oldOzymandias

Sorry - on vacation - back next week!


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Andrew Sullivan for SecDef!

Read this and tell me I'm wrong - this thing comes together at the end like a 4 inch slice of Black Forest Cake - sublime, smooth, devastating perfection.

Money quote: no - never mind, you gotta read the whole thing.

Josh Marshall for French foreign minister, or you know, Kerry's SecState, which would be basically the same thing.

Read this and tell me its not #1: the most pathetic argument against intelligent action you've ever heard. #2: Quite frightening that a guy as intelligent as JM lets himself construct such mythical boxes. And #3: that in a month, JM's treatment will be the standard leftist position on Spain's 3/11.

And most important - once again the lefty offers not a single actual practical response. Not. a. single. one.





Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

On Helen Thomas - and she thinks the President is arrogant!?

From the Campaigndesk.org

Classic reporter ego - right here:


LCB: Dan Froomkin wrote recently in the Washington Post that "when the president is in full campaign mode, it can be hard to distinguish between a 'White House' question and a 'campaign' question," and that "an ongoing challenge in the White House press room involves trying to parse when [White House Press Secretary Scott] McClellan will answer a question versus when he will duck it by waving it off as a 'campaign' issue." From where you sit, has this been an issue?

HT: Not for me. I don't expect him to answer anything. He's gotten into a robotic mode. We know he's on one page, he gets his talking points and you cannot move him off of that. Everything is political in a sense. Very defensive.

LCB: NBC's David Gregory is "Stretch," Bill Sammon of the Washington Times is "Super Stretch." Dana Milbank told Campaign Desk that his presidential nickname is unprintable. As far as you know, does the president have a pet name for you?

HT: I'm sure he does. But I don't know what it is.

LCB: Would you want to know?

HT: Do you know it?

LCB: No. But would you want to know?

HT: I could care less. Just so long as he spells my name right.


Oz: Because, with Helen Thomas - its all about me, me, me. It's so important what she's doing for us, the American citizen.

And it's "couldn't care less" by the way - in, you know, English? (You pontificating moron).





Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Krauthammer Kicking Serious Ass for a Friday.


Tripe a la Mode By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post - Friday, March 12, 2004; Page A23


Look. I know it is shooting French in a barrel. But when yet another insufferable penseur -- first Chirac, then de Villepin, now the editor of Le Monde -- starts lecturing Americans on how they ought to conduct themselves in the world, the rules of decorum are suspended.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Jean-Marie Colombani, who wrote the famous Sept. 12, 2001, Le Monde editorial titled "We Are All American," gives us the usual more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger lament about America's sins: We loved you on Sept. 11. We were all with you in Afghanistan. But, oh, what have you done in Iraq?

This requires some parsing. We loved you on Sept. 11 means: We like Americans when they are victims, on their knees and bleeding. We just don't like it when they get off the floor -- without checking with us first.

Colombani glories in Europe's post-Sept. 11 "solidarity" with America: "Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to . . . free the Afghans."

Come again? The French arrived in Mazar-e Sharif after it fell, or as military analyst Jay Leno put it, "to serve as advisers to the Taliban on how to surrender properly." Afghanistan was liberated by America acting practically unilaterally, with an even smaller coalition than it had in Iraq -- Britain and Australia, with the rest of the world holding America's coat.

But then came Iraq. "The problem was not so much the war itself, but the fact that it was launched without U.N. approval," Colombani explains.

Rubbish. The Kosovo war was launched without U.N. approval and France joined it. Only two wars have ever been launched with U.N. approval: the Korean War (an accident of the Soviets having walked out of the Security Council on another matter) and the Persian Gulf War.

It is touching to hear such legalistic objections to deposing a man who has killed more Muslims than any person on Earth -- particularly when the objection is offered from a pose of superior international morality from a country whose commandos once blew up a Greenpeace ship monitoring French nuclear tests in the South Pacific.

Moreover, Colombani complains, George Bush "lied about the weapons of mass destruction -- the official pretext for the war -- as now publicly established by recent investigations." More rubbish. The investigations have established that the weapons have not been found and may not exist. The claim that the president knew so at the time, and lied about it as a "pretext" for war, is a malicious falsehood.

There is more. Colombani grieves that the Bush administration has taken "axes" to the two great pillars of Western success following World War II: containment and free trade.

Colombani decries the fact that containment has given way to preemptive war. But containment was designed for the Soviet Union, which died 10 years before Bush even took office. Only a fool would advocate containment against the new threat that has risen in its place: terrorists and terrorist states acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

When dealing with undeterrables (like al Qaeda) or undetectables (like an Iraq or an Iran passing WMDs to terrorists) there is no such thing as containment. There is no deterrence, no address for the retaliation. There are two options: do nothing and wait for the next attack, or get them before they acquire the capacity to get you. That is called preemption.

Warming to the ax theme, Colombani decries the Bush administration's "return of protectionism." This (plus preemption) "is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy" in Europe.

Good grief. Only an ignoramus oblivious to what is happening in American politics could prefer Kerry over Bush on grounds of free trade. Has no one told Colombani that the Democrats have made protectionism -- attacking everything from NAFTA to the World Trade Organization -- a theme of this campaign, radically reversing the Clinton policies of the 1990s?

It is not John Kerry's fault that he is endorsed by a Frenchman. (Or by Kim Jong Il of North Korea, whose media have been running some of Kerry's speeches verbatim!) But Kerry has made the major -- indeed, only discernible -- theme of his foreign policy "rejoining the community of nations" and being liked abroad again.

Which is why he does not just court foreign support, he boasts about it. "I've met foreign leaders, who can't go out and say this publicly," he told a Hollywood, Fla., fundraiser, "but boy they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this one, you gotta beat this guy.' "

For the world. For France."





Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Spectacular Point re Gay v/v secular marriage - from andrewsullivan's blog - quoting Dan Savage

DAN GETS MARRIED: To a lesbian co-worker! Now this is an interesting idea for civil disobedience. Leave it to my friend Dan Savage to figure it out:

"Amy Jenniges lives with her girlfriend, Sonia, and I live with my boyfriend, Terry. Last Friday I accompanied Amy and Sonia to room 403, the licensing division, at the King County Administration Building. When Amy and Sonia asked the clerk for a marriage license, the clerk turned white. You could see, "Oh my God, the gay activists are here!" running through her head. County clerks in the marriage license office had been warned to expect gay couples sooner or later, but I guess this particular clerk didn't expect us to show up five minutes before closing on Friday.

The clerk called over her manager, a nice older white man, who explained that Amy and Sonia couldn't have a marriage license. So I asked if Amy and I could have one--even though I'm gay and live with my boyfriend, and Amy's a lesbian and lives with her girlfriend. We emphasized to the clerk and her manager that Amy and I don't live together, we don't love each other, we don't plan to have kids together, and we're going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married. So could we still get a marriage license?

"Sure," the license-department manager said, "If you've got $54, you can have a marriage license." ... It's not the marriage license I'd like to have, of course. But, still, let me count my blessings: I have a 10-year relationship (but not the marriage license), a house (but not the marriage license), a kid (but not the marriage license), and my boyfriend's credit-card bills (but not the marriage license). I don't know what a guy has to do around here to get the marriage license. But I guess it's some consolation that I can get a meaningless one anytime I like, just so long as I bring along a woman I don't love and my $54.

AS: Now what would the religious right say about that?

Oz: Word.


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Stop the Mel Bashing! Coulter to the Rescue!

This is hit and miss - but always leaves you reeling.






Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

New Voters Project

Anyone interested in getting youth to vote should take a look at this new org.

http://www.newvotersproject.org/

From the boys and girls at PIRG.

Inspiring.

Though I myself vote and am proud to do so, I am from a religious tradition that refrains from voting. But we have this old essay that I like - expressing that you must have a good reason for forfeiting such a responsibility.

To the Citizenry, No. 3

On the Public Role of the Silent Citizen

Within this forum we have put forth a thesis of Responsible Citizenship. In a Democratic Republic, however, as fundamental the Right to choose our representatives is, of equal and foundational importance is the Right not to choose. The Expressed Right to participate in the electoral process is balanced against the Unexpressed Right, due personal or religious convictions to refrain from participation.

