administration’s decisions, advisory boards that have been dismantled or remain unstaffed as a result of new vetting procedures. Does the Bush Administration require that its scientists agree with its political goals? How do past Administrations compare in this regard?
No Administration is eager to hire people who are virulently opposed to its goals. Yet, in the past, there has usually been a general feeling that scientists are above—or at least on the sidelines of—politics, and that they should be given jobs based purely on their ability to carry them out. That is a little utopian, and, of course, it doesn’t always work that way. But this Administration, more than any in memory, seems very aggressive about making certain that its scientific advisors support its ideas. And, if they don’t, their advice is often ignored.
Many of the scientists and public-health officials in your article talk about science as being apolitical. But is it? Ethics and science go hand in hand, and scientists are faced with moral questions all the time. Is there such a thing as a disinterested scientist, in this sense?
It’s naïve to assume that science is apart from, rather than a part of, society. Still, there is such a thing as a man or a woman pursuing an idea solely for the intellectual fruit it might bear, and trying to work it out without regard to who votes for whom or what the ethical implications might be. (This, by the way, is not necessarily a good thing. We do need scientists to think about the possible implications of their work—which these days can touch on the most fundamental issues in life.)
Are we losing ground in science as a nation? Are other countries doing better science, and doing more of it? Are there economic as well as medical costs?
We are still immensely powerful, successful, and full of talent. Yet the sense that we are invincible as a nation of scientists is starting to fade. If the investments that China, South Korea, India, and the European Union make in research and education continue to grow at such a rapid rate, then it is hard to see how the result can be anything but a loss of prominence, innovation, and prestige.
How do you think America will compare with India and China ten years from now?
It depends. We still have the largest and most sophisticated institutions and lots of smart people. We just need to keep open the lines of education and the ability to pursue intellectual solutions to basic problems.
There have been some recent victories for science—most notably, the defeat of intelligent-design instruction in Dover, Pennsylvania. Are there signs that there may be a backlash against anti-science sentiment, and a resurgence of science?
Except for Dover, which was driven by an unusually thorough, cogent, and powerful federal-court decision, I can’t say that I see many signs of a resurgence of support for science.
What about global warming? What does the science tell us, and how is this Administration responding to it? How is the American population responding to it?
Global warming is coming—or is already here, depending on your interpretation of the data. The government has responded by worrying about its economic place in the world rather than about the physical future of the world. It’s complicated, because we need not just to burn fewer fossil fuels, but to be sure China and India do the same. Still, America needs to lead, and it has stopped doing that. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, and that is well within the intellectual and technical abilities of this country. Still, most Americans will worry about global warming seriously only when it affects their wallets in a demonstrable way, or when their health, or that of their children, becomes measurably worse. We are not exactly known for our foresight on these issues.
What are the costs of an anti-science Administration like this one, in both the short term and the long term? Is it possible that we’re witnessing the beginning of a major shift away from Enlightenment thinking, or is that too alarmist a reading of the effect of one Administration’s policies?
That’s a little alarmist, I hope. We are in an age when almost anything is technically possible in science. We can break humans down to the smallest component parts. We can mix parts and grow new ones (or soon will). We can manipulate nature and, soon enough, we will even be able to choose the genetic components of our children. None of this is easy to take, and a reaction is understandable. The job of the Administration, and of educators, is to convince people that these powerful new tools can help immensely and not just cause harm. In the short term, that is not happening and we are probably losing some good young people who might otherwise enter science. But a few years from now—maybe 2008, to take a random date—the situation could improve markedly.
Black clergy's silence hurts gays
Black clergy's silence hurts gays
Commentary by Yolanda Young
Fri Mar 10, 7:00 AM ET
The Republican Party continues to use the issue of gay marriage as an inroad to garner the support of black ministers - and black voters.
President Bush's offering to Herbert Lusk, an African-American minister opposed to homosexuality, of appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS is only the latest maneuver.
While a few black ministers have called for greater acceptance of gays and lesbians - such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was recently a speaker at the Black Church Summit organized by gay advocates - most reject both of these extremes, choosing instead to remain silent on this issue.
Consider a joint statement issued last year by four Baptist denomination leaders, representing close to 15 million members, offering positions on everything from the war in Iraq to support of a national living wage. But one issue that is arguably the most divisive within religious organizations went unaddressed: same-sex marriage.
In an attempt at unity, the Rev. William Shaw, who heads the 7 million-member National Baptist Convention USA, has shown a lukewarm tolerance for gay marriage, which he says is not the sole determinant on moral issues. Even so, he doesn't go far enough.
The church's tepid stance lends more credence to marginal groups bent on using the gay marriage issue to establish the Republican Party as the moral party:
• Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. travels the country enlisting signatures for his "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," which stresses that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
• African-American pastors making up the group Not On My Watch rallied in Arlington, Texas, in support of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
• The Rev. William Owens heads the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis, aimed at thwarting efforts to allow gays to marry.
With proposals to ban same-sex marriage on the ballots in at least six states - Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and Wisconsin - turning the black homosexual into the latest political boogeyman will undoubtedly prove valuable to the Republican Party, perhaps proving the tipping point in close midterm elections this November.
There is an oft-quoted scripture in Revelation 3:16: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." This might well be the fate of the silent religious majority and the Democratic Party, unless black clergy are willing to deliver a message of acceptance as impassioned as that of their conservative counterparts.
Yolanda Young is author of On Our Way To Beautiful.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Commentary by Yolanda Young
Fri Mar 10, 7:00 AM ET
The Republican Party continues to use the issue of gay marriage as an inroad to garner the support of black ministers - and black voters.
President Bush's offering to Herbert Lusk, an African-American minister opposed to homosexuality, of appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS is only the latest maneuver.
While a few black ministers have called for greater acceptance of gays and lesbians - such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was recently a speaker at the Black Church Summit organized by gay advocates - most reject both of these extremes, choosing instead to remain silent on this issue.
Consider a joint statement issued last year by four Baptist denomination leaders, representing close to 15 million members, offering positions on everything from the war in Iraq to support of a national living wage. But one issue that is arguably the most divisive within religious organizations went unaddressed: same-sex marriage.
In an attempt at unity, the Rev. William Shaw, who heads the 7 million-member National Baptist Convention USA, has shown a lukewarm tolerance for gay marriage, which he says is not the sole determinant on moral issues. Even so, he doesn't go far enough.
The church's tepid stance lends more credence to marginal groups bent on using the gay marriage issue to establish the Republican Party as the moral party:
• Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. travels the country enlisting signatures for his "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," which stresses that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
• African-American pastors making up the group Not On My Watch rallied in Arlington, Texas, in support of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
• The Rev. William Owens heads the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis, aimed at thwarting efforts to allow gays to marry.
With proposals to ban same-sex marriage on the ballots in at least six states - Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and Wisconsin - turning the black homosexual into the latest political boogeyman will undoubtedly prove valuable to the Republican Party, perhaps proving the tipping point in close midterm elections this November.
There is an oft-quoted scripture in Revelation 3:16: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." This might well be the fate of the silent religious majority and the Democratic Party, unless black clergy are willing to deliver a message of acceptance as impassioned as that of their conservative counterparts.
Yolanda Young is author of On Our Way To Beautiful.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Ma Bell revives; watch her with a very wary eye
Ma Bell revives; watch her with a very wary eye
Tue Mar 7, 6:47 AM ET
Recent years have not been good to the businesses formerly known as phone companies. They got off to a slower start than cable in rolling out broadband service. And they lost core customers who signed up with Internet telephony services, or opted to go wireless.
But, not to worry, this is an industry with a plan: Bring back Ma Bell - the AT&T monopoly that once ruled the wired world, throttling competition.
While other industries have decided to race forward to keep pace with innovation, this one sees a bright future in turning back the clock. Maybe there is even a black, rotary-dial telephone in our future.
Sunday's announced merger between AT&T and BellSouth would reunite five of the eight companies created when an antitrust suit splintered the phone monopoly in 1984, igniting a communications revolution. (AT&T had already been merged with three of its offspring: Pacific Telesis, Ameritech and Southwestern Bell.)
Given the current, accommodating state of antitrust policy and the arrival of cable as a competitor in broadband and telephony, this deal might well be approved by federal regulators. It might even create economies of scale that would make the combination more efficient than the sum of its parts.
But it also should raise red flags for Congress and federal regulators. For all the talk of robust competition between cable and telephone, the reality has been less impressive. The most intense competition and the fastest roll-outs of new services have been largely limited to affluent areas.
Reassembling the old Bell system would hardly provide companies with greater incentives to do what they are not doing already. If anything, it would give this new behemoth greater market strength with which to dictate prices and services.
What's more, the merger raises questions about the future of the Internet and digital entertainment. Even before Sunday, AT&T was vocal in its determination to impose limits on the Internet. The company envisions charging high-flying Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo for the privilege of flowing quickly through its high-speed pipes. It argues that because it invested in new lines, it deserves a greater piece of the action.
This merger might well increase its power to bring about such an unfortunate reality. With its massive customer base and ability to offer telephone, wireless telephone, broadband and video, it could bring enormous pressure to bear on Internet companies to pay its ransom, regardless of what its cable competitors do.
For that reason, lawmakers and members of the Federal Communications Commission should take a long, hard look at where the Internet is headed and what might be done to prevent a handful of companies from gaining a chokehold over an evolving medium that is one of history's great innovations.
Such an outcome would not only punish innovative companies, but in its most extreme form it would also make decisions for consumers on where they shop online, how they conduct their searches and which social networking sites they should use.
More broadly, Washington policymakers might want to examine the state of competition almost 10 years after the passage of a massive telecommunications law that partially deregulated the industry. If a company such as AT&T is able to erect tollbooths on the Internet, and if competition on price and service in many parts of the country remains anemic, then the law and subsequent court rulings further deregulating the industry are not having their desired effect.
Telephone and cable companies were freed of their regulatory shackles on the premise they would compete aggressively with each other. Progress on that front has been, at best, mixed.
Now the public is being asked to believe that putting the Bell system back together is going to stimulate competition and help consumers. It's hard to believe there is much progress to be made by going backward.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tue Mar 7, 6:47 AM ET
Recent years have not been good to the businesses formerly known as phone companies. They got off to a slower start than cable in rolling out broadband service. And they lost core customers who signed up with Internet telephony services, or opted to go wireless.
But, not to worry, this is an industry with a plan: Bring back Ma Bell - the AT&T monopoly that once ruled the wired world, throttling competition.
While other industries have decided to race forward to keep pace with innovation, this one sees a bright future in turning back the clock. Maybe there is even a black, rotary-dial telephone in our future.
Sunday's announced merger between AT&T and BellSouth would reunite five of the eight companies created when an antitrust suit splintered the phone monopoly in 1984, igniting a communications revolution. (AT&T had already been merged with three of its offspring: Pacific Telesis, Ameritech and Southwestern Bell.)
Given the current, accommodating state of antitrust policy and the arrival of cable as a competitor in broadband and telephony, this deal might well be approved by federal regulators. It might even create economies of scale that would make the combination more efficient than the sum of its parts.
