November 24, 2003

Suicides in Iraq Since April, the military says, at least 17 Americans - 15 Army soldiers and two Marines - have taken their own lives in Iraq. The true number is almost certainly higher. At least two dozen non-combat deaths, some of them possible suicides, are under investigation according to an AP review of Army casualty reports. No one in the military is saying for the record that the suicide rate among forces in Iraq is alarming. But Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American military commander in Iraq, was concerned enough, according to the Army Surgeon General's office, to have ordered a 12-person mental health assessment team to Iraq to see what more can be done to prevent suicides and to help troops better cope with anxiety and depression. 11:27:19 PM

The The Corner Weighs in on Brooks, Gay Marriage, Fairy Tales, and Hot Old Testement Lesbians First, we hear from Mike Potemra, who seems too sensible to be posting in the Corner, so we suspect he's just passing through. MUST-READ DAVID BROOKS OP-ED [Mike Potemra]David Brooks is one of the most valuable conservative thinkers around, and in yesterday's New York Times he addresses the issue of gay marriage. He does not address the process question--i.e., who decides? the people or the courts?--but he attempts to make a traditional moral case on the underlying substantive issue. Readers of The Corner will have their own opinions on what he has to say, but there's one passage that I personally found very moving: "Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: 'Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.'" In this, Brooks is on to a truth that goes far beyond our current controversy over gay marriage; and the principle he expresses there is one of which we need constantly to remind ourselves.   But a teeth-gnashing Tim Graham is having none of that: RE BROOKS [Tim Graham] David Brooks also made his case for insisting on what proponents call “gay marriage” on PBS’s “NewsHour” on Friday night, which no doubt caused Jim Lehrer to go “Whuh?” Those of us on the religious right thought perhaps we were hearing the tinny echo of David Gergen from the corners of the PBS set. It’s sort of same teeth-gnashing you probably get from the libertine left when Mark Shields plays a few pro-life notes. You can make a “conservative” case for encouraging gay monogamy. But it’s problematic to begin by suggesting that only extramarital sex is committing “spiritual suicide.” All the orthodox religions see even monogamous homosexuality as soul-endangering. Homosexual “domestication,” as Brooks puts it, could spur a social-science debate on its benefits or demerits, but many Americans will never buy the argument that it scores points with God. PS: I’m not an Old Testament scholar, but I’m confused as to why Brooks would use the story of Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi in a way that the Bible-challenged might construe to suggest a lesbian love thing. The Book of Ruth ends happily with Ruth marrying Boaz and giving Naomi a grandson, which is more “Leave It to Beaver” than “Queer as Folk.” It sounds like Tim is saying that God issues a demerit for each homosexual act one commits, no matter if it's with a life partner or with an anonymous stranger; and if you're gay, you're going to hell no matter what else you do with your life, so why bother to do anything good.  Hmm, while I'm no expert on ecclesiastical homosexual matters, I don't think I buy that. But as for why Brooks might use the story of Ruth and Naomi, um, Tim, did you read what Mike said?  I would add that, to me, the story of Rush and Naomi teaches us that many kinds of relationships can involve commitment and caring, and can ennoble our souls and strengthen our characters (even the relationship between a young widow and her mother-in-law). Heterosexual marriage isn't just about sex (from what I've heard, after a few years, it's not at all about sex); it's mostly about two people helping and strengthening one another, during good times and bad.  Why wouldn't God think this was a good idea for homosexuals too? And if the "Bible-challenged" think that the Book of Ruth is full of hot girl-on-girl action, then they just might read it, right and learn a thing or two, right, Tim? Now, let's hear from Peter Robinson, who offers two (really, really long) words of dissent: TWO WORDS OF DISSENT [Peter Robinson]The first, for Andrew Stuttaford, who cites David Brooks's column in the New York Times yesterday as a "conservative argument" for gay marriage (scroll down). There is not a word-not one-in David's column that so much as attempts to draw distinctions among heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamous marriage, or, for that matter, incestuous marriage. If a man wished to marry his sister, what of it? "[W]e are not animals," David's column would reply, "whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants...." David blithely heaves thousands of years of moral understanding over the side, in other words, yet never even begins the difficult work of social and moral analysis that would enable us to grasp why certain unions are ennobling while others remain unacceptable. He asserts high sentiment, but sentiment alone. This is neither "conservative" nor "argument." Okay, Peter, what if a man wished to marry a corpse, or a German shepherd, or a football team, or an apple?  