Any governmental attempt to police either of these is to be correctly held in high suspicion. Close scrutiny should be applied both toward understanding the motives of those who would enforce the vote and those who fear it’s enforcement. Moreover, caution is sought not only regarding the intent of such a law, but the ease of which the possibly noble intentions of the law, by poor crafting or lack of foresight, are corruptible toward specific ends not beneficial to the Public as a whole. Any legislative action calling for specific performance of suffrage or the registration of the population toward such is, for better or worse, a harbinger of other, more invasive enforced ‘benefits’ on the citizenry.

The Silent Citizen is under no obligation to be heard and stands protected by the existing rule of law in this nation. This Citizen Unheard remains, however, a citizen, and owes her state one specific performance, one undeniable duty – one true responsibility that should never be left aside: To be Sure of their Reason for Silence.

It must never be whim to forego this duty. It must not be an accident of our place in life to place our responsibility upon the shoulders of others. It must not be a lightly held conviction of our Faith to assign our choice to Providence. The internal dedicated search for the Reason for Silence should never discover simple happenstance. It should never come to rest upon only unfortunate tardiness. The honest searcher cannot be forced beyond what he finds, and if this search yields only lassitude as a defense, the system is not to blame as much as its lapsed adherent.

We owe our Fellow Citizens of these United States not so much specific performance as specific remembrance. A remembrance that we are a Union – and a Union with no dispensable membership. We are, when we are at are best, an Active Federation of Goals and Aspirations toward a Unified End. While this Union requires participation of its members, there are many forms this participation can know.

The Silent Citizen should continually seek out methods of active citizenship and while stepping forward to define a role, never cease in striving to accommodate their deeply held beliefs. The test for truth of conviction is not complex. When you are questioned your reasons for abstaining, your answer is easily articulated or it is not – your conscience is clear or it is not. Our real responsibility to governance is simply an honest answer to this internal question.

We all share ownership of that constituency that is our selves, our people, our nation of searchers. Together we are searching for a better life, a better liberty, for our children. The question, ‘Where do I wish to go?’ is always better asked, ‘Where do we wish to go?’ For this is, in fact, the deeper, more honest question – we realize our neighbor’s best interest is our own – thus demanding a similarly deep, honest answer.

It has been said that silence means consent, and it may. But the Silent Citizen need not be deaf and blind as well. She is not exempt from the question, and must search with equal or exceeding diligence for her contribution to the collective answer.


The Citizenist

Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Manufacturing News,
Or, A Day with the White House Press Corps


Josh Marshall dealt with this and completely missed the point, again.

How a Nothing Becomes “News”, a.k.a. a “Process Story”, in the DNC White House Press Corps.

Let’s follow the bouncing ball: This is from the morning of March 9.

As has been said numerous times by the White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, President Bush agreed to sit with the chairman and vice chairman of the Congressional 9/11 comission and answer their questions. The President expressed a desire the keep the meeting to an hour. Here’s what the DNC operative Helen Thomas (long ago eschewing even a pretense of journalistic intergrity) started off:


Q: Does the President want to really get to the bottom of the cause of 9/11? If he does, why would he limit his interview with the commission to one hour and for other officials, and, stonewall on documents?

McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought this up. This administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to a legislative body in the 9/11 Commission. We have worked closely with the commission in a spirit of cooperation. And you only have to go back -- and I would appreciate it if you would report some of the facts of the type of access we have provided to the commission. We have provided the commission access to every bit of information that they have requested, including our most sensitive national security documents. And the commission chairman has stated such --

Q: Well, the commission certainly is not satisfied.

Oz: McClellan was about to give a quote from the chairman Thomas Kean about the unprecedented amount of intelligence that the commission has been given – Thomas cut him off to prevent that from becoming the topic of discussion.

McC continues:

McCLELLAN: -- and as far as the President, the President looks forward to meeting with the chairman and vice chairman and answering all the questions that they want to raise.


HT: “Why don't you just open the books and get to the truth? The American people deserve it.”

Oz: There are no “books” here to be referred to, by the way. Helen Thomas, the last person to care what the American people may or may not deserve, is simply inventing a nefarious image of concealing documents. All evidence is to the contrary, but then – that would require her to be an actual journalist, as McC rightly states:

McCLELLAN: “Did you not hear what I just said, Helen? Have you not looked at the facts? I think you need to quit reading some of the coverage and look at the facts.”

Oz: What is funny here is that Scott accepts and all present accept that “reading the coverage,” means reading biased news reports of the same events they are now discussing and no one questions that, and he states that “the facts” are therefore different from their own reporting and no one questions that either. It’s just a day with the White House Press Corps.

HT: You just said, “all the questions they want to raise.” That means he’s no longer going to limit it to an hour?

Oz: Again, she ignores his point because she wants to keep the focus on the “one hour” – a non-story – and away from her obvious lack of desire to actually report on the commission.

McCLELLAN: Well, that’s what it’s scheduled for now. But, look, he’s going to answer all the questions they want to raise. Keep in mind that the commission --

Oz: Again, McC is trying to put the spolight back on the actual facts of the Administration’s actual cooperation with the commission and HT wants to keep that story – an actual news story – dead. She here dictates the agenda to the rest of the WHPC sheep. They all fall in line like lemmings.

HT: If they’re still asking at one hour, he’ll still answer them?

McCLELLAN: Keep in mind that the commission has already had access to all the information they requested, as I just pointed out, including our most sensitive national security documents. That’s what I’m talking about when I’m talking about unprecedented cooperation. And the commission has also -- yes, let me finish --

Q: The issue is whether he’s limiting it to an hour –

Oz: Why is that the issue? Why is that important in anyway at all? It isn’t – it’s just a way to manufacture a story instead of reporting on one.

McCLELLAN: Let me finish, Mark.

(crosstalk)
Q: -- and I’m asking a very simple question. If they’re still asking questions at one hour --
(cross talk)

McCLELLAN: I think it’s important to point out the fact. Mark, let me finish. Mark, can I answer? Let me finish. It’s important that we point out these facts when we talk about this issue, because the facts have not been pointed out. The facts have not been pointed out. But the President -- I mean, the commission will be meeting with the President, after having talked for hours on hour with White House and senior administration officials. We’ve provided more than 2 million pages of documents; we’ve provided more than 60 compact disks of radar, flight and other information; more than 800 audio cassette tapes of interviews and other materials; more than 100 briefings, including at the head-of-agency level; more than 560 interviews. Dr. Rice met with the commission recently, and even though only five members of the commission showed up, she sat down and visited with them for some four hours.

Q: I appreciate that. You reported all that when you first told it to us. I’m asking…

McCLELLAN: No, I don’t think it was widely reported.

Q: Forgive me, I take responsibility for what I report, and I reported it.

Oz: It wasn’t. Not by any major paper. When it was covered it was buried in the bottom of stories with disclaimers like “ The adminstration claims…” etc. instead of the simple fact that it was true.
It continues in this way – all the lemmings jumping in

Q: Okay. All the questions that they have, he’s going to answer. If they’re still asking at one hour, is he still going to answer?

McCLELLAN: I just said that the President will answer all the questions that they want to raise. I think that’s important to point out. I mean, it’s important to point out the unprecedented cooperation we have provided to this legislative body. We have worked very closely with the commission.

Q: -- when?

McCLELLAN: Still working on the exact time for that, working with the commission.

Q: Should we expect it soon?

McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, soon. They have to -- they’re going to complete their report by the end of July now, so --

Q: Let me just ask this again. You’re going to -- you’re committing the President to answer every question raised by the panel in that interview with him?

McCLELLAN: The President looks forward to answering all the questions that they want to bring up.

Q: Which might mean that it would last longer than an hour.

McCLELLAN: Look, he looks forward to the meeting. Let’s let the meeting take place. Obviously, keep in mind everything that the commission has already had access to, everybody the commission has always talked to, and now they’re coming to the President to ask some questions of the President -- or the chairman and vice chairman will.

Q: I just want to clarify that you said that the --

McCLELLAN: No, no, I understand.

Q: -- President will respond to all of the questions the panel wants to raise.

