by Ted on October 16, 2004
I’ve got to quote Andrew Sullivan again:
Some of the subtler arguments I’ve heard overnight say the following: it’s not that homosexuality is wrong; it’s just that many people believe that and Kerry therefore exploited their homophobia to gain a point. I don’t buy it, but let’s assume the worst in Kerry’s motives for the sake of argument. What these emailers are saying is that Kerry should hedge what he says in order to cater to the homophobia of Bush’s base. Why on earth should he?
The truth here is obvious: Bush and Cheney are closet tolerants. They have no problem with gay people personally; but they use hostility to gay people for political purposes, even if it means attacking members of their own families. What they are currently objecting to is the fact that their hypocrisy has been exposed. To which the only answer is: if you don’t want to be exposed as a hypocrite, don’t be one.
There are at least two bloggers (Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty and John Cole) whose disapproving reaction to this little tempest isn’t blatant opportunism. I’m sure that there are more.
I’d just like to draw a little Venn diagram, if I could.
A: Outraged Kerry-bashers who think that they feel insults to gay dignity more keenly than Andrew Sullivan or the Log Cabin Republicans.
B: Giggly Kerry-bashers who write posts like this or this (search for “When do they kiss?”)
OVERLAP: People I see no reason to take seriously.
by Ted on October 15, 2004
by Ted on October 14, 2004
On the subject of Mary Cheney, the labor saving device of “pointing to other bloggers” saves me from the obligation to trying to top this response from Lawyers, Guns and Money:
Reynolds breathlessly claims that “Lynne Cheney is letting Kerry have it for dissing her daughter.” How, might you ask, did Kerry “dis” Mary Cheney? Let’s look at the relevant part of the transcript:
KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
What a monster! How could he….er, actually, this doesn’t “dis” Mary Cheney in the slightest–it’s positive in tone and substance–unless you think there’s something wrong with being gay. So are Reynolds and Kaus just rank bigots? Perhaps, but their argument on its face is almost as stupid as bigotry itself. According to Mickey, with the assent of Reynolds, the fact that Bush’s base consists of a large number of rank homophobes means that mentioning the publicly acknowledged reality of someone’s sexuality should be out of bounds–indeed, “creepy”. The intolerance of the Republican base, therefore, is a reason to vote against Democrats. Wow, fake libertarianism doesn’t get any more fake than that!
Democrats certainly do not have a flawless record on gay rights. I’m thinking of the “hairdresser” commercial from the 2002 Montana race, or attacks on Andrew Sullivan about his personal life, or Clinton’s decision to sign the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (which Kerry voted against.) Every time I hear Kerry and Edwards stress that marriage is “between a man and a woman,” it takes a little bit of wind out of my sails.
Some of this is just realistic politics, but I can still look back and see an array of Democratic moments that should make gay-positive voters wince. I just don’t see how this is one of those moments.
Andrew Sullivan has a lot to say about this. Key quote:
The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to “victimization” is if you believe someone’s sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn’t. What’s revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many – even in the mildest “we’ll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don’t-complain” form.
by Ted on October 14, 2004
Re: the alleged voter fraud in Nevada–
Is there any rational reason why new voters should be asked to declare their party when they register? Voter registration drives are the healthy by-products of political campaigns. The registrars are likely to be enthusiastic partisans, and the tempation to toss out new voters for the other guy will always be there.
Not every state makes new voters declare a party when they register. I know from experience that Washington and Texas don’t do it. In Texas, you effectively declare your party by voting in one primary or the other. Your party affiliation doesn’t appear on your registration form or your voter card. I’ve done some voter registration for MoveOn.org, and for all I know, I did nothing but register Republicans. I had no opportunity to throw out Republicans, because I didn’t know who they were. It seems like a good system.
Am I missing something obvious?
by Ted on October 8, 2004
A. Friday fun link: Back in the day, after the death of Suck but before the rise of the Poor Man, Modern Humorist was arguably the most consistently funny site on the web. They had a fake preview for Radiohead’s Kid A that’s still on my list.