But it also should raise red flags for Congress and federal regulators. For all the talk of robust competition between cable and telephone, the reality has been less impressive. The most intense competition and the fastest roll-outs of new services have been largely limited to affluent areas.
Reassembling the old Bell system would hardly provide companies with greater incentives to do what they are not doing already. If anything, it would give this new behemoth greater market strength with which to dictate prices and services.
What's more, the merger raises questions about the future of the Internet and digital entertainment. Even before Sunday, AT&T was vocal in its determination to impose limits on the Internet. The company envisions charging high-flying Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo for the privilege of flowing quickly through its high-speed pipes. It argues that because it invested in new lines, it deserves a greater piece of the action.
This merger might well increase its power to bring about such an unfortunate reality. With its massive customer base and ability to offer telephone, wireless telephone, broadband and video, it could bring enormous pressure to bear on Internet companies to pay its ransom, regardless of what its cable competitors do.
For that reason, lawmakers and members of the Federal Communications Commission should take a long, hard look at where the Internet is headed and what might be done to prevent a handful of companies from gaining a chokehold over an evolving medium that is one of history's great innovations.
Such an outcome would not only punish innovative companies, but in its most extreme form it would also make decisions for consumers on where they shop online, how they conduct their searches and which social networking sites they should use.
More broadly, Washington policymakers might want to examine the state of competition almost 10 years after the passage of a massive telecommunications law that partially deregulated the industry. If a company such as AT&T is able to erect tollbooths on the Internet, and if competition on price and service in many parts of the country remains anemic, then the law and subsequent court rulings further deregulating the industry are not having their desired effect.
Telephone and cable companies were freed of their regulatory shackles on the premise they would compete aggressively with each other. Progress on that front has been, at best, mixed.
Now the public is being asked to believe that putting the Bell system back together is going to stimulate competition and help consumers. It's hard to believe there is much progress to be made by going backward.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
King George tramps thru India on an unsteady foot
Protests, nuclear talks for Bush's first India visit
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Communist and Islamic groups were planning mass protests around India on Thursday as U.S. President George W. Bush begins formal talks on his first visit to the world's largest democracy.
Bush arrived on Wednesday after a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where thousands of U.S. troops are still engaged in hunting down the architects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
The centerpoint of his visit to New Delhi is talks over a nuclear cooperation deal. Bush will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a ceremonial reception at the presidential palace.
While the three-day visit is welcomed by many in India as a sign of growing recognition that Asia's third-largest economy is emerging as a regional power, it has angered Islamic and communist groups who oppose U.S. policies such as the invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday, tens of thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators took to the streets, burning an effigy of the U.S. leader and chanting slogans such as "Go back, Bush" and "Bush is a killer."
About 100,000 Muslim men gathered in the heart of the Indian capital shouting anti-Bush slogans, as hundreds of policemen in riot gear kept watch.
In the eastern city of Kolkata, a leftist stronghold, about 25,000 communist supporters converged on the city center for a public meeting organized by the Committee Against Bush Visit.
"Under President Bush, the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq and oppress its people. It threatens Syria and has targeted Iran on the issue of its nuclear program," the committee said in a statement.
NUCLEAR PACT
The nuclear pact, under which India would get access to U.S. technology in return for opening its civilian facilities to inspection and separating them from military plants, has run into opposition in Washington because India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are also differences over the details.
However, both sides have tried to play down expectations even as they continue to discuss the number of reactors India will declare as civilian.
"It's a difficult issue," Bush told reporters in Afghanistan. "It's a difficult issue for the Indian government, it's a difficult issue for the American government.
"So we'll continue to dialogue and work. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement. If not, we'll continue to work on it until we do.
"Our relationship with India is broader than our discussions about energy. Ours is a strategic relationship."
India's extensive atomic weapons program to counter neighboring Pakistan and China's nuclear arms is a further concern for some members of the U.S. Congress, who have cast doubt on the viability of any deal between Singh and Bush.
During his visit to Afghanistan, Bush met President Hamid Karzai and his U.S.-backed government that took power after the Taliban regime was overthrown for refusing to hand over al Qaeda leaders after the September 11 attacks.
"It's in our nation's interest that Afghanistan develop into a democracy. It is in the interests of the United States of America for there to be examples around the world of what is possible," he said at the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Communist and Islamic groups were planning mass protests around India on Thursday as U.S. President George W. Bush begins formal talks on his first visit to the world's largest democracy.
Bush arrived on Wednesday after a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where thousands of U.S. troops are still engaged in hunting down the architects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
The centerpoint of his visit to New Delhi is talks over a nuclear cooperation deal. Bush will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a ceremonial reception at the presidential palace.
While the three-day visit is welcomed by many in India as a sign of growing recognition that Asia's third-largest economy is emerging as a regional power, it has angered Islamic and communist groups who oppose U.S. policies such as the invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday, tens of thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators took to the streets, burning an effigy of the U.S. leader and chanting slogans such as "Go back, Bush" and "Bush is a killer."
About 100,000 Muslim men gathered in the heart of the Indian capital shouting anti-Bush slogans, as hundreds of policemen in riot gear kept watch.
In the eastern city of Kolkata, a leftist stronghold, about 25,000 communist supporters converged on the city center for a public meeting organized by the Committee Against Bush Visit.
"Under President Bush, the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq and oppress its people. It threatens Syria and has targeted Iran on the issue of its nuclear program," the committee said in a statement.
NUCLEAR PACT
The nuclear pact, under which India would get access to U.S. technology in return for opening its civilian facilities to inspection and separating them from military plants, has run into opposition in Washington because India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are also differences over the details.
However, both sides have tried to play down expectations even as they continue to discuss the number of reactors India will declare as civilian.
"It's a difficult issue," Bush told reporters in Afghanistan. "It's a difficult issue for the Indian government, it's a difficult issue for the American government.
"So we'll continue to dialogue and work. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement. If not, we'll continue to work on it until we do.
"Our relationship with India is broader than our discussions about energy. Ours is a strategic relationship."
India's extensive atomic weapons program to counter neighboring Pakistan and China's nuclear arms is a further concern for some members of the U.S. Congress, who have cast doubt on the viability of any deal between Singh and Bush.
During his visit to Afghanistan, Bush met President Hamid Karzai and his U.S.-backed government that took power after the Taliban regime was overthrown for refusing to hand over al Qaeda leaders after the September 11 attacks.
"It's in our nation's interest that Afghanistan develop into a democracy. It is in the interests of the United States of America for there to be examples around the world of what is possible," he said at the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Delay, Let Him Sweat
DeLay fights for his political life in Texas
By John Whitesides, Political CorrespondentWed Mar 1, 12:35 PM ET
He has been indicted, rebuked and dethroned from his Republican leadership perch, but Tom DeLay's fight for re-election to Congress could be the biggest challenge in a long political career.
DeLay, nicknamed "the Hammer" for the blunt way he wielded power during 22 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, has been swamped by ethics allegations that have made him a prime Democratic target in November's elections and a national symbol for charges of Republican corruption.
Once one of Washington's most powerful politicians, DeLay is scrambling to fight a Texas legal indictment and hold off challengers from both parties in his House race in the suburbs of Houston.
"You never know how well an election will go for an indicted person," DeLay acknowledged in an interview with Reuters after a recent breakfast with Houston-area realtors.
"Getting beat up by the national media and the Houston Chronicle has taken its toll," DeLay said, referring to the local newspaper. "It's polarized my district, you either love me or hate me. Thank God there are still more that love me."
The combative former House Republican leader will begin to learn how many folks at home still love him on Tuesday, when he faces three challengers in a Republican primary.
If he survives, he will square off in November against former Democratic congressman Nick Lampson in one of the country's most high-profile, expensive and no doubt bitter races.
"DeLay is in trouble. The primary is no sure thing and the general election is even more dangerous," said Richard Murray, a political analyst at the University of Houston.
"Much of this is totally beyond his control," he said. "If he gets convicted in Texas or indicted in Washington, it would be the end for DeLay."
REDISTRICTING CHALLENGE
DeLay, indicted in Texas last year on campaign finance charges, resigned from his leadership post in January. He has been rebuked by the House ethics committee and linked to a corruption scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former DeLay aides. He has not been charged in the Abramoff probe.
DeLay has denied wrongdoing in both cases and says the allegations are politically motivated. His rivals say DeLay's pugnacious style is simply catching up to him.
"This is the epicenter of a national debate on how we conduct the public's business. He believes in a hardball, win at any cost version of slash-and-burn politics that I think is wrong," Tom Campbell, a former DeLay supporter and now his top primary challenger, told Reuters.
Lampson calls DeLay a "bully" and said voters in the district have tired of his style.
"He has left us a legacy of debt, corruption and neglect, and he can't run from it," Lampson said. "I think it's something he has helped usher into our Congress that people would like to see changed."
DeLay compounded his troubles when he engineered a Texas redistricting plan that in 2004 helped take six House seats from Democrats, including Lampson, by making their districts more Republican.
To help his Republican neighbors, DeLay added Democrats to his district, including a patch of Lampson's old turf. DeLay's district, including some of the country's fastest-growing suburbs south of Houston, has been flooded by new residents with little allegiance to him.
DeLay's redistricting plan has been challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
Polls show DeLay's support has dropped since the indictment and Abramoff publicity, with a USA Today/Gallup poll in December showing him losing to an unnamed Democratic opponent and scoring a favorability rating of just 37 percent.
"I'm bothered by all the investigations and scandals," said Veniece Griffin, a Missouri City Republican who plans to vote for Campbell. "DeLay has had 20 years, and he's not representing me."
DeLay is taking the challenge seriously, hitting the campaign trail hard to tout his ability to win money for the district and reminding audiences of his long service.
At the realtors' breakfast gathering, he recalled his days a pest exterminator in the area. "I crawled under a lot of your houses and through a lot of your attics," DeLay said.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
By John Whitesides, Political CorrespondentWed Mar 1, 12:35 PM ET
He has been indicted, rebuked and dethroned from his Republican leadership perch, but Tom DeLay's fight for re-election to Congress could be the biggest challenge in a long political career.
DeLay, nicknamed "the Hammer" for the blunt way he wielded power during 22 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, has been swamped by ethics allegations that have made him a prime Democratic target in November's elections and a national symbol for charges of Republican corruption.
Once one of Washington's most powerful politicians, DeLay is scrambling to fight a Texas legal indictment and hold off challengers from both parties in his House race in the suburbs of Houston.
"You never know how well an election will go for an indicted person," DeLay acknowledged in an interview with Reuters after a recent breakfast with Houston-area realtors.
"Getting beat up by the national media and the Houston Chronicle has taken its toll," DeLay said, referring to the local newspaper. "It's polarized my district, you either love me or hate me. Thank God there are still more that love me."
The combative former House Republican leader will begin to learn how many folks at home still love him on Tuesday, when he faces three challengers in a Republican primary.
If he survives, he will square off in November against former Democratic congressman Nick Lampson in one of the country's most high-profile, expensive and no doubt bitter races.
"DeLay is in trouble. The primary is no sure thing and the general election is even more dangerous," said Richard Murray, a political analyst at the University of Houston.