McCLELLAN: Absolutely, of course. Of course.

Q: Personally?

Oz: As opposed to impersonally? What the hell does that even mean?

McCLELLAN: Of course. And keep in mind that what we’re talking about here is a seven-eight month period. Not eight years. Now, these threats didn’t happen overnight. These threats have been building for some time. But this President has taken action to do everything we can to make sure something like September 11th never happens again. He is strongly committed to making sure that this administration works closely -- continues to work closely and cooperatively with the commission to make sure that if there’s anything else that they can bring to our attention to help us prevent attacks like that from happening every again, then we have that information.


Q: Scott, purely from a PR point of view, how do you respond to a criticism launched by Senator Kerry yesterday who said, “The President finds time to go to a rodeo, but he doesn’t have more than an hour for the 9/11 Commission?” -- wouldn’t you acknowledge that, however well you think the administration, the President, and however unprecedented you think the cooperation is, isn’t he vulnerable to some criticism --


McCLELLAN: Suggest -- look at the facts. I mean, I’ll just point out the facts. Not suggesting; I’m pointing out the facts.


Q: We would never suggest you do anything else, Scott. But my point is, don’t you think that there might be some kind of PR problem for the President when his chief challenger can say, you’ve got time to got to a rodeo, and you don’t have time for the 9/11 Commission?


McCLELLAN: That’s why it’s important for everybody to report all the facts and the type of cooperation we have provided to the commission, and the type of access we have provided to the commission. It is unprecedented. But in terms of those remarks, it appears that he does not want to let the facts get in the way of his campaign. The facts are very clear. This administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to the 9/11 Commission, and provided access to every single bit of information that they have requested.

Q: Not unprecedented, I’m sorry. From Watergate on --

McCLELLAN: Go look at the chairman’s recent comments, Helen. I mean, I’ll be glad to go back through those.

Q: The only reason I won’t accept the word “unprecedented” is because, as I pointed out to you once before, President Ford actually testified in open session before the House Judiciary Committee…”

Oz: President Ford testified regarding Watergate – the scandal that brought about Nixon’s resignation and his own elevation to the highest office. Hello Helen? It was vital to that Ford be an open partner in investigating something he could have been construed to have been part of. Bush is not being investigated for causing 9/11 – To say, or here suggest as she does that the two situations are analogous is shameful, disgusting partisanship taking the place of journalism – or in her case, her standard advocacy.

McCLELLAN: Provided access to our nation’s most sensitive national security documents?

Q: Well, it depends on what aspect of --

McCLELLAN: Provide more than 2 million pages of documents? Provided access to hundreds of administration officials?

Q: So, but answer my question. When the President of the United States goes up to Capitol Hill, sits down in public session before an entire, full committee, and says, give me your best shot, how does the President sitting down for one hour --

McCLELLAN: Look at the facts of what we’ve done. Well, no, but keep in mind, you’re looking --

Q: We’re talking about the President’s time.

Oz: Again, trying to restore logic:

McCLELLAN: No, no, no, you’re missing the point, that the commission has already had access to everything that they’ve requested, including our most sensitive documents. They’ve already sat down and visited with White House officials and senor administration officials. And now they’ll have an opportunity to come to the President, and ask any question that they want to. The President is glad to answer their questions.

Q: So your view is that all the cooperation you’ve given -- the White House has given up to now makes it so that really an hour of the President’s time should be sufficient for them to get what they need out of him?

McCLELLAN: The President is going to make sure, as we have, that they have all the information that they need to do their job.

Q: Scott, just to make sure we’re on the same page --

Q: Scott, I think what’s puzzling everybody is why don’t you just say, instead of saying he’s staying for an hour, why not just say he’s going to sit there until the questions are answered?

Oz: Maybe because he’s the President and gets to do things the way he wants to sometimes. But now, Helen has won – there’s no way to get it back on track.

McCLELLAN: I said he's going to answer all their questions.

Q: In one hour.

Q: Where is this one hour --

McCLELLAN: I'm not negotiating here from this podium with the commission.

Q: Nobody has asked -- Scott --

Q: -- one hour, is that what you’re saying?

Q: We're asking you to explain why there is this limit of an hour. Why not simply say -- forget the hour; the President is going to stay as long as he’s needed?

McCLELLAN: I think there are a lot of things that I pointed out. Go back to what the commission has already done, and then they will be sitting down with the President to visit with the President. And obviously, we're talking about -- we're talking about a seven-to-eight-month period here that they're going over. They're already going to have much of the information they need. Now they'll be coming to the President to ask some questions of him.

Q: Scott, since it now seems like the time --

McCLELLAN: Putting you next, Mike.

Q: Scott, since now seems like the time is negotiable, the President will now answer for as long –

McCLELLAN: I didn't say that. (Laughter.) Obviously, you work with the commission and you come to an agreement on the format and the setting for it. But I'm just stating a fact -- the President will answer all the questions they want to raise.

Q: I’m sorry, we all think you said it, so you said it. Okay? Is that a deal?

Oz: Is is okay for you to fabricate facts? the hell?

McCLELLAN: Putting words in my mouth? Just report what I said, is what I would appreciate.

Oz: Word.

Q: What you said doesn't make any sense, Scott. I mean, you're saying he'll answer all the questions –

Oz: It does if you L_I_S_T_E_N, you moron.

McCLELLAN: Hold on. Norah has the floor.

Q: All right. Go ahead, Norah.

McCLELLAN: It's not free-for-all Tuesday.

Oz: Sorry Scott – but it is.

Q: Now that the time limit has changed with the President, is also under negotiation the number of members who will be able to meet with the President? Because you've said -- you just said the commission has already had access to everything they have requested. But, in fact, the full commission is requesting to meet with the President, all the members, not just the chairman and the vice chairman.

Oz: See that? “Now that the time limit has changed” – Never at any time was that stated – it was just invented by the WHPC – right before your eyes.
Then they all pat themselves on the back for it by, what else? Laughing at the White House Press Secretary for letting them invent news.

McCLELLAN: Look, he will sit down -- he looks forward to sitting down with the chairman and the vice chairman. I pointed out to you that Dr. Rice made herself available to meet with all the commission; only five members showed up. There was another National Security Council official where only, I think, four showed up. There has not been one single commission member who has participated in every interview. I mean, they depend on others to provide them information. And so you have to look back at past practice and keep that in context, as well.

I encourage you all to go out and report all these facts and the American people have a clear understanding of the type of cooperation that this administration has provided to the commission, because it is unprecedented, it is very much in a spirit of cooperation, it is very much in a spirit of making sure that the commission has all the information they need to do their job and do so in a timely manner.
Obviously, when you're talking about legislative, executive branch, there are principles involved on certain matters. But we have bent over backwards to make sure they have all the information they need to do their job.

Q: Just to cross a “t” on Norah’s question, you referred to answering all the questions the panel has, answering all the questions the commission has. I thought that that meant more than the chairman and the vice chairman --

McCLELLAN: The meeting will be with the chairman and vice chairman. That's what ---

Q: Will it be for one hour or will it last --- (laughter).

McCLELLAN: We've been through this. I mean, I'm not looking at -- keep in mind -- I think it's important to report the facts of all the access that they've already had to information, which has been full access; all the access they've had to White House officials and administration officials; all the material that has been provided to them. And now they're coming to the President of the United States. Obviously, the President's most solemn obligation is the protection of the American people, and this President is acting to do everything we can to make sure something like September 11th doesn't ever happen again, by taking the fight to the enemy. And we're talking about -- we're also talking about a seven-eight month period, not an eight-year period. But these threats did not happen overnight, but this President is confronting them to make --

Q: “Why does he complain all the time, then --

McCLELLAN: -- because he never forgets September 11th.”

Oz: No matter how much the WHPC would wish it so. And if you are scoring at home - the phrase "The President will answer all the questions that they want to raise." was stated SEVEN times by the White House Press Secretary.

Now get this report March 9th:

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House said on Tuesday it was possible President Bush could be questioned longer than an hour he agreed to by a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an apparent concession that came after criticism from Democrat John Kerry.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked several times if Bush would stick to his insistence the session before the commission be restricted to one hour, said it was scheduled for an hour but that “the president of course is going to answer all the questions they want to raise.”