Is THAT a conservative argument?  Because I've heard a lot of that it going on in various quarters, and it seems more about sentiment ("Homosexual marriage?  Eww! ick! gross!"), than "argument" (I guess it coudl be called conservative, though). And what if the man wished to marry his sister, but never had sex with her, they just lived in the same house, shared finances, supported each other emotionally, and promised to always be there for the other?  Would THAT be okay?  If so, then I guess your objection to homosexual marriage is that it would involve GAY SEX, right?  So, explain exactly why the State should concern itself over the kind of non-illicit sex practiced by consenting adults, when considering matters of law and policy? The second, for Mike Potemra, who singles out for praise one passage in David's column (again, see yesterday's postings). The passage read in part, "Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage...." The view that men and women are profoundly different-distinct from one another in the very depths of their beings-is implicit in Genesis, finds support among the most profound minds the world has produced, including Augustine and Aquinas, and was so interwoven into the mores and habits of cultures around the world that until no more than a few decades ago it was everywhere taken for granted, a given aspect of reality. To dismiss this understanding of the sexes as mere "biological determinism" betrays ignorance of one of the great themes of history. And to assert that conservatives have "latched onto" it simply because it now proves "convenient" is-well, my friend David Brooks ought to know better. The legend of "Beauty and the Beast" first appeared in print in the eighteenth-century, and it contains elements of "Cupid and Psyche," which was committed to writing in the second century. David is of course free to dismiss it. But first he needs to tell us why the legend of a man who was tamed and fulfilled by the love of woman has resonated for at least 19 centuries. Because the legend is about how LOVE tames and fulfills humanity -- it's not a lesson on proper gender roles, anymore than the story of Snow White is a profound and meaningful illustration of the universal truth that women find joy and self-worth by doing housework for a bunch of dwarves. And while it is true that Western culture has long held that women are more refined and spiritual than men, this belief was, at heart, mostly about keeping the women safe at home where they wouldn't meet other man and bear children that weren't their husbands, and thus confuse bloodlines and property rights.  Of course men and women are different (and not just in biological ways--societal teachings play just as big a role), and their differences may complement one another in a good marriage.  But I do not think that the sexes are "profoundly different-distinct from one another in the very depths of their beings."  At the very depth of their being -- their souls -- I suggest they are much more similar than differen.  I believe it does a great disservice to both sexes to teach that men are bold, aggressive, action-oriented, crime-prone louts, while women are frail, sensitive, spiritual flowers who suck the excess lifeforce out of a man and keep him out of trouble.  But hey, if you think that men are brutes who need women to tame them, you should at least let the lesbians get married -- a marriage without ANY brutes in it must be way more spiritual and civilized than a traditional one. Anyway, it's early in the day yet, so I'm sure the debate isn't over.  I hope David Brooks is sorry for having let down the conservative side this way, and causing everybody's teeth to gnash and their fairy tales to be spoiled. 6:20:23 AM