"Much of this is totally beyond his control," he said. "If he gets convicted in Texas or indicted in Washington, it would be the end for DeLay."
REDISTRICTING CHALLENGE
DeLay, indicted in Texas last year on campaign finance charges, resigned from his leadership post in January. He has been rebuked by the House ethics committee and linked to a corruption scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former DeLay aides. He has not been charged in the Abramoff probe.
DeLay has denied wrongdoing in both cases and says the allegations are politically motivated. His rivals say DeLay's pugnacious style is simply catching up to him.
"This is the epicenter of a national debate on how we conduct the public's business. He believes in a hardball, win at any cost version of slash-and-burn politics that I think is wrong," Tom Campbell, a former DeLay supporter and now his top primary challenger, told Reuters.
Lampson calls DeLay a "bully" and said voters in the district have tired of his style.
"He has left us a legacy of debt, corruption and neglect, and he can't run from it," Lampson said. "I think it's something he has helped usher into our Congress that people would like to see changed."
DeLay compounded his troubles when he engineered a Texas redistricting plan that in 2004 helped take six House seats from Democrats, including Lampson, by making their districts more Republican.
To help his Republican neighbors, DeLay added Democrats to his district, including a patch of Lampson's old turf. DeLay's district, including some of the country's fastest-growing suburbs south of Houston, has been flooded by new residents with little allegiance to him.
DeLay's redistricting plan has been challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
Polls show DeLay's support has dropped since the indictment and Abramoff publicity, with a USA Today/Gallup poll in December showing him losing to an unnamed Democratic opponent and scoring a favorability rating of just 37 percent.
"I'm bothered by all the investigations and scandals," said Veniece Griffin, a Missouri City Republican who plans to vote for Campbell. "DeLay has had 20 years, and he's not representing me."
DeLay is taking the challenge seriously, hitting the campaign trail hard to tout his ability to win money for the district and reminding audiences of his long service.
At the realtors' breakfast gathering, he recalled his days a pest exterminator in the area. "I crawled under a lot of your houses and through a lot of your attics," DeLay said.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
As nuclear terrain shifts, U.S. finds uncertain footing
As nuclear terrain shifts, U.S. finds uncertain footing
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Imagine having lived in a house with a pretty good security system for decades - then realizing that it's outdated and ineffective. The old system still works, sort of, with a jumble of unsatisfactory, uncoordinated patches, but it's no longer reliable. Meanwhile, the neighborhood is deteriorating dangerously.
That, essentially, is the nuclear weapons picture President Bush faces as he arrives in India Wednesday, then goes on to Pakistan. A map of South Asia and the Middle East reveals a de facto nuclear arms race underway in various guises. Bush's trip and the delicate nuclear diplomacy he plans with India underscore how few "fixes" the USA and allies have; how some of them could make the problem worse; and the urgent need for more comprehensive thinking.
Three countries in the region - India, Pakistan and Israel - already have nuclear weapons. Even though everyone knows they have them, they are not "declared" nuclear powers. That means they did not sign the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits countries not to develop nuclear weapons and allows them, in return, to get help with civilian nuclear programs. The three are not, in other words, part of the official nuclear "club" (Britain, China, France, Russia and the USA).
And then there is Iran. It has signed the treaty but is now using its civilian program as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
At one level, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and formally admitting India, Pakistan and Israel into the nuclear club might seem reasonable. Why not? It would essentially be an Asian-Middle Eastern version of safety through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). That theory kept the lid on the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union: If one country launched a nuclear attack on the other, it was assured its own annihilation. In fact, bitter rivals India and Pakistan argue that MAD has kept them from nuclear war over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
But all things are not equal, because Islamic terrorism stalks the world. For that reason, the most important 21st century question about nukes is this: How can you keep them out of the hands of nations ruled by madmen for whom MAD may prove a scant deterrent, or terrorists who are not targeted as easily as nations? Through that lens, each country stacks up in a new hierarchy of danger.
At the top, Pakistan could edge out Iran. For safety reasons, its nuclear weapons are not assembled and require layers of experts to put them together, but the weapons are under the ultimate control of the army and intelligence forces, many of which have links to al-Qaeda. Though President Pervez Musharraf is a U.S. ally in the war on terror, his country is seething with Muslim fundamentalism. He has survived at least two assassination attempts. His death could bring Islamic extremists to power. A Pakistani nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, has already provided nuclear technology to Iran and other countries.
Iran sponsors terrorists and could give them nuclear weapons, or use the weapons to threaten other countries. Its new president is a religious fanatic who says Israel should be wiped off the map. One deterrent: If terrorists used nukes and Iran's sponsorship was discovered, that might invite nuclear retaliation from Israel or even the United States.
India, like Israel, is on a low "danger level" footing. It is the world's largest democracy. Its 150 million Muslims, in a Hindu-dominated population of more than 1 billion, haven't shown al-Qaeda leanings.
Given that hierarchy, a nuclear deal Bush is trying to finalize with India would seem a good proposal. Bush wants to help India with its civilian nuclear program, even though India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty. But India - which would have to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs, putting the civilian program under strict inspections - is balking at some provisions.
Bush shouldn't back off. That could further undermine the shaky security system that has worked until now - the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty has persuaded many nations to terminate nuclear programs and dissuaded others from seeking them.
More broadly, there is no easy, obvious answer to the non-proliferation treaty's increasing failure.
Since coming to office, Bush has adamantly - and unwisely - resisted joining attempts to update it. But perhaps that will change. In his second term, the president has retreated from the go-it-alone foreign policy that was discredited by Iraq and other failures. So far, he has wisely relied on multilateral diplomacy to defuse the Iran threat.
Whether it will succeed, however, is another question. Bush's trip highlights just how little control the major powers still have over nuclear proliferation, and how important it is not to act rashly in a world that appears to be going newly MAD.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Imagine having lived in a house with a pretty good security system for decades - then realizing that it's outdated and ineffective. The old system still works, sort of, with a jumble of unsatisfactory, uncoordinated patches, but it's no longer reliable. Meanwhile, the neighborhood is deteriorating dangerously.
That, essentially, is the nuclear weapons picture President Bush faces as he arrives in India Wednesday, then goes on to Pakistan. A map of South Asia and the Middle East reveals a de facto nuclear arms race underway in various guises. Bush's trip and the delicate nuclear diplomacy he plans with India underscore how few "fixes" the USA and allies have; how some of them could make the problem worse; and the urgent need for more comprehensive thinking.
Three countries in the region - India, Pakistan and Israel - already have nuclear weapons. Even though everyone knows they have them, they are not "declared" nuclear powers. That means they did not sign the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits countries not to develop nuclear weapons and allows them, in return, to get help with civilian nuclear programs. The three are not, in other words, part of the official nuclear "club" (Britain, China, France, Russia and the USA).
And then there is Iran. It has signed the treaty but is now using its civilian program as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
At one level, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and formally admitting India, Pakistan and Israel into the nuclear club might seem reasonable. Why not? It would essentially be an Asian-Middle Eastern version of safety through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). That theory kept the lid on the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union: If one country launched a nuclear attack on the other, it was assured its own annihilation. In fact, bitter rivals India and Pakistan argue that MAD has kept them from nuclear war over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
But all things are not equal, because Islamic terrorism stalks the world. For that reason, the most important 21st century question about nukes is this: How can you keep them out of the hands of nations ruled by madmen for whom MAD may prove a scant deterrent, or terrorists who are not targeted as easily as nations? Through that lens, each country stacks up in a new hierarchy of danger.
At the top, Pakistan could edge out Iran. For safety reasons, its nuclear weapons are not assembled and require layers of experts to put them together, but the weapons are under the ultimate control of the army and intelligence forces, many of which have links to al-Qaeda. Though President Pervez Musharraf is a U.S. ally in the war on terror, his country is seething with Muslim fundamentalism. He has survived at least two assassination attempts. His death could bring Islamic extremists to power. A Pakistani nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, has already provided nuclear technology to Iran and other countries.
Iran sponsors terrorists and could give them nuclear weapons, or use the weapons to threaten other countries. Its new president is a religious fanatic who says Israel should be wiped off the map. One deterrent: If terrorists used nukes and Iran's sponsorship was discovered, that might invite nuclear retaliation from Israel or even the United States.
India, like Israel, is on a low "danger level" footing. It is the world's largest democracy. Its 150 million Muslims, in a Hindu-dominated population of more than 1 billion, haven't shown al-Qaeda leanings.
Given that hierarchy, a nuclear deal Bush is trying to finalize with India would seem a good proposal. Bush wants to help India with its civilian nuclear program, even though India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty. But India - which would have to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs, putting the civilian program under strict inspections - is balking at some provisions.
Bush shouldn't back off. That could further undermine the shaky security system that has worked until now - the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty has persuaded many nations to terminate nuclear programs and dissuaded others from seeking them.
More broadly, there is no easy, obvious answer to the non-proliferation treaty's increasing failure.
Since coming to office, Bush has adamantly - and unwisely - resisted joining attempts to update it. But perhaps that will change. In his second term, the president has retreated from the go-it-alone foreign policy that was discredited by Iraq and other failures. So far, he has wisely relied on multilateral diplomacy to defuse the Iran threat.
Whether it will succeed, however, is another question. Bush's trip highlights just how little control the major powers still have over nuclear proliferation, and how important it is not to act rashly in a world that appears to be going newly MAD.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Black eye for the Red Cross
Black eye for the Red Cross
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Americans dug deep after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They donated a record $3.27 billion - $31 for every household in the USA - to charities for hurricane relief.
But giving generously doesn't translate into doing good unless charitable institutions do their part. That's where the American Red Cross, which received about two-thirds of the contributions, stumbled.
Last month, congressional critics said the Red Cross fell short after Katrina as it tried to coordinate shelters, get aid to remote locations and cooperate with grassroots organizations that could have done the job but didn't have the money.
On Monday, internal Red Cross documents and e-mails released by Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, began to reveal why:
A culture that muzzles internal critics.
An unwieldy, divided board of directors.
Infighting between local chapters and the national office.
An excessive focus on image over achievement, with a $500,000 project to recruit celebrities and turn its then-CEO, who has since quit, into the "face" of the institution. (The Red Cross has been through three CEOs in five years and just named an interim leader.)
All of this is the public's business because of the special status of the Red Cross. Chartered by Congress in 1905, the institution is the only non-profit designated by the federal government to respond to disasters. It gets about $40 million a year in direct government grants, and donations are subsidized through tax deductions.
When an icon slips, as the Red Cross has, it can shake public confidence in all charitable organizations.
No one argues that the Red Cross failed entirely after Katrina. The organization points out that it provided nearly 1,200 shelters across the nation and fielded 225,000 volunteers. The Red Cross says it is working to improve governance and its delivery of service.
Still, with more stable management and without the internal battles, it would likely be able to do far more. Congress, which sets the size and structure of the Red Cross board, might begin by trimming its size by 80%, from the current dysfunctional 50 to 10. Vigorous oversight should follow.