The shift in position came a day after the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts, attacked Bush on the issue at a time when the president was visiting a rodeo in Houston.

“If the president of the United States can find the time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America's intelligence and why we are not stronger today,” Kerry said.

And Ta-da! Manufactured News – Bush reacting to Kerry statement then makes a policy shift – except:
#1: Bush said nothing at all to this effect.
#2: His press secretary said only the EXACT same statement he had said many times before.
#3: No comment was made in reaction Kerry in any way, other than to point out that Kerry had his assertion wrong.

No shift, No Bush, No Kerry, no story. So this is news why? Because DNC operative Helen Thomas decided it was better to stir up a nothing than report the actual facts about the administrations actual cooperation with the commission, because that would less than nefarious, closer to actual truth, and so had to be nixed…

…. and the lemmings rejoiced!



Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Another Passionate Critique



Schlock, Yes; Awe, No; Fascism, Probably
The flogging Mel Gibson demands.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Friday, Feb. 27, 2004.


"The gay movement in the United States—and the demand for civil unions and even for actual marriage—has had at least one good effect with which nobody can quarrel. The closeted homosexual is a sad figure from the past, and so is the homosexual who tries desperately to "marry" a heterosexual, thus increasing misery and psychic repression all round.

This may seem like an oblique way in which to approach Mel Gibson's ghastly movie The Passion. But it came back to me this week that an associate of his had once told me, in lacerating detail, that an evening with Mel was one long fiesta of boring but graphic jokes about anal sex. I've since had that confirmed by other sources. And, long before he emerged as the spear-carrier for the sort of Catholicism once preached by Gen. Franco and the persecutors of Dreyfus, Mel Gibson attained a brief notoriety for his loud and crude attacks on gays. Now he's become the proud producer of a movie that relies for its effect almost entirely on sadomasochistic male narcissism. The culture of blackshirt and brownshirt pseudomasculinity, as has often been pointed out, depended on some keen shared interests. Among them were massively repressed homoerotic fantasies, a camp interest in military uniforms, an obsession with flogging and a hatred of silky and effeminate Jews. Well, I mean to say, have you seen Mel's movie?

I think that it's a healthy sign for our society that so many Jews have decided to be calm and unoffended by the film, and that so many Christians say they don't feel any worse about Jews after having seen it. We have a social consensus where Jews feel more secure and Christians less insecure. Good. But this does not alter the fact that The Passion is anti-Semitic in intention and its director anti-Semitic by nature. Some people including myself think that Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League are too easily prone to charge the sin of anti-Semitism. But if someone denies the Holocaust one day and makes a film accusing Jews of Christ-killing the next day, I have to say that if he's not anti-Jewish then he's certainly getting there.

It's important to scan the Reader's Digest interview with Mel Gibson. He was questioned by Peggy Noonan, who was almost as simperingly lenient in print as Diane Sawyer was on the small screen. Noonan asked him a question that he must have known was coming, and which he must have prepared for, and she asked him in effect to "make nice" and agree that the Holocaust actually had occurred. His answer was, to all effects and purposes, a cold and flat "no." A lot of people, he agreed, had died in the last war. No doubt many Jews were among the casualties. It's one of the most frigid and shrugging things I have ever read. You would not know from this response that the war was begun by a fascist ruling party that believed in a Jewish world conspiracy, and thus that all of those killed were in part victims of anti-Semitism. (Some of the more tribal ADL advocates might also bear this in mind.)

But then, you were not brought up by Mel Gibson's father, who has repeatedly and recently stated that there was a population explosion among European Jews in the years 1933-1945 and that the Holocaust story is mainly "fiction." Young Gibson, when asked about this by Diane Sawyer, told her not to press him (which she obediently did not). But when asked by Noonan, he replied by saying that "My father has never told me a lie." It's not fair to expect Mel to trash his father. But he could have said that the old man was a fine daddy, albeit with a few odd ideas of his own. It was his very decided choice, however, to say that his male parent was an unvarying truth-teller. Why pick on that formulation? It's unlikely that Gibson Sr. has made a secret of his viciously anti-Jewish views when talking to his son, who shares with him a fanatical attachment to the Latin Mass and a deep hostility to the "liberalism" of the present pope.

So let us not be euphemistic about what is staring us in the face. Last Wednesday, the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church in Denver posted a sign on its roadside marquee. It read "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus." This pigsty of a church has, I think you will agree, an unimprovable name. But its elders, or whatever they call themselves, can't have had time to see the movie, which only opened that same Ash Wednesday. Nor, I think it safe to say, had they chosen the slogan only on the spur of the moment. No: They had been thinking this for quite a long time and were emboldened to "come out" and say so under the cover of a piece of devotional cinematic pornography. Some of us saw this coming. In America, I hope and believe, the sinister effect will be blunted by generations of civilized co-existence. But think for a moment what will happen when Gibson reaps the residual and overseas profits from screenings of the film in Egypt and Syria, or in Eastern Europe, where things are a bit more raw. Who can believe that he did not anticipate, and intend, this result?

Apparently seeking to curry favor, Gibson announced a few weeks ago that he had cut the scene where a Jewish mob yells for the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children (a scene that occurs in only one of the four contradictory Gospels). Gibson lied. The scene is still there, spoken in Aramaic. Only the English subtitle has been removed. Propagandists in other countries will be able to subtitle it any way they like. This is all of a piece with the general moral squalor of his project. Gibson's producer lied when he said that a pope Gibson despises had endorsed the film. He would not show the movie to anyone who might object in advance. He will not debate any of his critics, and he relies on star-stricken pulp interviewers to feed him soft questions. Now, as the dollars begin to flow from this front-loaded fruit-machine of cynical publicity, he is sobbing about the risks and sacrifices he has made for the Lord. A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again."



Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Mild Depression Setting In

God help us if we get stuck with this guy.

John Kerry being an imbecile on foreign policy.

Maureen Dowd surpassing his idiocy with her own. Honestly, it’s the purest, most condensed idiocy I’ve ever encountered. Can’t we get her another Saudi visa? She, being a liberal faced with Islamic fascism would, of course, focus on oil and again fail to cover women’s rights violations, but at least she’d be gone for while.

Josh Marshall utterly missing the point, again. Hello? Does it concern you what the documents said?!?!?!?!?!?!? Can you imagine what Josh Marshall would do with the Republican interest groups if they were blocking nominees with this kind of language?

Mary, Mother of God is this tunnel vision.

Andrew Sullivan arriving like a splash of cold water to school these nut bars on common sense.

Dubya? Mr. McKinnon? Yes, um… could we have some… um... Shock and Awe please?

You have ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS – Do something!!!!!!!!!

I am in shock and awed by the lack of shock and awe at this point. We are the United States of America – the most powerful political entity to ever exist on this planet and our choice of leader is between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Oh. My. Freakin’ God.

It’ll pass, I’ll be all right, but man… oh man… oh… man.


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Scourging and Flogging / Flagellis and Excruciare


Mel's sadism prompted me to do a bit of research - I looked up the scourging passages in the Gospels - then checked the "flogging" term against the Latin and Greek (yes, I'm a geek with a Latin/Greek NT at the ready) - just as in english there are many terms for flogging, - scourging, whipping, etc. there are a few in Latin as well - but in English all the terms are used basically synonymously - in Latin they actually held gradations of severity.

"flagellis" is used in every mention in the Gospels, the more severe "excrucio, excruciare" roughly translated today as "torment" or" torture" is never used. And in Luke, the scourging is only inferred, it is Pilate saying "I will punish him and release him" they cry "No, crucify him!" and he relents, thus whether the whipping took place is not clear. Only in John is the flogging even given its own sentence. In Mark and Matthew (who simply copies Mark verbatim) the flogging is mentioned as a precursor to his crucifixion - and hardly any sort of extended process.

Mark 15:15
Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Matthew 27:26
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

John 19:1
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.