London Visit a Smashing Success Per the Washington Time, Bush visit to Britain silences some critics Some of President Bush's most strident critics acknowledge that his trip last week to Britain was not the failure they expected, while his allies see it as a historic moment in international diplomacy. [snip] Bob Boorstin, senior vice president for national security at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that if Mr. Bush made a good impression in Europe, it was because expectations were so low.  "It reminded me of the debates in the 2000 election," Mr. Boorstin said. "The bar was set so low that if he spoke in complete sentences and delivered the speech, and there were no overt acts of violence, then the visit would be seen as a success."  Well, maybe not a complete success, because, per the Sunday Mirror, there WAS violence done -- to the Queen's garden.  Queen's fury as Bush goons wreck garden The Queen is furious with President George W. Bush after his state visit caused thousands of pounds of damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace. Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen's insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill.  Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit. And even worse than the damaged lawn, trees and shrubs, the Queen's flamingoes "are thought to be so traumatised after being taken to a 'place of safety' that they might never return home." Also: The Americans made alterations to accommodate specialised equipment.  The mass of gadgetry meant the Royals couldn't get a decent TV picture during the visit. I can see it now: the Queen, fed up to here with her demanding and graceless house guest, decides that some TV will help her to unwind.  But when she turns on the telly to watch The Villa ("Dating game set in Spanish villa where participants indulge in 'clothes swapping and karaoke to help them get to know each other better'"), she finds out that the reception is shot.  I imagine that she threw a wobbly at that point. Anyway, I would bet that the alternations were made especially to CAUSE poor television reception, so that George wouldn't watch TV and find out about all the demonstrators protesting his visit.  I just hope that the palace got the antenna back in place in time for the Queen to watch tonight's Simpsons ep, which had a loutish American visiting London and doing damage to Her Majesty's personal property. 3:23:25 AM

comment []

The Operation Went Well, but the Patient Died In a recent post in How to Save the World, Dave Pollard summarizes and provides extracts from  what sounds like a must read.  Here's part of the first paragraph of his excellent review: In this week's (Nov.24) New Yorker, author George Packer attempts valiantly to portray post-war Iraq accurately and moderately, so that both sides can realize what must urgently be done and hopefully draw together to stave off what he sees as impending disaster.  But what emerges is not a moderate picture.  What Packer reveals is the absolutely staggering ignorance of the decision-makers in Washington: about Iraqi culture, about geography, about history, about global politics, about what is really going on in Iraq.  Because 'the war after the war' is being run with an iron hand by a handful of ideologues in Washington who do not know or seemingly care about the facts, not only is the world's only superpower acting in a grossly incompetent manner in 'reconstructing' Iraq, but those in Iraq now perceive their 'liberators', through no fault of the brave troops and volunteers on the ground, as complete idiots, horrendously under-resourced, unwilling to spend any money on even basic infrastructure, extravagant in rewarding their own higher-up stalwarts, insensitive and indifferent to the suffering of the people, and utterly disorganized.  So, I guess I'll be picking up a New Yorker, even though reading Dave's piece made me feel anxious, worried, and depressed enough for today.   2:25:08 AM

Drudge and O'Reilly in a Bitch-Slap-To-the-Death Contest Bill O'Reilly has been plugging his book very agressively since it came out in September.  That's fine with me -- I guess he needs the money.  But what I find questionable is how Bill has tried to make the NY Times bestseller list a popularity contest, with the purchase of his book a vote for Mom and apple pie, while buying one of those competing "defamation" books means that you hate America and love Hillary, and want to marry her.  Last month he crowed when his book briefly edged out Al Franken's "defamation book," and announced that this showed that Americans wanted to read decent, helpful, polite, well-mannered Eddie Haskell books, instead of nasty, mean-spirited books which make fun of Bill O'Reilly.  A few days later, he told his fans about a contest he was having with Hillary Clinton to decide the fate of America (there's no indication that Hillary is even aware of this wager): Buy My Book or the Puppy Dies A couple of weeks ago, I told you that my goal was to sell a hundred more copies than Hillary Clinton sells.  