In these perilous times, institutions, even iconic ones, must earn the right to the funds they get. And no charity should be able to squander the public's trust or its donations.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Americans dug deep after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They donated a record $3.27 billion - $31 for every household in the USA - to charities for hurricane relief.
But giving generously doesn't translate into doing good unless charitable institutions do their part. That's where the American Red Cross, which received about two-thirds of the contributions, stumbled.
Last month, congressional critics said the Red Cross fell short after Katrina as it tried to coordinate shelters, get aid to remote locations and cooperate with grassroots organizations that could have done the job but didn't have the money.
On Monday, internal Red Cross documents and e-mails released by Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, began to reveal why:
A culture that muzzles internal critics.
An unwieldy, divided board of directors.
Infighting between local chapters and the national office.
An excessive focus on image over achievement, with a $500,000 project to recruit celebrities and turn its then-CEO, who has since quit, into the "face" of the institution. (The Red Cross has been through three CEOs in five years and just named an interim leader.)
All of this is the public's business because of the special status of the Red Cross. Chartered by Congress in 1905, the institution is the only non-profit designated by the federal government to respond to disasters. It gets about $40 million a year in direct government grants, and donations are subsidized through tax deductions.
When an icon slips, as the Red Cross has, it can shake public confidence in all charitable organizations.
No one argues that the Red Cross failed entirely after Katrina. The organization points out that it provided nearly 1,200 shelters across the nation and fielded 225,000 volunteers. The Red Cross says it is working to improve governance and its delivery of service.
Still, with more stable management and without the internal battles, it would likely be able to do far more. Congress, which sets the size and structure of the Red Cross board, might begin by trimming its size by 80%, from the current dysfunctional 50 to 10. Vigorous oversight should follow.
In these perilous times, institutions, even iconic ones, must earn the right to the funds they get. And no charity should be able to squander the public's trust or its donations.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Note to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Freedom is messy. Untidy too.
Robert Schlesinger
02.18.2006
Rummy Doesn't Get It Either
Note to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Freedom is messy. Untidy too.
I blogged last week about whether the Bush administration gets it when it comes to freedom, liberty, democracy and all the other good things we're busily promoting around the world. At the time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was chastising wayward members of the legislative branch that Congressional inquiries into whether the president broke the law with warrantless wiretaps were undoubtedly making the cave walls at al Qaeda headquarters echo with happy laughter.
This, Gonzalez said, was a bad thing.
I disagreed, arguing that the terrorists laugh because they do not understand how freedom, liberty and democracy work, because they do not understand the strength inherent in the system. My question was then, and still is now: Do the Bushies get it?
Rumsfeld does not seem to. Friday he castigated the free press for, well, being a free press. Specifically, his nose was out of joint because the media failed to bury the story when they discovered that the Pentagon was planting false reports in Iraqi newspapers.
Rumsfeld correctly worried about the fact that the United States is losing the information war, then fell back to the bipartisan practice of losers all throughout politics: Blamed the media. Since the message -- in this case U.S. policies -- cannot possibly be wrong, there must be something wrong with messenger.
But the media's job is not to fall into lock-step and do its part for the propaganda effort. This is not the old Soviet Union after all, or even the old Iraq. (Note: This is not to suggest that the media does not have an obligation to balance national interests against the need to disclose -- see, for example, the restraint showed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
The problem is one of underlying philosophy. There has long been a political science debate about whether democracies can effectively fight wars -- with things like popular will, a free press, really all of the untidiness endemic to our system can we maintain the collective discipline for a long struggle? (The Confederate States of America and the Third Reich to name two might have something to say about that.)
The gimlet-eyed, tough-guy world-view of the Bush administration seems to fall into the democracy-is-weak camp. In order to make the world safe for democracy we have to be as ruthless as our adversaries, the thinking goes, and if that means putting liberty on a shelf to protect it, well ...
As Maureen Dowd puts it in her column today:
Rummy is genuinely perplexed about why it's wrong to subvert democracy while promoting democracy.
I love it when Shooter and Rummy call us unrealistic for trying to hold them to standards that they set. They are, after all, victims of their own spin on Iraq. Mr. Cheney thought we'd be greeted with flowers; Rummy said we could do more with less.
Rummy misses the point: we're supposed to be the good guys, the beacon of freedom. Our message is supposed to work because it has moral force, not because we pay some Lincoln Group sketchballs millions to plant propaganda in Iraqi newspapers and not because the press here plays down revelations of American torture. If the Bush crew hadn't distorted the truth to get to Iraq, it wouldn't need to distort the truth to succeed there.
"Ultimately, in my view," Rummy concluded, "truth wins out."
Bad news for him, and his pal Dick.
Amen sister.
02.18.2006
Rummy Doesn't Get It Either
Note to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Freedom is messy. Untidy too.
I blogged last week about whether the Bush administration gets it when it comes to freedom, liberty, democracy and all the other good things we're busily promoting around the world. At the time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was chastising wayward members of the legislative branch that Congressional inquiries into whether the president broke the law with warrantless wiretaps were undoubtedly making the cave walls at al Qaeda headquarters echo with happy laughter.
This, Gonzalez said, was a bad thing.
I disagreed, arguing that the terrorists laugh because they do not understand how freedom, liberty and democracy work, because they do not understand the strength inherent in the system. My question was then, and still is now: Do the Bushies get it?
Rumsfeld does not seem to. Friday he castigated the free press for, well, being a free press. Specifically, his nose was out of joint because the media failed to bury the story when they discovered that the Pentagon was planting false reports in Iraqi newspapers.
Rumsfeld correctly worried about the fact that the United States is losing the information war, then fell back to the bipartisan practice of losers all throughout politics: Blamed the media. Since the message -- in this case U.S. policies -- cannot possibly be wrong, there must be something wrong with messenger.
But the media's job is not to fall into lock-step and do its part for the propaganda effort. This is not the old Soviet Union after all, or even the old Iraq. (Note: This is not to suggest that the media does not have an obligation to balance national interests against the need to disclose -- see, for example, the restraint showed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
The problem is one of underlying philosophy. There has long been a political science debate about whether democracies can effectively fight wars -- with things like popular will, a free press, really all of the untidiness endemic to our system can we maintain the collective discipline for a long struggle? (The Confederate States of America and the Third Reich to name two might have something to say about that.)
The gimlet-eyed, tough-guy world-view of the Bush administration seems to fall into the democracy-is-weak camp. In order to make the world safe for democracy we have to be as ruthless as our adversaries, the thinking goes, and if that means putting liberty on a shelf to protect it, well ...
As Maureen Dowd puts it in her column today:
Rummy is genuinely perplexed about why it's wrong to subvert democracy while promoting democracy.
I love it when Shooter and Rummy call us unrealistic for trying to hold them to standards that they set. They are, after all, victims of their own spin on Iraq. Mr. Cheney thought we'd be greeted with flowers; Rummy said we could do more with less.
Rummy misses the point: we're supposed to be the good guys, the beacon of freedom. Our message is supposed to work because it has moral force, not because we pay some Lincoln Group sketchballs millions to plant propaganda in Iraqi newspapers and not because the press here plays down revelations of American torture. If the Bush crew hadn't distorted the truth to get to Iraq, it wouldn't need to distort the truth to succeed there.
"Ultimately, in my view," Rummy concluded, "truth wins out."
Bad news for him, and his pal Dick.
Amen sister.
NSA Spied on U.N. Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq
NSA Spied on U.N. Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq
IraDespite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush’s illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA’s targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major U.S. media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage -- or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA’s spying at the U.N. goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate -- which pointedly noted that “the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed.”
But after dodging the story of the NSA’s spying at the U.N. when it mattered most -- before the invasion of Iraq -- the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That’s all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the U.S. government’s high-pressure campaign for the U.N. Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about U.S. spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. “This leak,” he replied, “is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers.” The key word was “timely.”
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg’s heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on U.N. diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration’s already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.) And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington’s war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
“As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq,” the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an “aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates.” The smoking gun was “a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency -- the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world -- and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency.” The friendly agency was Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters.
The Observer explained: “The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in New York -- the so-called ‘Middle Six’ delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for U.N. inspections, led by France, China and Russia.”
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council -- “the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.”
Noting that the Bush administration “finds itself isolated” in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an “embarrassing disclosure.” And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.
Several days after the “embarrassing disclosure,” not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA’s supposed paper of record. “Well, it’s not that we haven’t been interested,” Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. But “we could get no confirmation or comment” on the memo from U.S. officials. Smale added: “We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting.” Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major U.S. media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer’s revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline “Spying Report No Shock to U.N.” Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn’t only depict U.S. surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported “some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery” -- and “several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo’s authenticity.”
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo’s “authenticity” was gone. The British press reported that the U.K. government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream U.S. press had disappeared.
As it turned out, the Observer’s expose -- headlined “Revealed: U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War” -- came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major U.S. news outlets provided very little coverage of the story. The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun’s name became public as the British press reported that she been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was “necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed.” She said: “I have only ever followed my conscience.”
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo -- and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it -- the most powerful U.S. news outlets gave therevelation the media equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of U.S. media concern about the NSA’s illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.
______
This article is adapted from Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: HowPresidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
IraDespite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush’s illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA’s targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major U.S. media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage -- or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA’s spying at the U.N. goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate -- which pointedly noted that “the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed.”
But after dodging the story of the NSA’s spying at the U.N. when it mattered most -- before the invasion of Iraq -- the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That’s all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the U.S. government’s high-pressure campaign for the U.N. Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about U.S. spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. “This leak,” he replied, “is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers.” The key word was “timely.”
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg’s heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on U.N. diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration’s already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.) And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington’s war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
“As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq,” the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an “aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates.” The smoking gun was “a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency -- the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world -- and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency.” The friendly agency was Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters.
The Observer explained: “The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in New York -- the so-called ‘Middle Six’ delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for U.N. inspections, led by France, China and Russia.”
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council -- “the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.”
Noting that the Bush administration “finds itself isolated” in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an “embarrassing disclosure.” And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.
Several days after the “embarrassing disclosure,” not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA’s supposed paper of record. “Well, it’s not that we haven’t been interested,” Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. But “we could get no confirmation or comment” on the memo from U.S. officials. Smale added: “We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting.” Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major U.S. media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer’s revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline “Spying Report No Shock to U.N.” Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn’t only depict U.S. surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported “some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery” -- and “several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo’s authenticity.”
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo’s “authenticity” was gone. The British press reported that the U.K. government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream U.S. press had disappeared.
As it turned out, the Observer’s expose -- headlined “Revealed: U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War” -- came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major U.S. news outlets provided very little coverage of the story. The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun’s name became public as the British press reported that she been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was “necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed.” She said: “I have only ever followed my conscience.”
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo -- and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it -- the most powerful U.S. news outlets gave therevelation the media equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of U.S. media concern about the NSA’s illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.
______
This article is adapted from Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: HowPresidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
The Mary Matalin Horror Show
Arianna Huffington: Russert Watch: The Mary Matalin Horror Show
Arianna HuffingtonMon Feb 20, 2:02 PM ET
Meet the Press has been jumping all over the schedule. Sure, they're using the excuse of some sporting event in Italy, but we know the real reason is they're trying to elude Russert Watch. But there we were -- if a little foggy -- at 6 a.m. (I know you can TiVo it, but it's a slippery slope. First you TiVo it, then you just don't watch it.)