Luke 23:16 (in context)

13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him." 18 With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" 19(Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" 22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will. "

See? in Luke's account - we don't even know if it happened. And just fyi - the consensus chronological order is Crucifixion is c. AD 33, Mark c. AD 55, Matthew/Luke c. AD 75 (they shared sources, and each had Mark's account), and then John at around AD 100.

Now, having said this - it is still true that the Roman system was phantasmagorically brutal and a person without citizenship was truly at the mercy of a fascist military order. Even more so the thugs at desert outpost in a far flung backwater province with little to entertain themselves with. So it's all possible that it happened the way Mel wants us to think - but it's sure not in the text that way.

On Mel's "Passion"

Responsa from Svetlana:

"I find it hard to believe that the faithful won't become squeemish during this exploitative blood bath that stresses nothing more than the pain of the earthly body and not the loss to mankind that the death of Jesus should be remembered as. And to all those churches who rail against sex and violence in Hollywood and then recommend this movie for children..."two-faced f-ckers" all of them."

The Scourging of Mel


From Krauthammer's in the Washington Post - few will surpass it.

"It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."

Spare us such love."


Yeeouch.

Re: Dworkin's feminism:


QUOTE OF THE WEEK from Svetlana: "Andrea Dworkin could manage to feel "violated" at an Oktoberfest."

Ah, Academia

A Lefty hottie wrote this:

"My emphasis in graduate school was post-colonial literature, and Edward Said is and always will be the theorist to whom I adhere the most. The fact that he is pro-Palestinian does not make him an advocate of violent terrorist organizations that use Islam as an excuse for their brutality. (Do you blame the Catholic Church for the violence committed by the IRA, as well? I mean, there is plenty for which to blame the Church, but I don't think anyone could make a logical argument that the IRA is a "militant Catholic" organization.

Most of Said's work, for example, explored the ideological, cultural, and social consequences of colonialism. The importance of his analysis and progress in this field of this study cannot be overrated -- he has shed light on oppression of women under colonialism, postcolonial self-mutilation committed by the colonized on themselves, and the cultural loss of identity experienced by colonized societies in the aftermath of Occidental translations of the cultures they invaded.

So, I don't think you would want to talk to me about any of this. I think the Israeli government bullies and manipulates, which I am sure boils your blood. The United States is in bed with the Israelis, the Saudis, and others who are responsible for the letting of American blood, but then again if American government and military officials were so concerned about violence committed against Americans, they probably wouldn't have trained bin Ladin or installed Saddam Hussein.

So, while I am in NO way offended by your articles, it is obvious that we might be at odds, even as buddies. I am morally center and politically left, and I don't think you would be able to stand me! I would rather drink something on Fear Factor than vote for George W. Bush. With all of that said, it was refreshing to read your opinions because, after all, you are set apart from the majority by the fact that you have such strong ideas and beliefs about which you are doing something (peacefully and intelligently). I respect that immensely."

To which I reply:

Release the Hounds!

Appreciate your note. Yeah, I would have to agree we are probably not compatible; I'm afraid I just care too much about the things I care about to ever be able to "look on the bright side" with regards to Edward Said and his legacy. I appreciate his work on Jane Austen and Conrad and am the first to defend his real eloquence and command, but I wholly and utterly reject post-colonial theory as a political construct, both in practice and even the fundamental premise that the West is by definition racist and flawed. Post-colonial theory is nothing more than scapegoating writ large, a grand excuse for passing the buck and accepting no cultural responsibility for social decline. Did tyranny and imperialism hurt those countries? Of course. Eastern Europe was under Communist tyranny, and had no democratic legacy or history - yet when they were freed (by America) they chose democracy - and even fought and died under Soviet tanks for it.

You are quite correct that the IRA is not militant Christianity, it is a militant wing of a political movement, and I do not blame the Catholic church for Sinn Fein. I can most certainly - as Said might do - blame the Catholic church for the Inquisition. I can most certainly blame the Catholic church for the Crusades (or jihad, if you will) and I can most certainly call these things 'militant, or fascist Christianity'. These things occurred in Christianity's 15th century, and took courageous geniuses like Luther and Erasemus to challenge that monolithic teaching. We are now in the 15th century of Islam and we see the same corruption of the doctrine and same militancy and same need for brave geniuses. Where will they come from? There have been 12 highly educated Palestinian leaders, all brilliant, all statesmen, who rose to challenge Palestinian radicalism, and all, each one were assassinated by militant Islamic groups. When Luther challenged the Pope - 300 German dukes supported him. Where are the state actors who will support democracy in Palestine? America and Israel are the only state actors requiring democracy in Palestine. No Arab state. No Muslim group. Not the U.N.

Israel bullies and manipulates. Not to be dismissive but imagine for a second how the U.S. changed after 9/11 - those first few weeks. Imagine if we had had another attack the next week. Then another. Then another. Imagine the level of anger and sense of revenge that would permeate the country. Bush would have had carte blanche to nuke anything he wanted by Christmas. Whatever you might think of Israeli bullying - they do not sit and plan and organize military attacks on women and children, something Hamas and PIJ do every day. All day, in every school, in Palestine children are taught to honor those who target civilians, women and children, for random indiscriminate murder. Anti-Semitism is taught as fact to every Muslim child in the Arab world. Every day. In every school. Children taught to hate, and kill Jews because they are Jews.

Friend told me this:

"I had a great poli sci prof who the first day of class walked in and wrote on a piece of paper. He then told a story: there was a British colonel in India touring with his regiment. He stumbled on to a funeral of a man. The funeral pyre was prepared and the man's body was on it. Then a trussed woman, the man's still living wife was brought out to be burned with him. The prof then asked, "Does the colonel have the right to interfere with the woman's death?" Everyone started talking and saying yes, he has to - it's the moral imperative. Others said no, its against their culture to stop it and not immoral to those practicing it. The conversation got heated quickly. Then one student spoke up and said, "The British shouldn't have been there in the first place." My professor handed her the piece of paper. "That is the answer I wrote down, and it is perhaps true. But it doesn't answer the question at hand. It is a dodge. The British colonel has no such luxury of non-consequential action. He must make a decision, and act in his moral interests."

Many judges of Israel's behavior utterly forget that this is day to day life for Israel and they are quite desperate to find a solution that will allow them to live in peace.

The British were bullies in India - a harsh and extreme imperial presence, controlling finance, police, economy, everything. Gandhi defeated this with a national non-violent movement that was largely secular and humanist. Why has there never been a non-violent movement in Palestine? Israel, Sharon, there would be no possible defense against this. If every Palestinian gave up violence today, there would be no more violence. They would have a democratic state in a year with Jerusalem a split capital. They would get nearly all of their demands. The outcry against any violence by Israel in the face of this would be overwhelming. Now think for a moment if every Israel laid down their weapons today. In a few months there would be no more Israel, and the Palestinians would never get a state. It would be divided among warring Islamic factions of Hamas and PIJ and Hizbullah, and probably Syria. The Saidians of the world would lay the entire catastrophe at the feet of America, for not being involved, for not stopping the violence, for letting it all fall apart. Yet, if the U.S. got involved and stopped the violence we would then be imperialists and hegemonic. Everyone wants the police to help them, and nobody likes the cops. The CIA trained bin Laden and a host of others to fight Communists in Afghanistan, because the Nixon doctrine stated that we would support any non-Communist over a Communist. Saddam was a DEPARTURE from this plan initiated by a DEMOCRATIC President Carter, deciding that fascist Islam was actually worse than Communism. Was he right? What would a Saidian say to that? I'll tell you what they would say - "America shouldn't have been there in the first place." Perhaps true, but it doesn't answer the question. It's a dodge, sometimes a crafty eloquent dodge but a dodge nonetheless.

The Saudis are indeed sleeping with us and if they weren't Saddam Hussien would today control the entire Middle East, and 1/3 of the world's oil supply in a nuclear armed fascist Ba'athist Empire. Both the Kurds and the Jews would have been nuked in the mid nineties, Turkey would have gone Islamist, and gas would be $10 a gallon, and terrorism against Western nations would be an everyday event. America is the only reason this is not the world we live in. Imagine ANY other nation that would do more good in the world with the power we have. France? Germany? China? Even England can't deal with its rascisms in real ways.

