December 8, 2003 by s.z.

Here's Time Magazine's Joel Stein on  What do conservatives like Rush Limbaugh hate more than drugs? Ambiguity But the reason I can't get down with the conservatives, despite my libertarian leanings, is their absolutism. Rush Limbaugh has long been rabidly antidrug, saying all users should be locked away.  Yet when he came back on the air after just five weeks of rehab for addiction to some drug I'm actually too conservative to have even heard of, he suddenly believed the liberal doctrine that addicts are victims of a disease who can be cured only through the help of others.  If Rush accidentally kisses a man on the lips, he's going to switch on gay marriage and have no show left. Even though the criminal investigation into Limbaugh's pill purchases may explain his current position, I don't have a problem with his hypocrisy.  My problem is that Rush is wrong twice, swinging all the way from punitive to forgiving.  Drug use is incredibly nuanced and confusing — even alcohol required two constitutional amendments and a fight between "Tastes great" and "Less filling" that has never been adequately settled.  Limbaugh used to portray all drugs as equal, whether they were painkillers or marijuana or heroin — which is not only stupid but also a really poor business plan if you're considering becoming a dealer. Joel then talks about being the guest host on the Mike Gallagher radio show for a day: When I sat down to host the show, playing with all the dials until I realized the producer had wisely taken away all my powers, I was startled by the intro.  It was a quote from Al Pacino in The Recruit — which not only scared me but also impressed me with the willingness of Gallagher's research department to sit through the film.  Pacino yells, "We believe in good and evil.  And we choose good.  We believe in right and wrong.  And we choose right.  Our cause is just. Our enemies everywhere.  They're all around us." That's when I knew that I wasn't one of them, that I believe everything is a continuum, that the real world is filled with gradations of good and evil, asceticism and pornography, sobriety and addiction.  Denying that seems a dangerous path to self-righteousness.  Plus it's kind of boring. So, I hope that we can all see the folly of taking our credos from Al Pacino movies, and that we can find a man for Rush to kiss. 11:13:13 PM

P.S. On the topic of defending the sanctity of marriage, I liked this essay by Cynthia Tucker: Want to defend marriage? Target Trista and Ryan, not gays Works for me. 7:47:46 AM

Andrew, Doing His Damnest to Be Gay AND Support Bush Andrew Sullivan got to opine in the Wash Post yesterday about The GOP Divide On Gay Marriage.  He claims that the Democrats are united in opposing the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but that this issue is dividing the Republicans, which is playing right into the Democrats' hands.  He sites a national survey which shows says that only 20% of those polled say they would support this amendment; but more importantly, people like George Will and Dick Cheney are sorta against it.  Andy says that if the President were to support the ammendment, then the Republicans would look intolerant, and that's just what the Dems want!  So, he hopes that Bush will just ignore the whole thing and let the states decide if they want same-sex marriages or not; or, if forced into backing something, just denounce gays and support an amendment that will do away with the "Full Faith and Credit" part of the Constitution: If the president were to endorse the amendment, the Republican splits would widen.  It would make the position of gay Republicans essentially untenable, and Bush would lose almost all the million gay votes he won in 2000.  [snip] That's why the president has remained so quiet on this subject. Any decision he takes could tear his coalition apart.  He does have one viable option.  He could restate his personal view that civil marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual while saying that the states should decide for themselves.  As a last resort, he might even endorse an amendment that would simply reiterate and underline part of the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure that states wouldn't be forced by courts to recognize gay marriages from other states. The genius of federalism, after all, is that social change can be tried out in one state before it is enacted elsewhere. Will the president follow this middle, conservative course? For the sake of Republican and American unity, let's hope he will. Of course, Republican unity is more important than equal rights for Andrew.   And the "let the states decide" solution isn't much of a solution.  