As it happens, I wasn't sure I had entirely woken up today. Indeed, I felt locked in a horrible nightmare -- because today's installment was a true horror show.
If you tuned in, you already know what I'm talking about: Mary Matalin.
Oh my God.
James Wolcott called her "a car wreck in repose" and "the Beltway's Madwoman of Chaillot." Crooks & Liars has video here and here.
Let's start with the unavoidable: what was she wearing? First, the brooch. Or was it a sculpture? Or was it perhaps some bizarre new NSA listening device? It was so, well, there, that hard as you tried you could not avert your eyes from it.
And then there was the black Asian pajama top to match the black eye makeup and the scarlet red nails to match the scarlet red lips. It was impossible to watch her without thinking of Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty. And then there was her manner, which was so incredibly nasty that it was hard to focus on her ludicrous talking points.
Her counterparts on the roundtable were Maureen Dowd, David Gregory and Paul Gigot. At the top of the show, Tim announced that these four would "square off."
But the segment began with Tim basically giving Mary the first third to lay out her side of the story. It was bad enough to just have an administration mouthpiece on to regurgitate talking points, but why not allow -- in old Meet the Press fashion -- the journalists to question her? Maybe Mary demanded some solo time, but, if so, it didn't serve her boss well.
The impact of her appearance was to make the whole story seem even less under control than having a beer and shooting your friend in the face. As for what she said, there were so many intelligence-insulting lies and half-truths it's hard to know where to start.
There was her claim that there was not even the implication that Whittington himself was somehow to blame for the incident. And yet we have Katherine Armstrong saying last Monday that it was "incumbent" on Whittington to announce himself when he rejoined the group. "He did not do that."
And why did they take so long to put out a story?
peak to the sheriff so we'd have the voice of authority. Have Katharine be able to share with other witnesses, and she could be an eyewitness. Oh, and because "there were differing accounts, and there was mass confusion."
Mass confusion? What does that mean? And how did the "mass confusion" resolve itself in the 18 hours it took them to tell the country that the vice president had shot a man?
Then there was Matalin's claim that the reason the local authorities were turned away from interviewing Cheney was because of "national security" considerations. Really? The Secret Service was worried that the sheriff's deputy interviewing Cheney would harm our national security?
Then there was her claim that "these sorts of accidents are not infrequent."
Actually, that's precisely what they are. Infrequent.
As DavidNYC at Kos points out:
In Texas, over the last decade, only one hunter in 26,000 has been involved in a hunting accident. In 2005, only one in 36,000 was involved in a hunting accident.
In fact, there were 1.1 million hunting licenses issued in Texas last year but only 30 reported accidents.
Given that this was obviously going to be one of Matalin's claims, one would think that Tim might have some stats like these at the ready. Instead, Matalin's repeated assertion about how this was just another ordinary day of Texas hunting was allowed to stand unchallenged.
Then there was Mary's allusion to something called the "culture of rural enforcement," and the implication that the elite Eastern press just didn't get it. But if Mary and Dick are so in tune with the Texas "culture of rural enforcement," why were the local officers turned away? It seems that the "culture of rural enforcement" in Texas was operating pretty much like the "culture of urban enforcement."
Then there was Mary's use -- twice -- of the bizarre term "presumption of accident," which was never explained, but which wouldn't be a bad slogan for the entire administration.
Then there was her cockeyed answer to the fact that Armstrong's claim that there had been "no, zero, zippo" alcohol was later contradicted by the vice president himself, who admitted he'd had "a beer" at lunch: "What Katharine Armstrong was answering," Matalin said, "is a literal fact going to the question she was asked, which is always the case on the Armstrong ranch. You don't drink and hunt, and you don't hunt with drinkers."
Then there was her assertion that the real problem here is that the press just doesn't have enough empathy for the vice president. She contrasted the press with "normal people" "who have a full complement of human empathy."
In fact, a modicum of human empathy -- forget a full complement -- is what this vice president notoriously lacks.
Then there was her shock -- unintentionally revealing -- that the vice president is expected to abide by such plebeian considerations as "rules" -- indeed "conventional rules":
"The problem with these rules," she said, "is that they're presumed to be inviolate. This vice president, who is logical and who is human, was not following the conventional rule, but he wasn't doing anything that was irrational, that's for sure."
I could go on and on, but to get the full effect, you had to see not just what Mary said, but how she said it. She was dripping with contempt and sarcasm, parroting anything said by the other panelists in a teenage sing-song imitation complete with the liberal use of air quotes. Note to the vice president: if you're in a situation in which you feel like you need a little more empathy from the American people, and want them to see you as human, you might want to reconsider handing the job to Mary Matalin. It's hard to believe that the VP's 29-percent approval rating didn't plummet by the time her performance was over.
David Gregory, for his part, opened up with a strange, prepared mea culpa about his exchange with Scott McClellan:
I think I made a mistake. I think it was inappropriate for me to lose my cool with the press secretary representing the president. I don't think it was professional of me. I was frustrated, I said what I said, but I think that you should never speak that way, as my wife reminded me, number one. And number two, I think it created a diversion from some of the serious questions in the story, so I regret that. I was wrong, and I apologize. Why are all the good guys apologizing? Harry Whittington apologizes. Harry Reid apologizes. Dick Durbin apologizes. And now David Gregory apologizes. Why? Gregory's a reporter. McClellan was being a jerk. So why the apology?
In any case, it turns out the apology didn't matter much to Mary, as you can see from this exchange:
GREGORY: The vice president's office doesn't feel an obligation to disclose that to the American people directly. You do it through a ranch owner in Texas? It just -- it just strikes me as odd. MATALIN: It strikes you as odd because you live in a parallel universe....
GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right... why did you do a big national interview this week?
MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David. For four days you went on a Jihad.
GREGORY: And that's an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.
Her reply (said with as much contempt as is humanly possible): "Oh, OK. All right. How -- were you saving up for that line?"
So much for empathy and humanization.
Maureen Dowd chose to take the high ground. Classy, in a silk beige top and pale fingernails, she did not rise to the bait even when Matalin called her "the diva of the smart set." And she looked calmly on, even when Matalin parroted her words the way squabbling kindergartners do.
And most important, she succinctly explained why Cheney's handling of the shooting mattered:
The reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he passes, but we don't really know what he's up to. We don't know his schedule. We don't always know where he is. We don't know what democratic institution he's blowing off at any given minute, and so this allowed us to see how his behavior and judgment operated pretty much in real time -- with the delay, but pretty much in real time. ... And it covered all the problems of the Bush/Cheney administration: secrecy and stonewalling, then blowing off the rules that are at the heart of our democracy, then using a filter to try and put the truth out in a way that would most suit their political needs, and then bad political judgment in bungling a crisis. I mean, if there's one thing the Republicans are great at since Reagan, it's damage control. But he is such a control freak, you know, he doesn't even care about the damage. ... Mary, it isn't only the press. He blows off the FISA courts, he blows off the Geneva Conventions, he blows off the U.N. to go to Iraq. He wants to blow off everything. He's got a fever about presidential erosion just the way he had a fever about going into Iraq. If Dowd's point was that the vice president might not have the greatest respect for "the rules that are at the heart of our democracy," then her point was confirmed when the vice president's stooge sarcastically echoed the phrase.
This whole fracas was caused not by the vice president shooting somebody, but by his stonewalling, secrecy and contempt for transparency after the shooting -- by the fact that, as always, he retreated to his bunker.
If Cheney really wants to repair his reputation, he should start by inviting Mary into the bunker and keeping her there.
Update: Mary Matalin's performance was universally panned in the blogosphere. Check out:
firedoglake: Crazy Mary Does Timmeh
"Quite the bravura performance, complete with wacky foil flower badge and everything."
The Left Coaster: Matalin Trots Out The J-Word All Too Easily
"If you watched Meet the Press this morning, you got to see a prime example of how this administration's defenders manage to equate criticism and dissent with terrorism."
Think Progress: Cheney Advisor Won't Say If "A Beer" Is "Literally One Beer"
"What's puzzling is that Matalin insists its a 'literal fact' that Cheney doesn't 'drink and hunt' even though he has admitted to drinking before hunting."
AMERICAblog: Matalin is crankier and nastier than usual on MTP
"Matalin had to spin extra hard today trying to defend Cheney."
Sirotablog: After DUIs, Should We Really "Presume" Cheney "Doesn't Drink?"
"Cheney advisor Mary Matalin claimed that the public should be 'presuming what we all know, that [Cheney] doesn't drink.' I don't think we should presume that about anyone who has already admitted to drinking before the hunting accident in question."
Hullabaloo: The Beltway's Madwoman of Chaillot*
"You really have to wonder who is ever going to be dumb enough to ever hire Mary Matalin again? This shooting mess was clearly her deal and she couldn't have fucked it up worse than she did."
Talking Points Memo: On Meet the...
"Matalin claimed that Vice President Cheney never sent surrogates out to blame Harry Whittington for last weekend's hunting accident... How can she be serious when she was one of the lead surrogates sent out to do just that?"
Eschaton: Liars
"When people lie to you that obviously and blatantly you stop having them on. Matalin doesn't even have an official position in the Bush administration so there's literally no excuse."
Oliver Willis: Meet The Press? Nah, Just Matalin
"Man, they just let Mary Matalin - an official flack for the Bushies - yammer on unopposed forever today, didn't they? Must be that liberal media I keep hearing about."
UPDATE: Reader Andrea offers this reworked gem of Matalin as Evil Queen Maleficent:
Copyright © 2006 HuffingtonPost.com.
Arianna HuffingtonMon Feb 20, 2:02 PM ET
Meet the Press has been jumping all over the schedule. Sure, they're using the excuse of some sporting event in Italy, but we know the real reason is they're trying to elude Russert Watch. But there we were -- if a little foggy -- at 6 a.m. (I know you can TiVo it, but it's a slippery slope. First you TiVo it, then you just don't watch it.)
As it happens, I wasn't sure I had entirely woken up today. Indeed, I felt locked in a horrible nightmare -- because today's installment was a true horror show.
If you tuned in, you already know what I'm talking about: Mary Matalin.
Oh my God.
James Wolcott called her "a car wreck in repose" and "the Beltway's Madwoman of Chaillot." Crooks & Liars has video here and here.
Let's start with the unavoidable: what was she wearing? First, the brooch. Or was it a sculpture? Or was it perhaps some bizarre new NSA listening device? It was so, well, there, that hard as you tried you could not avert your eyes from it.
And then there was the black Asian pajama top to match the black eye makeup and the scarlet red nails to match the scarlet red lips. It was impossible to watch her without thinking of Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty. And then there was her manner, which was so incredibly nasty that it was hard to focus on her ludicrous talking points.
Her counterparts on the roundtable were Maureen Dowd, David Gregory and Paul Gigot. At the top of the show, Tim announced that these four would "square off."