And I voted for Gore, incidently, based mainly on the environment. I think an anti-gay ammedment is just that, anti-gay, as well as stupid, malicious and un-Christian. Civil unions are obviously protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But I wholeheartedly agree with the claim by Republicans that activist judges are wrecking the system. The Massachusettes ruling was miscarriage of justice and undemocratic.

Any Democratic candidate who convinces me that they will do whatever it takes to defend the U.S. from the Islamic crusaders and their inquisitors both abroad and in our midst, that they will wake up each day looking for new ways to take the battle to the enemy, I will gladly vote for him or her.


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Candidate Match Test


Just took this test and ended up with Bush 100% and Kerry 97%

the hell?

Jesus mum on Homosexuality

William Meisheid has this piece on Jesus' lack of censure, built primarily on the premise that Jesus only spoke of that which was in is direct line of fire, so to speak.

I disagree that Jesus would not have known of it and feel the absence is important.




Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

New Artist

The excellent Stacey Harshman will be at 8:00 pm, March 20th, at Earthmatters in New York - 171 Ludlow btw Houston and Stanton. (no cover)

She will also have another show on April 24th at 8 pm at Earthmatters.

Republicans losing the Base?


Responsa from Steve:

“I came across your blog entry linked from www.talkingpointsmemo.com to www.andrewsullivan.com ... An interesting path, but anyway...”

Oz: You gotta love that.

Steve: “I used to be a Reagan Republican, back in college. I'm still fairly conservative in regards to many things, but I've found that I find the direction the Republican party has gone over the years to be rather reprehensible.”

“In 1992 after 12 years of broken promises by Republicans to balance the budget and fix our economy, I voted for Bill Clinton.”

“I was very happy with the results. A balanced budget, the greatest growth in economic prosperity in a generation, low mortgage and interest rates, great jobs, higher salaries. Not just for myself, but the benefits applied to all of America both poor and rich. This led me to question many of the other fundamental beliefs of the Republican Party. Tax policy, etc. I've come to find that the Republican rhetoric is great in adjectives, but small in facts.”

“These past couple of years I've become therefore more engaged with the Democrats. I've now attended conventions, internal committee meetings. I was working with the Wes Clark for President campaign.

And what I've found is that the Democrats really aren't at all what the Republicans like to try to portray them as. Their intelligent, thoughtful Americans. They're open to new ideas; they want to try to do the right thing. Yeah, occasionally I get into some big fights, especially over corporate governance and such, but they listen to arguments and understand and moderate. There should always be vigorous debate on issues, but I believe now that the Republicans push these wedge issues in order to distract from the real debates. It's all about power, rather than doing what is right. They do this, because, the simple truth is, they don't really have any better idea how to run this country and they are afraid to admit it.”

Hey Bushies? You getting this?


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Responsa from Svetlana, school psychologist, Philadelphia:

“Read both Naomi’s crocodile tear-stained assault and the Anne Applebaum response:

Wolf is using this relatively harmless sexual faux paux to advance her feminist agenda and who can blame her?...I can. This late date confessional smacks of those ritual abuse accusations. Any true sympathy I may have felt for the guileless co-ed or indignation I’d have liked to fire at old White men who are insatiable for power is erased by the fact that her accusation comes 20 years too late.

Your boundaries have been breeched, your pride hurt, your ethics pinched: Go home and discuss it with family, friends etc. Take a week. Decide how best to report it and then fuckin’ report it. I must assume that her sudden move to reveal this flaw in Bloom is motivated by her desire to ruin his reputation. If she truly cared about getting him to stop playing grab-ass, she’d have done something about it while matriculated.

Wolf’s overly theatrical über-Jewish, guilt-ridden confession of being a “victim” is just plain phony – especially in light of the Rhodes scholarship recommendation she accepted or maybe even solicited from the sexual fiend who so stunted her confidence.

Maybe she feels real shame for not speaking up but she needs a therapist to purge her of that, not an editorial page. She is pretending to be a hurt little lamb but is fact a powerful,
successful, advocate for women’s issues. This deceit impugns her integrity and therefore weakens any arguments she may make on unrelated topics – what a bad career move! She may take down Bloom but will do so at the risk of toppling herself.

Yes, I am a feminist – but one who believes that crying for the sake of manipulation is what gives, “the weaker gender” this bad reputation. Go bolster the Roe v. Wade decision, go educate female voters as to a candidate’s record on women’s issues – don’t pretend that a man’s hand on your thigh caused you irreparable psychic trauma. And if it did: go work at a rape crisis center, don’t bitch about a crude gesture twenty years ago as if it were a true rape.”



Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Christianity and Homosexuality
Responsa from Dave:


Oz: “I mentioned the relationship [of Jesus-John] to illustrate that the early Church was not so awash in anti-homosexual sentiment and fear that it felt compelled to expunge or tone down the loving relationship depicted in the Gospel of John. I have no doubt that by St. Augustine’s time such things would have been redacted out.”

Dave: “And I have no doubt it would not be. Canonically, there could be no valid reason to remove it. I think that the “anti-homosexual sentiment” you fear in this case is a (admittedly unreasonable) reaction to the modernist assumption that all close same-sex (or, at least, male-male) friendships are necessarily homoerotic. I don’t believe that was a common assumption even 100 years ago, let alone in Augustine’s time. I am open to correction on this point, however, if you know more than I.

Oz: “Homosexuality is NOT singled out, either by Jesus or Paul.”

Dave: “I’m not sure if I am misreading you or not. It seems to me you are saying that you agree that homosexual behavior is sinful, but that since it is not singled out, it does not rise to the level of other sins that were singled out. I'm not sure what to make of this belief, if indeed it is yours. I don't really understand why this leads to a belief that same-sex “marriage” should be legalized.

Oz: “I firmly believe that my Lord and Savior is far more horrified by a casual, flippant treatment of a sacred institution by supposedly “God-fearing” heteros than two men or two women wanting to enter into a social contract with the utmost reverence. As far as the level of true Sin, the level of affront to God, the level of indecency involved? I will take a heartfelt Gay marriage over Britney any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.”

Dave: “I understand your argument, but I believe the willful and planned bastardization of marriage constituted by two members of the same sex getting “married” with the supposed “utmost reverence” is worse than an unplanned and drunken “marriage” that was acknowledged by all involved to be wrong, misguided, and, not to mention, invalid.”

Oz: Bastardization is a very poor choice of words, and if you seriously believe to honest men or women seeking a legal and/or religious ceremony to help them remain faithful to each other and ritualize their commitment is somehow morally worse than a 55 hour weekend legal marriage conducted with utter disregard for faith or commitment, my friend, you have truly lost your way.

If you are calling this marriage invalid due to the annulment - I'm sorry you can't have it both ways. Either they were legally married and then legally unmarried, i.e. divorced, or they were fornicating for that weekend in the sight of God. Either way, it betrays the overt impiety and thoughtlessness of the act. To state that this somehow is morally elevated behavior based solely on the fact that it was a man and a woman is staggeringly short-sighted.

As far as homosexuality not being singled out – my point is that many items on Paul’s hit list are now, wrongly I’d say, “no big deal”, gambling, excessive drinking, etc. and much of the “Religious Right” gets fired up about homosexuality due to a confidence that it is the one sin they are least likely to commit. They are elevating it to ‘supreme sin’ level to thus diminish their own ‘lesser’ sins.

This is, as we say in Illinois, “a full half-acre of horse manure,” and it pisses me off. Paul made no such distinctions. It smacks very hard of condemning that which I will never do as more severe than those things I’ve done, simply because I’ve done them. “I’ve done this, but I’m a good person, how bad can it be?”

My main concern is that canon, (be it Catholic or other branches of Christianity) however much you and I might respect and believe in it, is NOT something that can be knee-jerk enshrined in American civil law. I personally do not advocate Gay marriage – for many of the reasons you state – but I am very concerned about Church doctrine be used as a justification to persecute people SEEKING lawful conduct. This is just a terrible, terrible stand for the Church to take. The Church stance can be clear and unequivocal and needent pull punches.