Besides the problem of what happens to your marriage when you move or go on vacation, if you don't have a federally sanctioned union, you don't get federal benefits.  As Helen Kennedy points out: "At least 1,000 federal benefits are excluded - from family leave to immigration rights for spouses." And President Bush's "conservative Christian" supporters are going to do their damnest to see that he doesn't sit this one out. They feel he's one of them, he owes them, and he'd better come through on the important moral issues like this one.  Bob Novak writes: This is a yes-or-no choice for the president, with a middle course not possible.  Without a constitutional amendment, gay marriage will become part of the fabric of American life. Bush must decide, therefore, whether that is truly important. Christian conservatives who support him say that it is, transcending abortion in shaping the country's culture. [snip] Charlie Cook, a respected campaign handicapper, has called this issue "frivolous and insignificant" when compared with casualties in Iraq and unemployment in America. Not in the opinion of Bush's social conservatives, who over the last two weeks have made clear to the White House that this -- even more than abortion -- is their great concern about the nation's social fabric. These Bush backers see the president under worldwide assault as a Christian, particularly in a Europe where atheism is on the rise and religion on the decline.  They cannot imagine he will not endorse a constitutional amendment. They cannot understand why he has not done so already on an issue that has been percolating for months.  And, as Dick Polman said last week: It's no surprise that President Bush has yet to indicate whether he'll wage total war against gay marriage, because this isn't just a tough policy decision.  This is also an image call that requires choosing between two public personas - Inclusive Bush and Ideological Bush. Inclusive Bush talks about tolerance and compassion (pleasing words for moderate suburban voters), and taps gays for government jobs. Inclusive Bush put Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter on his campaign payroll, and even declared himself "a better man" after meeting with some gay Republicans. Ideological Bush, however, is obsessed with nurturing the Christian conservative voters who saved his candidacy during the 2000 primaries (after he falsely tagged his rival, John McCain, as the gay Republicans' endorsed candidate).  And these days, Ideological Bush wants these voters to know that, tolerance talk aside, he still views gays as "sinners." [snip] But what about Ideological Bush, the guy who signed an October proclamation for "Marriage Protection Week," who opposes hate-crimes laws, and who won't ban bias against gays in private-sector jobs?  This Bush heeds a different set of numbers: His strategists were disappointed by the 2000 turnout among religious conservatives; they want to do better next year. As Bush political guru Karl Rove recently told reporters, "There should have been 19 million of them, and instead there were 15 million... . Just over four million of them failed to turn out and vote, and yet they are obviously part of our base." So, if the question is "Back the Amendment and lose one million gay Republican voters, or not back it and lose 19 million religious conservatives," which one do YOU think he will pick, Andrew? Man, I'd sure find it hard to adore this President if he considered me a sinner because of my sexual preference, and was willing (if he follows Andy's best case solution) to ignore the violation of my civil rights.  But then, I find it hard to even like this President, and as far as I know, George thinks I'm perfectly moral.  But, on a lighter note, over on his site Andy is having a fund-drive.  Every year we make a pitch for the next year's funding - an appeal that last year managed to pay all our debts and provide a modest way to support me, our Letters Page editor, and all the expenses of a blog that now has the traffic (and also the costly bandwidth) of many well-funded political magazines online.  It takes an enormous amount of work - around the clock, day in, day out - to keep this site full of content and links; and you're our only means of support. It really takes an "around the clock, day in, day out" effort to keep his site supplied with content and links?  Um, I'm not implying anything -- I'm just surprised is all.  Anyway, I hope his buddy Bush coughs up $20 or so.  It's the least he could do. 7:43:16 AM