But the segment began with Tim basically giving Mary the first third to lay out her side of the story. It was bad enough to just have an administration mouthpiece on to regurgitate talking points, but why not allow -- in old Meet the Press fashion -- the journalists to question her? Maybe Mary demanded some solo time, but, if so, it didn't serve her boss well.
The impact of her appearance was to make the whole story seem even less under control than having a beer and shooting your friend in the face. As for what she said, there were so many intelligence-insulting lies and half-truths it's hard to know where to start.
There was her claim that there was not even the implication that Whittington himself was somehow to blame for the incident. And yet we have Katherine Armstrong saying last Monday that it was "incumbent" on Whittington to announce himself when he rejoined the group. "He did not do that."
And why did they take so long to put out a story?
peak to the sheriff so we'd have the voice of authority. Have Katharine be able to share with other witnesses, and she could be an eyewitness. Oh, and because "there were differing accounts, and there was mass confusion."
Mass confusion? What does that mean? And how did the "mass confusion" resolve itself in the 18 hours it took them to tell the country that the vice president had shot a man?
Then there was Matalin's claim that the reason the local authorities were turned away from interviewing Cheney was because of "national security" considerations. Really? The Secret Service was worried that the sheriff's deputy interviewing Cheney would harm our national security?
Then there was her claim that "these sorts of accidents are not infrequent."
Actually, that's precisely what they are. Infrequent.
As DavidNYC at Kos points out:
In Texas, over the last decade, only one hunter in 26,000 has been involved in a hunting accident. In 2005, only one in 36,000 was involved in a hunting accident.
In fact, there were 1.1 million hunting licenses issued in Texas last year but only 30 reported accidents.
Given that this was obviously going to be one of Matalin's claims, one would think that Tim might have some stats like these at the ready. Instead, Matalin's repeated assertion about how this was just another ordinary day of Texas hunting was allowed to stand unchallenged.
Then there was Mary's allusion to something called the "culture of rural enforcement," and the implication that the elite Eastern press just didn't get it. But if Mary and Dick are so in tune with the Texas "culture of rural enforcement," why were the local officers turned away? It seems that the "culture of rural enforcement" in Texas was operating pretty much like the "culture of urban enforcement."
Then there was Mary's use -- twice -- of the bizarre term "presumption of accident," which was never explained, but which wouldn't be a bad slogan for the entire administration.
Then there was her cockeyed answer to the fact that Armstrong's claim that there had been "no, zero, zippo" alcohol was later contradicted by the vice president himself, who admitted he'd had "a beer" at lunch: "What Katharine Armstrong was answering," Matalin said, "is a literal fact going to the question she was asked, which is always the case on the Armstrong ranch. You don't drink and hunt, and you don't hunt with drinkers."
Then there was her assertion that the real problem here is that the press just doesn't have enough empathy for the vice president. She contrasted the press with "normal people" "who have a full complement of human empathy."
In fact, a modicum of human empathy -- forget a full complement -- is what this vice president notoriously lacks.
Then there was her shock -- unintentionally revealing -- that the vice president is expected to abide by such plebeian considerations as "rules" -- indeed "conventional rules":
"The problem with these rules," she said, "is that they're presumed to be inviolate. This vice president, who is logical and who is human, was not following the conventional rule, but he wasn't doing anything that was irrational, that's for sure."
I could go on and on, but to get the full effect, you had to see not just what Mary said, but how she said it. She was dripping with contempt and sarcasm, parroting anything said by the other panelists in a teenage sing-song imitation complete with the liberal use of air quotes. Note to the vice president: if you're in a situation in which you feel like you need a little more empathy from the American people, and want them to see you as human, you might want to reconsider handing the job to Mary Matalin. It's hard to believe that the VP's 29-percent approval rating didn't plummet by the time her performance was over.
David Gregory, for his part, opened up with a strange, prepared mea culpa about his exchange with Scott McClellan:
I think I made a mistake. I think it was inappropriate for me to lose my cool with the press secretary representing the president. I don't think it was professional of me. I was frustrated, I said what I said, but I think that you should never speak that way, as my wife reminded me, number one. And number two, I think it created a diversion from some of the serious questions in the story, so I regret that. I was wrong, and I apologize. Why are all the good guys apologizing? Harry Whittington apologizes. Harry Reid apologizes. Dick Durbin apologizes. And now David Gregory apologizes. Why? Gregory's a reporter. McClellan was being a jerk. So why the apology?
In any case, it turns out the apology didn't matter much to Mary, as you can see from this exchange:
GREGORY: The vice president's office doesn't feel an obligation to disclose that to the American people directly. You do it through a ranch owner in Texas? It just -- it just strikes me as odd. MATALIN: It strikes you as odd because you live in a parallel universe....
GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right... why did you do a big national interview this week?
MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David. For four days you went on a Jihad.
GREGORY: And that's an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.
Her reply (said with as much contempt as is humanly possible): "Oh, OK. All right. How -- were you saving up for that line?"
So much for empathy and humanization.
Maureen Dowd chose to take the high ground. Classy, in a silk beige top and pale fingernails, she did not rise to the bait even when Matalin called her "the diva of the smart set." And she looked calmly on, even when Matalin parroted her words the way squabbling kindergartners do.
And most important, she succinctly explained why Cheney's handling of the shooting mattered:
The reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he passes, but we don't really know what he's up to. We don't know his schedule. We don't always know where he is. We don't know what democratic institution he's blowing off at any given minute, and so this allowed us to see how his behavior and judgment operated pretty much in real time -- with the delay, but pretty much in real time. ... And it covered all the problems of the Bush/Cheney administration: secrecy and stonewalling, then blowing off the rules that are at the heart of our democracy, then using a filter to try and put the truth out in a way that would most suit their political needs, and then bad political judgment in bungling a crisis. I mean, if there's one thing the Republicans are great at since Reagan, it's damage control. But he is such a control freak, you know, he doesn't even care about the damage. ... Mary, it isn't only the press. He blows off the FISA courts, he blows off the Geneva Conventions, he blows off the U.N. to go to Iraq. He wants to blow off everything. He's got a fever about presidential erosion just the way he had a fever about going into Iraq. If Dowd's point was that the vice president might not have the greatest respect for "the rules that are at the heart of our democracy," then her point was confirmed when the vice president's stooge sarcastically echoed the phrase.
This whole fracas was caused not by the vice president shooting somebody, but by his stonewalling, secrecy and contempt for transparency after the shooting -- by the fact that, as always, he retreated to his bunker.
If Cheney really wants to repair his reputation, he should start by inviting Mary into the bunker and keeping her there.
Update: Mary Matalin's performance was universally panned in the blogosphere. Check out:
firedoglake: Crazy Mary Does Timmeh
"Quite the bravura performance, complete with wacky foil flower badge and everything."
The Left Coaster: Matalin Trots Out The J-Word All Too Easily
"If you watched Meet the Press this morning, you got to see a prime example of how this administration's defenders manage to equate criticism and dissent with terrorism."
Think Progress: Cheney Advisor Won't Say If "A Beer" Is "Literally One Beer"
"What's puzzling is that Matalin insists its a 'literal fact' that Cheney doesn't 'drink and hunt' even though he has admitted to drinking before hunting."
AMERICAblog: Matalin is crankier and nastier than usual on MTP
"Matalin had to spin extra hard today trying to defend Cheney."
Sirotablog: After DUIs, Should We Really "Presume" Cheney "Doesn't Drink?"
"Cheney advisor Mary Matalin claimed that the public should be 'presuming what we all know, that [Cheney] doesn't drink.' I don't think we should presume that about anyone who has already admitted to drinking before the hunting accident in question."
Hullabaloo: The Beltway's Madwoman of Chaillot*
"You really have to wonder who is ever going to be dumb enough to ever hire Mary Matalin again? This shooting mess was clearly her deal and she couldn't have fucked it up worse than she did."
Talking Points Memo: On Meet the...
"Matalin claimed that Vice President Cheney never sent surrogates out to blame Harry Whittington for last weekend's hunting accident... How can she be serious when she was one of the lead surrogates sent out to do just that?"
Eschaton: Liars
"When people lie to you that obviously and blatantly you stop having them on. Matalin doesn't even have an official position in the Bush administration so there's literally no excuse."
Oliver Willis: Meet The Press? Nah, Just Matalin
"Man, they just let Mary Matalin - an official flack for the Bushies - yammer on unopposed forever today, didn't they? Must be that liberal media I keep hearing about."
UPDATE: Reader Andrea offers this reworked gem of Matalin as Evil Queen Maleficent:
Copyright © 2006 HuffingtonPost.com.
National Energy Week Hosted By W
Marty Kaplan: Prof. Harold Hill Hits the Road
Marty KaplanMon Feb 20, 1:13 PM ET
The Huffington Post
This is energy week for the White House. Last week, in case you missed it, was health week, but something seemed to have stepped on, or shot at, their message. No matter - W's Presidents Day plan is to fuel up Air Force One and zip from photo op to photo op attempting to convince the nation that he has an energy plan that will free us oil junkies from our addiction.
The White House hopes that flooding the media with images of W peering at solar panels and expelling impressive amounts of geothermal energy from his mouth will prove that he truly has what his marketing geniuses will stencil into the background of every picture taken of him: an Advanced Energy Initiative.
His actual energy strategy, of course, is exactly what you'd expect from a Texas oilman, and whose Svengali VP long ago declared that conservation is for pantywaists. (For an analysis of the Bush energy policy, look here.)
Bush's energy "plan" is the policy equivalent of "the think system" -- the con run by The Music Man's Prof. Harold Hill. If you just think you can play an instrument, you will. If we Americans just think we can wean ourselves from those OPEC meanies, we will. Shared sacrifice? You gotta be nuts. Higher mileage standards? Big Government is so Jimmy Carter. Global warming? You must not have gotten the memo.
It was thrilling when those Iowa kids who couldn't read a note nevertheless managed to march down Main Street playing "Seventy-Six Trumbones." That's the feel-good finale that the Republicans want us to believe in. For the cost of less than a week of war in Iraq, the're telling us, we're going to research ourselves into energy independence.
How hard will the media push back on this gutless swindle?
At best, it'll be he-said/she-said. The panpoly of the visiting President will be counterposed by some Washington politician (whose substantive critique will be framed and undermined by its putatively partisan motives), or by some think tanker (who will look as though the manly cry, "It's a gusher!" has never passed his lips).
Far be it from the press actually to explain to the country that it's being conned. These days, the tyranny of false equivalence rules journalism. It's phony parity -- putting your thumb on the scale, so that lies and truths weigh the same. After all, who wants to be accused of raining on the River City Boys Band parade? No, it looks like the weather report for W's energy week is fair, and balanced.
Copyright © 2006 HuffingtonPost.com
Marty KaplanMon Feb 20, 1:13 PM ET
The Huffington Post
This is energy week for the White House. Last week, in case you missed it, was health week, but something seemed to have stepped on, or shot at, their message. No matter - W's Presidents Day plan is to fuel up Air Force One and zip from photo op to photo op attempting to convince the nation that he has an energy plan that will free us oil junkies from our addiction.