So here's the scorecard so far. After four months on the market, Senator Clinton has about 1,600,000 copies in print.  Whoa.  After about two-and-a-half weeks, there are 900,000 copies of Who's Looking Out for You? in print. Those are just -- those are not sales.  Those are not sales, I should say, just copies out there.  Sales figures are audited, and, when we get that info, we'll tell you. So the game is on.  Hillary Clinton has set the bar high.  We have to, you know, give her credit for that.  Some would say ridiculously high.  But we'll see, all right.  One-sixth for Hillary, 900,000 for us, but she's got a lot of months on us. Since then, every other day or so he has encouraged his fans to go out there and buy, buy, buy Who's Looking Out For Bill, so that Hillary (and the terrorists) don't win. A couple of weeks ago Bill stated that there are several books on the market which attack President Bush.  Bill explained that, "Most of these tomes are written by fanatical left-wingers, and, unfortunately, much of the information is defamatory and foolish," in that they say that Bush LIED about stuff (and Bill knows from personal experience just how badly it hurts when somebody calls you a liar.)  Store Wars : But it's interesting to see just where these books are selling, and that is primarily in the independent bookstores and on amazon.com.  But they die a gory death in Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Costco, and other big retailers, while my book Who's Looking Out for You? does great in those places.  Of course, Who's Looking? is not a political book and smears no one.  So my conclusion is that the regular folks are turning away from the political nonsense, but the angry left is hot on it.  In the end, somebody's going to win this book war, and it would be ridiculous if it's one of those hate vehicles. Yeah, those nasty left-wingers don't dare to show their faces in honest, God-fearing venues like Costco or Billy-Bob's Books 'n Bait, and have to order their hate vehicles online (or buy them from independent bookstores, which are all run by French Communists).  But the decent, upstanding patriots who shop at Wal-Mart (motto: "We underpay our employees and pass the savings on to you!") love Bill.  It all goes to show you. Anyway, now that it's personal, Bill HAS to outsell those "smear jobs" or admit to his fans that the regular folks don't really care for Bill any more than the angry left does.  And Matt Drudge says he's inflating his sales numbers to win that contest.  Here's the report from NewsMax, from their November 23 edition of Insider Report (yes, I'm an insider now, since I gave them a phony name and zipcode, and signed up): Drudge Slams O'Reilly As 'Liar' Radio listeners will be tuning in to Matt Drudge's Sunday night, rock 'em and sock 'em syndicated national show to see if his slugfest with Bill O'Reilly continues this week. Last week, Drudge listeners heard Matt take off his gloves against the No Spin Zone guy in a bare-fisted attack. Drudge charged that O'Reilly was making phony claims about book sales for his latest New York Times bestseller, "Who's Looking Out for You?" Drudge quoted the Fox newsman as saying that his book has sold more than 900,000 or close to a million copies. Drudge said O'Reilly was engaging in "lies, damn lies." Citing sales figures from Nielsen's Bookscan numbers, the cyberjournalist said the actual figure was closer to 400,000 plus actual book sales. He then added, and we're paraphrasing here, that there was a whole lot of spinning and fibbing going on at O'Reilly's No Spin Zone and that it was about time someone exposed the truth about O'Reilly. In fairness to O'Reilly, the Bookscan numbers do not capture all book sales or the off store sales from book clubs and other channels such as Web sites (including NewsMax). In O'Reilly's case, these sales could be quite substantial. Drudge finished his radio segment on O'Reilly by playing a tape of the Fox news star on the Imus show, where O'Reilly accused Drudge of having smoked crack and mockingly suggested that Drudge should be killed. Well, much as I'd like to see O'Reilly get nailed as a liar again, I suspect that Drudge might have "misheard" Bill's remark about having 900,000 copies in print, and used that as the basis of his "900,000 copies sold" story.  But Newsmax says that there has been a low-simmering feud between Drudge and O'Reilly ever since Bill first started his radio show and Matt claimed that Bill hyped his audience numbers.  But now that Matt is defaming Bill again, thin-skinned Billy is going to have to call him out or something.  I hope they do have a Clint Eastwood-style showdown on Wilshire Street, like Bill has always dreamed of.  Because no matter which one of them ends up being shot between the head, we can't lose. 2:08:42 AM