The Church should have encouraged civil unions in my opinion – whether a union is “Holy Matrimony” IS clearly a Church issue – whether two people can legally partner for life is clearly a State issue. This is my feeling. Some churches will do it, some won't - it is a theological issue. NOT a state issue. The State's only requirement is to ALLOW civil unions.

Personally I think those activist judges in Mass knew this quite well and thus had to make the ruling about marriage specifically because they knew it was a gaping hole in the argument they were making. Civil unions CLEARLY can fulfill the civil rights requirements of Gays if handled correctly – The Mass Supremes knew this and wrote their decision to thwart that argument.

So, I feel the Mass Court is clearly in the wrong, BUT civil unions are clearly legal and justified in American Civil Law.


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

On Gay Marriage

Responsa from Bill:


"I think it's already over. It's a done deal. I'm trying to figure out what to teach my kids about this. It won't be to "hate" anybody, by the way - opposing gay marriage has nothing to do, at least as far as I'm concerned, with hating anyone. I'm not wanting to take rights away - I'm against the manufacturing of a new "right to marry" that overturns thousands of years of mores, tradition, and religious teaching."


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Crying “Wolf!”


I met Naomi Wolf once, chatted briefly. I found her to be a typical, harmless, self-congratulatory snob. Her latest stunt, calling out Harry Bloom for a hand on the thigh 20 years ago – after she invited the guy to her undergraduate apartment “to go over her manuscript”? – Forgive me Naomi, but if you can’t see the “come up and see my etchings” in that you are tragically naïve and should not be advising young women on anything. Hell, it’s practically the man’s responsibility at that point to make the first move.

Wolf’s best known book, “The Beauty Myth” is, of course, irony manifest – as no one would have cared a jot about her musings had she not herself traded on her own sex appeal. She’s nearly an anti-antifeminist – a celebrity feminist uncelebratable by feminists due her continual willingness to court male opinion through her personal beauty and later highly sexualized writing (“Promiscuities”), yet unable to be condemned by the same audience due to the awareness she has brought to many feminists causes, a primordial Ally McBeal sans neurosis, yet still clumsily unaware of her own duplicity.

Now, much like an aged beauty queen’s reminiscence, Wolf dug her tiara of victimhood out of that Yale box in the attic, brushed it off and thought of old times. “Ah,” she says, sitting in the dusty light, setting the crown lightly upon her auburn tresses. “I was so relevant then.”

In the words of my 9 year-old niece, who is nobody’s victim, “Whatever, Mom.”


For the recap:

Wolf’s opening salvo


Responsa from the Grande Dames:

Highlights:

Camille Paglia: “It really smacks of the Salem witch-hunts and all the accompanying hysteria. It really grates on me that Naomi Wolf for her entire life has been batting her eyes and bobbing her boobs in the face of men and made a profession out of courting male attention."

Julie Burchill: “I think Paglia is a frustrated, jealous bitch, whose star is very much on the wane and who has always wanted to fuck Wolf. And, of course, she could barely pull a skunk without money changing hands, she's so disgusting. And that's my considered opinion on the matter.”

Lynne Segal: “I would see Wolf's revelations about Harold Bloom and sexual harassment as a response to the backlash against feminism. Feminism is always attacked for being too extreme, and one of the ways it has been attacked is by people saying that "feminists were always crying wolf", that women exaggerate the extent of sexual harassment. That may be one reason Wolf has said this now - to counter that type of anti-feminist rhetoric.”

“Bloom is such a big, powerful figure that I'm sure he has very little to worry about. He loves to attack feminists; he is one of the leaders of the backlash against feminism and the feminist readings of the canon. He is a conservative influence trying to preserve the world as it was, before minority groups had a voice. For Bloom to seem fair game to Wolf is quid pro quo.”

Elizabeth Wurtzel: “I'm not sure why [Wolf] would come out with these revelations now. Most of the stuff Wolf writes about doesn't seem crazy. She doesn't seem like a bitter person.”

“There is this kind of thing that you can be young and attractive and flirtatious. You can act like this, and then the person in power is not supposed to respond. It’s the Clinton thing, like he was supposed to say: “Y’know Monica, you’re lovely but...” But you can’t be flirtatious and expect people not to react. That's really the catch.”

“A lot of people find Wolf extremely irritating. And there is something irritating about her. But, generally, everything she does seems to make sense. Every once in a while she’ll do something silly. Like she got herself mixed up in the stupid Al Gore campaign. But the truth is she does things that are worthwhile. Bloom was, I think, Paglia’s mentor. Paglia can't stand Wolf. She’s had a bee in her bonnet about [Wolf] from day one. She thinks she’s really prissy and one of those girls who aren't any fun. The thing is, Paglia is consistently crazy.”

Andrea Dworkin: “I’m certain Wolf is telling the truth. She would never lie. She and I are not allies. We are not friends. I dislike everything she has ever written. But she would not lie or exaggerate, especially not about a matter of sexual harassment. She has done her time in a rape counseling service – she knows what women go through when they come out with allegations of sexual harassment, the backlash they experience.”

“I don't know Bloom. I respect him. I respect his work. But I don't doubt that Wolf is telling the truth.”

Jenni Murray: “I would have thought that someone with such a mouth on her would have said something at the time. It’s only 20 years ago – people were discussing issues of sexual harassment then. We’re not talking about the dark ages. And I think we’ve moved on now – we’re not delicate little flowers who sit in the corner and say, “Isn't it terrible what happened to me?” So I don't have much patience with [Wolf] doing this, I’m afraid. I’ve always thought she was a sensible, solid young woman, who wrote well. I certainly don’t believe that because she's pretty she should not have an opinion. But young women need strong role models who don’t portray themselves as victims.”

Marcelle d'Argy Smith: “When The Beauty Myth came out, it wasn't new thinking. But done by a dazzlingly attractive girl, it was a big thing. Wolf is the Nigella Lawson of the feminist world. So much of the publicity was to do with her stunning good looks, despite the unoriginality of the book.

“I find it extraordinary she should make these allegations 20 years later. The rules of sexual harassment were different then. When I started working in an office, the managing director took me out to lunch. I was sitting next to him, and he put his hand on my thigh and said, ‘I hope you are going to be very happy working here.’ But the rules were different then. He was just a jovial flirt.”

“So I think she has done us no favors. I think she sounds ludicrous. I thought she was going to say he put his tongue down her throat or something. Man puts hand on thigh: well, wow! I think to make these allegations now is cruel, self-serving and unnecessary. If she was outraged at the time, it’s not as if she was a woman without ammunition.”


And the Best overall treatment, the reliable Anne A. from The Washington Post:

'I Am Victim'
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, February 25, 2004; Page A25

“Sometimes in the course of a great American debate there
comes a moment when the big battle guns fall silent, the
pundits run out of breath, and -- unexpectedly -- the long,
bitter argument suddenly turns into farce. In the past two
decades, this nation has lived through the spectacle of
Anita Hill accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment;
the destruction of the career of Sen. Bob Packwood; the ugly
drama of Paula Jones, her lawyers and the president; and, as
a result, the creation of multiple university and workplace
"codes of sexual conduct," which no one dares defy. But now
it's as if none of that ever happened: In an extraordinary,
several-thousand-word article in New York magazine, Naomi
Wolf, the celebrated feminist writer, has just accused
Harold Bloom, the celebrated literary scholar, of having put
his hand on her thigh at Yale University 20 years ago.

But Wolf's article is not merely about that event (a secret
that she "can't bear to carry around anymore"). The article
is also about the lasting damage that this single experience
has wrought on a woman who has since written a number of
bestsellers, given hundreds of lectures, been featured on
dozens of talk shows and photographed in various glamorous
poses, including a smiling, self-confident head shot on New
York magazine's Web site this week. Not that she mentions
her achievements. On the contrary, she implies that this
terrible experience left a lasting mark on her academic and
professional career: "I was spiraling downward; I had gotten
a C-, a D, and an F . . . . My confidence shaken, I failed in
my effort to win the Rhodes Scholarship."

She also implies that she never recovered academically,
which isn't quite the case. I was her contemporary, and
happen to remember some of her achievements. But although I
scoured the article, I could find no reference to the fact
that Wolf did eventually win a Rhodes Scholarship, thanks,
in part, to a recommendation letter written by Bloom. Or
that, while in England, she began writing "The Beauty Myth,"
the first of those bestsellers.