The White House hopes that flooding the media with images of W peering at solar panels and expelling impressive amounts of geothermal energy from his mouth will prove that he truly has what his marketing geniuses will stencil into the background of every picture taken of him: an Advanced Energy Initiative.
His actual energy strategy, of course, is exactly what you'd expect from a Texas oilman, and whose Svengali VP long ago declared that conservation is for pantywaists. (For an analysis of the Bush energy policy, look here.)
Bush's energy "plan" is the policy equivalent of "the think system" -- the con run by The Music Man's Prof. Harold Hill. If you just think you can play an instrument, you will. If we Americans just think we can wean ourselves from those OPEC meanies, we will. Shared sacrifice? You gotta be nuts. Higher mileage standards? Big Government is so Jimmy Carter. Global warming? You must not have gotten the memo.
It was thrilling when those Iowa kids who couldn't read a note nevertheless managed to march down Main Street playing "Seventy-Six Trumbones." That's the feel-good finale that the Republicans want us to believe in. For the cost of less than a week of war in Iraq, the're telling us, we're going to research ourselves into energy independence.
How hard will the media push back on this gutless swindle?
At best, it'll be he-said/she-said. The panpoly of the visiting President will be counterposed by some Washington politician (whose substantive critique will be framed and undermined by its putatively partisan motives), or by some think tanker (who will look as though the manly cry, "It's a gusher!" has never passed his lips).
Far be it from the press actually to explain to the country that it's being conned. These days, the tyranny of false equivalence rules journalism. It's phony parity -- putting your thumb on the scale, so that lies and truths weigh the same. After all, who wants to be accused of raining on the River City Boys Band parade? No, it looks like the weather report for W's energy week is fair, and balanced.
Copyright © 2006 HuffingtonPost.com
THE NEW AMERICAN POLICE STATE
THE NEW AMERICAN POLICE STATE
By Richard Reeves
NEW YORK -- "When I saw that the neoconservative response to 9/11 was to turn a stateless war against terrorism into military attacks on Muslim states, I realized that the Bush administration was committing a strategic blunder with open-ended disastrous consequences for the United States that, in the end, would destroy Bush, the Republican Party and the conservative movement."
I agree with that, but I didn't write it. No liberal did.
The author is Paul Craig Roberts, one of the creators and champions of "supply-side economics," the great conservative cause of the early 1980s. As a Wall Street Journal editorial writer and then assistant secretary of the treasury under President Reagan, Roberts was a true believer and an effective advocate. His political stance is pretty well summed up in the title of his newest book: "The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice."
Roberts is a syndicated columnist now, an honorable profession, and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a temple of talented political thinkers devoted to all the Right things, beginning with Reaganism. His essay, "My Epiphany: From Reaganaut to Anti-War Radical," is, as they say these days, sweeping the Internet. (You can read the text on VDARE.com, the Web site of the Lexington Institute.)
Roberts begins by emphasizing that he does not believe he is betraying old friends or old causes, saying that he never considered himself a slave to party or ideology. Apparently not. He has been writing strong stuff:
"Americans have forgotten what it takes to remain free. Instead, every ideology, every group is determined to use government to advance its agenda. ... The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and democracy itself. The 'liberal press' has been co-opted. ... Media concentration permitted in the 1990s has put news and opinion in the hands of a few corporate executives who do not dare risk their broadcasting licenses by getting on the wrong side of government, or their advertising revenues by becoming 'controversial.'"
He talks of "years of illegal spying" giving the White House the power of "blackmail" over media and political opposition. I might not use the same words, but I do believe that we, the people, are in jeopardy: New spying and eavesdropping technologies and their delighted abuse by intelligence-gathering organizations and their political masters are turning the United States into an emerging police state.
"Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors," he adds. "Americans need to understand that many interests are using the 'war on terror' to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the war on terror to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The neoconservatives are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule ..."
"Debate is dead," Roberts concludes. "One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it."
I asked Roberts what has been the reaction since these words were published 10 days ago.
"I have had thousands of e-mails, about 99.9 percent favorable, full of praise from Democrats and Republicans alike," he answered. "They say the country is desperate for a straight talker. ... People want to hear more. People want me to run for the Senate or for president."
I, for one, would consider voting for him, though I would hope he will finally give up on supply-side theory.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
By Richard Reeves
NEW YORK -- "When I saw that the neoconservative response to 9/11 was to turn a stateless war against terrorism into military attacks on Muslim states, I realized that the Bush administration was committing a strategic blunder with open-ended disastrous consequences for the United States that, in the end, would destroy Bush, the Republican Party and the conservative movement."
I agree with that, but I didn't write it. No liberal did.
The author is Paul Craig Roberts, one of the creators and champions of "supply-side economics," the great conservative cause of the early 1980s. As a Wall Street Journal editorial writer and then assistant secretary of the treasury under President Reagan, Roberts was a true believer and an effective advocate. His political stance is pretty well summed up in the title of his newest book: "The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice."
Roberts is a syndicated columnist now, an honorable profession, and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a temple of talented political thinkers devoted to all the Right things, beginning with Reaganism. His essay, "My Epiphany: From Reaganaut to Anti-War Radical," is, as they say these days, sweeping the Internet. (You can read the text on VDARE.com, the Web site of the Lexington Institute.)
Roberts begins by emphasizing that he does not believe he is betraying old friends or old causes, saying that he never considered himself a slave to party or ideology. Apparently not. He has been writing strong stuff:
"Americans have forgotten what it takes to remain free. Instead, every ideology, every group is determined to use government to advance its agenda. ... The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and democracy itself. The 'liberal press' has been co-opted. ... Media concentration permitted in the 1990s has put news and opinion in the hands of a few corporate executives who do not dare risk their broadcasting licenses by getting on the wrong side of government, or their advertising revenues by becoming 'controversial.'"
He talks of "years of illegal spying" giving the White House the power of "blackmail" over media and political opposition. I might not use the same words, but I do believe that we, the people, are in jeopardy: New spying and eavesdropping technologies and their delighted abuse by intelligence-gathering organizations and their political masters are turning the United States into an emerging police state.
"Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors," he adds. "Americans need to understand that many interests are using the 'war on terror' to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the war on terror to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The neoconservatives are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule ..."
"Debate is dead," Roberts concludes. "One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it."
I asked Roberts what has been the reaction since these words were published 10 days ago.
"I have had thousands of e-mails, about 99.9 percent favorable, full of praise from Democrats and Republicans alike," he answered. "They say the country is desperate for a straight talker. ... People want to hear more. People want me to run for the Senate or for president."
I, for one, would consider voting for him, though I would hope he will finally give up on supply-side theory.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Hmmm, a conservative idea that seems on target
At last, the conservatives stand up to be counted
By Dante ChinniTue Feb 14, 3:00 AM ET
It's taken awhile, a little more than five years to be precise, but we may be witnessing the return of a respected and important political ideology in this town: conservatism. And its apparent ride back onto the political scene comes not a moment too soon.
Last week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Democrats asked a lot of combative questions, as one might expect. But the real news was that some of the senators on the right side of the dais wondered aloud about whether the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program went too far in the way of expanding executive power.
Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina called some of the legal justifications the Bush administration used for the program (like its assertion that it didn't need Congress's or the judiciary's OK) "dangerous." Over in the House, Heather Wilson, a Republican from New Mexico, is calling for an investigation.
Why was this significant? Because conservatism, real conservatism with its distrust of government and radical change, has been in short supply in our nation's capital since 2001. Oh, there are Republicans, and they have controlled the political landscape here since then. But there is a difference between Republicanism and conservatism.
Republicans are a party, concerned ultimately, as all parties are, with maintaining and growing power. And the GOP in particular is disciplined about doing whatever it takes to help their president. Conservatism is a political outlook, one that questions what the state is doing and is skeptical of power. It owes nothing to no one - not the president, nor the Congress. And it is crucial as a counterbalance to liberalism in the proper functioning of the government. It is the arched eyebrow in a room full of ideas.
Other than its belief in tax cuts (a cornerstone of the conservative philosophy), the current administration has hardly been conservative. On everything from fiscal responsibility to rebuilding Iraq, the administration is sure of itself despite what the data say. It is skeptical of others, but never of itself or its own policies. Counter facts and contrary opinions are ignored or dismissed. And the administration's wiretapping without seeking warrants is based on the idea that other branches of government can't really challenge the executive branch during a time of war. If that's not a bald political power grab, what is?
Yet many conservatives in Congress and elsewhere have not only looked the other way, they've urged the president on.
Even the National Review, the publication that once helped bring the conservative movement back to the front of American politics, supported the president's move. "[T]he evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties," wrote the magazine's editors in December.
Of course, that evidence of scrupulousness came from those running the program. No one else could talk about it. And the terms "al Qaeda suspects" and "those with terrorist ties" seem to be fairly broad definitions. But more to the point, the warrantless wiretapping issue isn't really about the taps themselves.
The administration is proposing what is essentially an unchecked power for the president (not just this president, but all presidents) during the "war on terror." And despite all the comparisons to World War II or World War I or the Revolutionary War - yes, we did hear Attorney General Gonzales cite George Washington as a precedent last week - the "war on terror" is a lot more like the cold war. It is likely to go on for decades, which means any expansion of powers the executive branch claims will not be a temporary measure ended by an armistice. It will be an indefinite expansion, perhaps even permanent. When will the time come when no terrorist wants to target the United States?
And since when have conservatives been eager to give the president extra powers?
They haven't. Back in the 1990s, when a president named Bill Clinton was seeking to have his sexual harassment case put off until he left office, it was the conservatives who rose up and declared that the president is not a king and is not above the law.
Was it all just politics? Sure, and some of this is now. It's a lot easier for Republicans to stand up to a president whose approval rating is hovering around 40 percent than it was when it was over 50 percent - and it's especially easy for those facing tough reelection fights.
But there is a principle at stake here as well, and it only makes sense that the party that distrusts and dislikes federal power assert itself in the argument.
If we're lucky it means the conservatives are ready to make themselves a serious part of the political discussion in Washington again. Who knows, maybe it'll even wake up the liberals.
• Dante Chinni writes a twice-monthly political column for the Monitor.
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor
By Dante ChinniTue Feb 14, 3:00 AM ET
It's taken awhile, a little more than five years to be precise, but we may be witnessing the return of a respected and important political ideology in this town: conservatism. And its apparent ride back onto the political scene comes not a moment too soon.
Last week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Democrats asked a lot of combative questions, as one might expect. But the real news was that some of the senators on the right side of the dais wondered aloud about whether the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program went too far in the way of expanding executive power.
Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina called some of the legal justifications the Bush administration used for the program (like its assertion that it didn't need Congress's or the judiciary's OK) "dangerous." Over in the House, Heather Wilson, a Republican from New Mexico, is calling for an investigation.
Why was this significant? Because conservatism, real conservatism with its distrust of government and radical change, has been in short supply in our nation's capital since 2001. Oh, there are Republicans, and they have controlled the political landscape here since then. But there is a difference between Republicanism and conservatism.