Next Time, on "Reviews of Books We Haven't Read" The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands  by Dr. Laura Schlessinger  Dr. Laura explains that emotionally men are "simple" creatures and women only need provide such basic necessities as respect, gratitude, food, sex, and some space for "guy time" in order to achieve the happy home they truly desire. While we're waiting for that review (or the book itself, which comes out on January 6th), we can buy some  Dr. Laura Jewelry: Need something very special for upcoming Holiday Season?  Or perhaps a special treat just for you?  We suggest a truly unique gift of a stunning necklace, designed and hand-made by Dr. Laura herself.    Necklaces handmade by Dr. Laura -- who WOULDN'T want one hanging around his or her neck?  (I would say something snide about the high prices Laura sets upon her handiwork, but since the money to going to buy supplies for abused and neglected children, I'll give her a pass.)  6:20:43 AM

The 12 STDs of Festivus "Caption That Stick Figure" Contest Hey, Sadly, No! is having a Festivus contest (for the rest of us), where you could win some a scale-model replica of a vintage Yugo, or something.  And all you have to do is caption one of those pornographic stick figures which John Derbyshire unleashed upon a shocked and horrified world.  It's probably just a ploy to sell you a time-share condo in Albania, but I'm still going to enter.  (#10's caption is something like "Everytime Bush Tells a Lie, a Stick Figure Loses his Genitals," but I'll have to think about this some more before committing myself). 5:49:42 AM

What if There Was a Parallel Universe Where You Just Sent E-Cards? TownHall is pretty boring today, so we'll skip Diana West's answer to the question, "What could acting in 'Anna in the Tropics,' a Pulitzer Prize-winning play, have to do with debating the arrest of a local bloke suspected of Al Qaeda links?" and talk about TV commercials. So, have you noticed the new "what if?" trend in commercials?  You know, all those spots where somebody thinks, "What if I bought this product or service -- I think it would go something like this."  And then we see what they think it would go like.  Presenting scenarios this way is actually a brilliant idea, because is ensures that  you, the consumer, can't sue sue Hallmark for false advertising if you buy hundreds of cards and your daughter still hates you, because it was clearly shown as just as somebody's RUNIMATIONS about the healing power of cards. Yes, Hallmark is where I first spotted the trend.  In one memorable ad, a rebellious teenage daughter wants to blow off her lame parents and spend her birthday with her friends at the rock concert.  But then Mom gives the girl a lovely Hallmark birthday card, and the girl melts, tells her parents that she really appreciates them, and wants to spend the day with them instead of  Blink-182. . . and then we are at the Hallmark store, where the mother is looking at cards.  It was all a dream.  But the implicit promise is: buy the right card and you JUST MIGHT touch a hidden wellspring of love deep inside your own surly, defiant teens.  Okay, it could happen.  Sure, the odds aren't too good, but it's possible, I suppose.  Unlike the most recent spot in the Hallmark campaign, where a woman is hosting a dreary holiday family gathering.  Everyone is silent, stiff, and miserable.  But then she flips a swich on her Hallmark Carolling Snowmen, and the group unites in awe and delight as the animatronic snowpeople bob and sway, and sing a tinny version of "We Wish You a Merry Christmas." This display is clearly the most wonderful, charming, funny, marvelous thing these people have ever seen.  And they love their hostess for having shared it with them, and are finally happy she married into their family.  The woman's ten years of emotional ostracization are at end . . .  . . .And then there we are at the Hallmark store, where the woman is franticly gathering up enough cards to allow her to purchase the singing snowmen for only $12.95 -- and finally get the warmth and affection she's always craved.  But we, the inadvertent viewers of her secret fantasies, know there is NO WAY this scenario ends happily.  The snowman is the most obnoxious geegaw we've seen this year -- and an unwritten holiday criminal code says that you should never subject your friends and loved ones to ANY kind of singing Christmas device, and that if you do it to people who already don't like you, you're just asking for trouble.  This woman is going to be horribly humiliated when she plays her Hallmark Singing Snowmen at the holiday gathering, and instead of the joy she anticipated, she gets mocking laughter and cruel, hateful comments about how the snowmen remind her kin-in-law of that awful Michael Keaton movie about the father who came back to life as a snowman in order to wreak his revenged on those who had wronged him.  