Indeed, Wolf not only never mentions any of this, she seems
to want us to believe that none of it matters -- and that
deep down inside she is still a quivering 19-year-old whose
single experience with a man she describes as a "vortex of
power and intellectual charisma," had "devastated my sense
of being valuable to Yale as a student, rather than as a
pawn of powerful men." She was not exactly emotionally
traumatized, she writes (and seems sorry that this avenue of
legal argument isn't open to her) but her "educational
experience was corrupted." And, somehow, that allows her to
equate her experience with that of children harassed by
Catholic priests or female cadets raped by fellow soldiers.
She, and they, are all victims of "systemic corruption."

Now, there are a number of surprising elements to Wolf's
article, all of which deserve more intense scrutiny. One is
her bizarre description of her attempts to get bewildered
university bureaucrats to do something -- she doesn't know
what -- long after the statute of limitations has run out.
Another is her account of the hand-on-thigh event itself,
which seems to have taken place late at night in her
apartment, where Bloom had come at her invitation. A third
is her apparent lack of awareness of the long debate about
sexual harassment itself, and of the way it has radically
changed the atmosphere on campuses and in offices, in both
positive and negative ways.

But in the end, what is most extraordinary about Wolf is the
way in which she has voluntarily stripped herself of her
achievements and her status, and reduced herself to a
victim, nothing more. The implication here is that women are
psychologically weak: One hand on the thigh, and they never
get over it. The implication is also that women are naive,
and powerless as well: Even Yale undergraduates are not
savvy enough to avoid late-night encounters with male
professors whose romantic intentions don't interest them.

The larger implications are for the movement that used to be
called "feminism." Twenty years of fame, money, success,
happy marriage and the children she has described in her
books -- and Naomi Wolf, one of my generation's leading
feminists, is still obsessed with her own exaggerated
victimhood? It's not an ideology I'd want younger women to
follow.”


Amen, sister.













Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Coulter

Miss Coulter returns to defend Mel's Gospel, but with an excellent stomp of Dowd.


"According to liberals, the message of Jesus, which somehow Gibson missed, is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive").

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd."

Indeed.

Another highlight:

"The other complaint from the know-nothing crowd is that "The Passion" will inspire anti-Semitic violence. If nothing else comes out of this movie, at least we finally have liberals on record opposing anti-Semitic violence. Perhaps they should broach that topic with their Muslim friends."

Baruch Hashem and Amen.

Homosexuality and Christianity/ FMA

Responsa from Dave: “You claim that the Catholic Church, in the last fifty years, “evolved” to allow divorce. It did not. The Church does not and cannot allow divorce, because of the “clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus.”

Oz: That was not my statement. I said:
“Fifty years ago, neither the Anglican nor the Catholic Church would remarry a divorced person – now both do this. The Church evolved, and even against a clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus.” This is fact: 50 years ago divorced people were damaged goods, contaminated, and discriminated against in the marriage rite. This is no longer true.

Dave: “The Church does, however, grant annulments, which are not the same as divorces. An annulment is a decree that the marriage in question is and was not valid in the eyes of God. Since there was no marriage, there is no divorce.”

Oz: Come now, my friend. I will agree that annulments are symbolically exactly what you describe – and within the first year of marriage I would even say they can be very effective tool of maintaining a sanctity of ceremony and a gravity of the separation, but it is quite obvious to all empiricism, annulments are in practice a doctrinal circumnavigation of Jesus’ clear intent.

Dave: “Although you specifically say it was not homosexual love, you imply that the "very special relationship between two men" is an argument against condemning homosexual behavior. It is, of course, not.”

Oz: A fair point, but I mentioned the relationship to illustrate that the early Church was not so awash in anti-homosexual sentiment and fear that it felt compelled to expunge or tone down the loving relationship depicted in the Gospel of John. I have no doubt that by St. Augustine’s time such things would have been redacted out.

Dave: “Jesus preached strongly about marriage and the sinfulness of fornication, as you have noted. But He also told us what marriage is. He says, in the passage you reference where He condemns divorce, Mark 10:1-12, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. So they are no longer two but one flesh". Jesus states, therefore, marriage is between one man and one woman, citing the complementarity of the sexes no less. Since homosexual behavior necessarily falls outside of the confines of marriage, then, homosexuality is necessarily always sinful.”

Oz: Yes, I understand the emphasis. But again – homosexuality is not singled out, either by Jesus or Paul – and Bible Belt Christians now take family vacations to Las Vegas and Britney can get a quickie divorce and scurry back to the loving arms of the Church – but two people of the same sex can’t legally commit their lives to each other? I firmly believe that my Lord and Savior is far more horrified by a casual, flippant treatment of a sacred institution by supposedly “God-fearing” heteros than two men or two women wanting to enter into a social contract with the utmost reverence. As far as the level of true Sin, the level of affront to God, the level of indecency involved? I will take a heartfelt Gay marriage over Britney any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.


Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Noonan kicking ass in her patented belittling way.

Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Positive Polarization
Responsa from Zack re FMA:


"The big difference is that GW did not reach out for this issue. Gay activists purposely chose this time running up to the election to force GW to make a choice. He could either watch what was happening around the country and do nothing, thus angering a lot of people, or he could call for a reinforcement of the rule of law. He did not send troops to try and stop it. He did not go into court to try and stop it. He simply said we will let the people of the nation decide through the processes in place. For that he is called mean spirited. I have nothing against and actually could probably be said to be for the ability of anyone to marry anyone they chose. However this charade on behalf of the Democrat party to put GW in a bad place will backfire in, I am afraid, a very long term ugly way."

Oz: I do not feel it was Gay activists who began this agenda unless you are referring to the judge-activists. But yes your point re the rule of law is well taken - but I am not at this point convinced it will backfire the way you expect - I think it might backfire with those conservative youth who do identify with 'compassionate conservatism" in idealistic ways.

Zack: "This is not the civil rights movement, and as a man who grew up black under Jim Crow I am offended by the comparison. When you want to rent an apartment nobody asks you who you are sleeping with. They can see my race."

Oz: Again fair point, but to imply that two Gay men showing up to rent an apartment are 100%unidentifiable as Gay is a bit disingenuous. Personally, I can identify a Gay man or lesbian at around 30 yards.

And why does a new civil rights movement have to in anyway diminish the previous one? Were Jews who risked life and limb to get Blacks registered to vote in Mississippi diminishing the Holocaust? No - they were honoring it and the lesson of racism/discrimination that it taught.

The Civil Rights Movement, the Women's movement, the end of the draft - these are triumphs of American civil disobedience regarding discrimination - must we relearn everything?

Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com

Spiritless "Passion"

Last night attended the Gospel According to Gibson at the Roxy in Philadelphia. Andrew Sullivan has dealt with this with far more depth and eloquence than I could bring to it, but as a life-long Christian I must say I took very few positive feelings away from the theatre.

It is a sledgehammer of violence, 45 minutes out of two hours of flesh-rending sadism the like of which I have never seen. I would imagine it compares or surpasses "snuff" films but I thankfully have no experience. Stacey (conservative Catholic) has remarked that the image of Christ's body on the cross is a more Catholic image, and that Catholics are more accustomed to such iconography that emphasizes the suffering of the Christ. There is certainly no doubt that this is what Mel wants us to take away from the film. "Jesus endured all this for you." It is a message delivered with a cat-o-nine-tails, tipped with bits of glass and metal.

Anti-Semitic? No. It is a story where a section of the Jewish leadership is shown as quite ruthless, and one of the "schemers" is a bit of an ethnic caricature, but at no time is the entire Jewish community shown to be monolithic.

The leaving of the Aramaic "blood oath" yet removing the subtitles of it seemed at best clumsy and at worst sneaky and nefarious. The imagery and cinematography throughout the film is stunning and poetic, but I found myself simply unable to trust the agenda.

Overall, my Christianity was not strengthened or damaged by the film, but I did leave convinced that Mel Gibson - from Braveheart disembowelments to his hatchet-wielding Patriot - always seems just a bit too comfortable with blood splattered on his face.