Republicans are a party, concerned ultimately, as all parties are, with maintaining and growing power. And the GOP in particular is disciplined about doing whatever it takes to help their president. Conservatism is a political outlook, one that questions what the state is doing and is skeptical of power. It owes nothing to no one - not the president, nor the Congress. And it is crucial as a counterbalance to liberalism in the proper functioning of the government. It is the arched eyebrow in a room full of ideas.
Other than its belief in tax cuts (a cornerstone of the conservative philosophy), the current administration has hardly been conservative. On everything from fiscal responsibility to rebuilding Iraq, the administration is sure of itself despite what the data say. It is skeptical of others, but never of itself or its own policies. Counter facts and contrary opinions are ignored or dismissed. And the administration's wiretapping without seeking warrants is based on the idea that other branches of government can't really challenge the executive branch during a time of war. If that's not a bald political power grab, what is?
Yet many conservatives in Congress and elsewhere have not only looked the other way, they've urged the president on.
Even the National Review, the publication that once helped bring the conservative movement back to the front of American politics, supported the president's move. "[T]he evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties," wrote the magazine's editors in December.
Of course, that evidence of scrupulousness came from those running the program. No one else could talk about it. And the terms "al Qaeda suspects" and "those with terrorist ties" seem to be fairly broad definitions. But more to the point, the warrantless wiretapping issue isn't really about the taps themselves.
The administration is proposing what is essentially an unchecked power for the president (not just this president, but all presidents) during the "war on terror." And despite all the comparisons to World War II or World War I or the Revolutionary War - yes, we did hear Attorney General Gonzales cite George Washington as a precedent last week - the "war on terror" is a lot more like the cold war. It is likely to go on for decades, which means any expansion of powers the executive branch claims will not be a temporary measure ended by an armistice. It will be an indefinite expansion, perhaps even permanent. When will the time come when no terrorist wants to target the United States?
And since when have conservatives been eager to give the president extra powers?
They haven't. Back in the 1990s, when a president named Bill Clinton was seeking to have his sexual harassment case put off until he left office, it was the conservatives who rose up and declared that the president is not a king and is not above the law.
Was it all just politics? Sure, and some of this is now. It's a lot easier for Republicans to stand up to a president whose approval rating is hovering around 40 percent than it was when it was over 50 percent - and it's especially easy for those facing tough reelection fights.
But there is a principle at stake here as well, and it only makes sense that the party that distrusts and dislikes federal power assert itself in the argument.
If we're lucky it means the conservatives are ready to make themselves a serious part of the political discussion in Washington again. Who knows, maybe it'll even wake up the liberals.
• Dante Chinni writes a twice-monthly political column for the Monitor.
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys
February 10, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys
By DAN SAVAGE
Seattle
FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "End of the Spear," both of which I'm going to discuss here.
But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for "Brokeback Mountain" were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.)
So, let's get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in "End of the Spear."
"End of the Spear" tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries' families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the "martyrdom" of the slain missionaries has "inspired thousands if not millions of Christians." But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message.
The pastors claim they're worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.) They needn't be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren't Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight — not when Paris Hilton's sex tapes are still out there.
Frankly, I can't help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn't playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do?
That's precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in "Brokeback Mountain" — at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together.
That world didn't exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now — even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman.
Straight audiences are watching and loving "Brokeback Mountain" — that's troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become "ex-gay." It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I've never met a gay man who was moved to join it.
This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood.
What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable.
Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?
Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.
If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.
Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly.
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys
By DAN SAVAGE
Seattle
FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "End of the Spear," both of which I'm going to discuss here.
But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for "Brokeback Mountain" were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.)
So, let's get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in "End of the Spear."
"End of the Spear" tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries' families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the "martyrdom" of the slain missionaries has "inspired thousands if not millions of Christians." But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message.
The pastors claim they're worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.) They needn't be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren't Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight — not when Paris Hilton's sex tapes are still out there.
Frankly, I can't help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn't playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do?
That's precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in "Brokeback Mountain" — at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together.
That world didn't exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now — even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman.
Straight audiences are watching and loving "Brokeback Mountain" — that's troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become "ex-gay." It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I've never met a gay man who was moved to join it.
This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood.
What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable.
Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?
Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.
If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.
Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly.
The Trust Gap
February 12, 2006
Editorial
The New York Times
The Trust Gap
We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers — and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.
This has been a central flaw of Mr. Bush's presidency for a long time. But last week produced a flood of evidence that vividly drove home the point.
DOMESTIC SPYING After 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the conversations and e-mail of Americans and others in the United States without obtaining a warrant or allowing Congress or the courts to review the operation. Lawmakers from both parties have raised considerable doubt about the legality of this program, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made it clear last Monday at a Senate hearing that Mr. Bush hasn't the slightest intention of changing it.
According to Mr. Gonzales, the administration can be relied upon to police itself and hold the line between national security and civil liberties on its own. Set aside the rather huge problem that our democracy doesn't work that way. It's not clear that this administration knows where the line is, much less that it is capable of defending it. Mr. Gonzales's own dedication to the truth is in considerable doubt. In sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing last year, he dismissed as "hypothetical" a question about whether he believed the president had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In fact, Mr. Gonzales knew Mr. Bush was doing just that, and had signed off on it as White House counsel.
THE PRISON CAMPS It has been nearly two years since the Abu Ghraib scandal illuminated the violence, illegal detentions and other abuses at United States military prison camps. There have been Congressional hearings, court rulings imposing normal judicial procedures on the camps, and a law requiring prisoners to be treated humanely. Yet nothing has changed. Mr. Bush also made it clear that he intends to follow the new law on the treatment of prisoners when his internal moral compass tells him it is the right thing to do.
On Thursday, Tim Golden of The Times reported that United States military authorities had taken to tying up and force-feeding the prisoners who had gone on hunger strikes by the dozens at Guantánamo Bay to protest being held without any semblance of justice. The article said administration officials were concerned that if a prisoner died, it could renew international criticism of Gitmo. They should be concerned. This is not some minor embarrassment. It is a lingering outrage that has undermined American credibility around the world.
According to numerous news reports, the majority of the Gitmo detainees are neither members of Al Qaeda nor fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The National Journal reported last week that many were handed over to the American forces for bounties by Pakistani and Afghan warlords. Others were just swept up. The military has charged only 10 prisoners with terrorism. Hearings for the rest were not held for three years and then were mostly sham proceedings.
And yet the administration continues to claim that it can be trusted to run these prisons fairly, to decide in secret and on the president's whim who is to be jailed without charges, and to insist that Gitmo is filled with dangerous terrorists.
THE WAR IN IRAQ One of Mr. Bush's biggest "trust me" moments was when he told Americans that the United States had to invade Iraq because it possessed dangerous weapons and posed an immediate threat to America. The White House has blocked a Congressional investigation into whether it exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq, and continues to insist that the decision to invade was based on the consensus of American intelligence agencies.
But the next edition of the journal Foreign Affairs includes an article by the man in charge of intelligence on Iraq until last year, Paul Pillar, who said the administration cherry-picked intelligence to support a decision to invade that had already been made. He said Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made it clear what results they wanted and heeded only the analysts who produced them. Incredibly, Mr. Pillar said, the president never asked for an assessment on the consequences of invading Iraq until a year after the invasion. He said the intelligence community did that analysis on its own and forecast a deeply divided society ripe for civil war.
When the administration did finally ask for an intelligence assessment, Mr. Pillar led the effort, which concluded in August 2004 that Iraq was on the brink of disaster. Officials then leaked his authorship to the columnist Robert Novak and to The Washington Times. The idea was that Mr. Pillar was not to be trusted because he dissented from the party line. Somehow, this sounds like a story we have heard before.
•
Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Editorial
The New York Times
The Trust Gap
We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers — and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.
This has been a central flaw of Mr. Bush's presidency for a long time. But last week produced a flood of evidence that vividly drove home the point.
DOMESTIC SPYING After 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the conversations and e-mail of Americans and others in the United States without obtaining a warrant or allowing Congress or the courts to review the operation. Lawmakers from both parties have raised considerable doubt about the legality of this program, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made it clear last Monday at a Senate hearing that Mr. Bush hasn't the slightest intention of changing it.
According to Mr. Gonzales, the administration can be relied upon to police itself and hold the line between national security and civil liberties on its own. Set aside the rather huge problem that our democracy doesn't work that way. It's not clear that this administration knows where the line is, much less that it is capable of defending it. Mr. Gonzales's own dedication to the truth is in considerable doubt. In sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing last year, he dismissed as "hypothetical" a question about whether he believed the president had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In fact, Mr. Gonzales knew Mr. Bush was doing just that, and had signed off on it as White House counsel.
THE PRISON CAMPS It has been nearly two years since the Abu Ghraib scandal illuminated the violence, illegal detentions and other abuses at United States military prison camps. There have been Congressional hearings, court rulings imposing normal judicial procedures on the camps, and a law requiring prisoners to be treated humanely. Yet nothing has changed. Mr. Bush also made it clear that he intends to follow the new law on the treatment of prisoners when his internal moral compass tells him it is the right thing to do.
On Thursday, Tim Golden of The Times reported that United States military authorities had taken to tying up and force-feeding the prisoners who had gone on hunger strikes by the dozens at Guantánamo Bay to protest being held without any semblance of justice. The article said administration officials were concerned that if a prisoner died, it could renew international criticism of Gitmo. They should be concerned. This is not some minor embarrassment. It is a lingering outrage that has undermined American credibility around the world.
According to numerous news reports, the majority of the Gitmo detainees are neither members of Al Qaeda nor fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The National Journal reported last week that many were handed over to the American forces for bounties by Pakistani and Afghan warlords. Others were just swept up. The military has charged only 10 prisoners with terrorism. Hearings for the rest were not held for three years and then were mostly sham proceedings.
And yet the administration continues to claim that it can be trusted to run these prisons fairly, to decide in secret and on the president's whim who is to be jailed without charges, and to insist that Gitmo is filled with dangerous terrorists.
THE WAR IN IRAQ One of Mr. Bush's biggest "trust me" moments was when he told Americans that the United States had to invade Iraq because it possessed dangerous weapons and posed an immediate threat to America. The White House has blocked a Congressional investigation into whether it exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq, and continues to insist that the decision to invade was based on the consensus of American intelligence agencies.
But the next edition of the journal Foreign Affairs includes an article by the man in charge of intelligence on Iraq until last year, Paul Pillar, who said the administration cherry-picked intelligence to support a decision to invade that had already been made. He said Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made it clear what results they wanted and heeded only the analysts who produced them. Incredibly, Mr. Pillar said, the president never asked for an assessment on the consequences of invading Iraq until a year after the invasion. He said the intelligence community did that analysis on its own and forecast a deeply divided society ripe for civil war.
When the administration did finally ask for an intelligence assessment, Mr. Pillar led the effort, which concluded in August 2004 that Iraq was on the brink of disaster. Officials then leaked his authorship to the columnist Robert Novak and to The Washington Times. The idea was that Mr. Pillar was not to be trusted because he dissented from the party line. Somehow, this sounds like a story we have heard before.
•
Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