The women will leave the living room in tears.  A suicide attempt will inevitably cap the festivities.      In contrast to the Hallmark "Let us set you up for bitter disappointment" advertising campaign, Orbitz offers the "Let us help you imagine all kinds of horrible things that could happen to your loved ones if you don't pay proper attention to all aspects of your travel planning" series.  For instance, what if you booked a room for your family at an inn decorated with schloky hunting memorabilia?  Well, there could be a giant stuffed bear in the lobby that would terrify your children and cause permanent trauma to their psyches.  Man, I can still hear those kids screaming, and I'm not even related to them.  Or what if you book a room for your parents in a super modernistic hotel?  Maybe your hopelessy old-fashioned Mom and Dad will get trapped in the elevator because they can't figure out how to work its advanced technology.  And once they reach their scarily space-age accomidations, your father will push some button which will activate the shower, drenching your outraged mother.  Then they will turn on each other in frustration.  Old grievances and simmering hostilities will be brought to the surface.  In will all end with your elderly parents in divorce court.  All because YOU weren't thinking when you scrolled through that online hotel info. The Orbitz commercial airing currently is probably the most paranoid of all.  In it, a couple is planning a trip to Hawaii.  The husband is looking at the vacation extras you can book through Orbitz.  "What about surfing lessons?' he asks his wife.  She agrees absently that that might be fun.  Fun, eh?  Hubby then imagines them in warms waters of Hawaii, the wife being ogled by a young, handsome, fit surfing instructor -- and she seems to be enjoying the attention.  The instructor has his hands all over her as he helps her with her surfing form -- and wifey isn't objecting, no, not one bit!  The little tramp is clearly having the time of her life, not even noticing her husband's outrage.  In fact, she isn't noticing him at all.  We all know she'll be sleeping with Paulo before the weekend is over; and after experiencing hot, wild sex with this young stallion, she'll never want to return to good, clean Iowa-style sex with her husband.  Hubby will have no choice but to buy a Saturday Night Special at a shady pawn shop and shoot them both as they lay twined in each other's arms.  He'll be caught, oh yes, and sentenced to death for his crimes.  And as he sits on his cot on death row, playing mournful, tuneless notes on his harmonica, he will think to himself, "If only I hadn't booked those surfing lessons!"  But fortunately, THAT was all a daydream!  He snaps back to the here and now, and quickly changes the plan to horse back riding. . .little imaging what fate has in store for him at the Randy Cowhand Dude Ranch.        Anyway, thank heavens for Circuit City's Psychic Salesclerks, who see into the future and avert disasters for the poor souls who shop there.  Like the dorky, middle-aged guy who says he wants to buy a stereo system and big speakers for use at his upcoming party.  Psychic Salesclerk sees that party . . . it's as unhip and pathetic as ever a party was.  Dorky Middle-Aged Guy, trying to liven things up, climbs on one of the big speakers, and falls off, landing on a glass coffee table, a shard of glass wedging into his heart (or something . . .I haven't seen this ad for a few weeks).  Anyway, Psychic Salesclerk, having seen the guy's future if he buys those big speakers, refuses to sell them to him, making him take the small ones instead.  Phew!  Another life saved by Psychic Salesclerk!  (Unfortunately, Dorky Middleaged Guy will go on to marry a woman he meets at that party, and their child will grow up to become the most evil dictator of all time -- but one salesclerk can't do everything, psychic or no.) But Circuit City Psychic Salesclerk can see all directions in the space-time continum!  So when Clueless 30-Something Guy wanders into the store, looking for a present for his brother, the clerk can focus in on a defining moment from the past (the brother washing his car, bad 80's music blasting from the car radio) and suggest buying classic rock CDs for his bro.  "Awesome, dude" (or something like that), the guy exclaims.  Another birthday saved by Psychic Salesclerk!  But when you really think about it, isn't saving birthdays kind of a waste of paranormal powers?  Shouldn't Psychic Salesclerk be in Washington, advising the President or something?  Or at least seeking out Hallmark Lady and telling her not to buy that Snowman.  If he'd only do one or the other, then maybe I'd sleep easier at night.  5:29:50 AM