B. Friday not-so-fun links: Eric Alterman and Paul McLeary’s column on the torture provisions in H.B 10.
Congressman Markey’s amendment (which would have stripped out the torture provisions) did not come up for a vote. An amendment to substitute the Senate version of the bill came up last night. As Katherine notes:
The Senate version of the bill has a stronger national intelligence director with budgetary and personnel authority, strengthens anti-nuclear programs, and generally follows the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations much more closely than the House bill. It does not contain the anti-immigration or torture-outsourcing legalization provisions of the House bill. It passed the Senate by a 96-2 vote. All members of the 9/11 commission support the Senate version, as does the 9/11 Families Steering committee.
This amendment failed on a near party-line vote. Eight Republicans voted for the amendment, 212 against. If I understand correctly, the bill is likely to pass with the torture provisions intact, but there’s still hope for the conference committee. If I’m right, I’ll post the members of the committee as soon as I know them. If I’m wrong about any of this (which I might be), I’ll correct as soon as possible.
It’s times like these when Mickey Kaus’s whizzy “I’m a Democrat who hates Democrats!” act looks a lot less cute.
UPDATE: Katherine notes that the House is still going to vote on the Hostettler amendment, which tones down the language on outsorucing torture without eliminating it. Among other things, it instructs the Department of State to “seek diplomatic assurances” that a suspect not be tortured. This would probably make the deportation of Arar retrospectively legal (ANOTHER UPDATE: maybe not), as Syria assured us that he would not be tortured.
Markey is asking his colleagues to vote no on both the Hostettler amendment and final passage.
by Ted on October 6, 2004
The White House has unambiguously stated that it does not support the “extraordinary rendition” provisions.
The president did not propose and does not support this provision. He has made clear that the United States stands against and will not tolerate torture and that the United States remains committed to complying with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is likely that they will be tortured.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES
Counsel to the President
Washington
I’m probably naive- we’ll find out soon enough. But that’s a clear, praiseworthy denunciation of the provisions in question. This leaves Hastert, Hostettler, and other supporters of these provisions without a fig leaf, doesn’t it? The 9/11 commission doesn’t want it, the Justice Department doesn’t want it, and President Bush doesn’t want it. It violates common decency, conservative principle, and 200 years of history. How can they stand up for them?
(I’m really not interested in nailing the White House for a flip-flop. If it’s true that they caved because of political pressure, good for them. Maybe they caved because of principle. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Either way, it’s a blessing, and they deserve praise for it.)
It also gives pro-Bush bloggers a hook to promote this story. President Bush denounces torture! But the provision still needs to be defeated. Pile on, guys!
by Ted on October 6, 2004
I missed about half of the VP debate, but Something Awful has some of the best commentary that I’ve seen. Excerpts:
* Cheney lost some credibility by countering Halliburton accusations with, “the nonpartisan website Sexbarn.org has all the information discrediting those rumors.” Actually, Sexbarn.org turned partisan about the same time they added the alpaca gallery and video section.
* Both candidates struggled with Gwen’s question, “if you could be any flavor of ice cream in the whole wide world, what flavor would you be?”
* When told not to mention John Kerry’s name in his response, Edwards mentioned it twice. Legend has it that if you say John Kerry’s name three times, he will appear and kill you with his hook hand. Gwen scolded Edwards for trying to invoke evil spirits.
by Ted on October 5, 2004
Is the extraordinary rendition provision in the 9-11 Commission bill just a particularly amoral piece of political gamesmanship? Katherine has the update, and Jeanne D’Arc has the commentary.
When I read conservative bloggers, I learn that many of Kerry’s opponents just consider him an inferior candidate to George W. Bush. But some consider him to be a genuinely bad person- unpatriotic, dishonest, with no principles except for the love of power. And yet, there’s a pretty good chance that Kerry’s going to be the next President. If this bill passes, Kerry will appoint a Secretary with the unreviewable power to declare someone a terrorist suspect, and have them deported and tortured.
Surely they don’t trust him to use this power with wisdom and restraint. And yet, they seem more interested in joking about the words “global test.”
Would you trust Janet Reno with the power to torture? I wouldn’t.
by Ted on October 5, 2004
Unbelievable.
One of the most-cited gotchas from Thursday was Bush’s assertion that “the A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.”
But CNN reports that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, appearing on Late Edition, “said Bush did not misspeak when he said that the network of Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan — the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear program who was caught selling secrets on the global black market — had been ‘brought to justice.’
“Khan is living in a villa and was pardoned this year by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. None of Khan’s co-conspirators have been brought to trial.”
Here’s how Rice explained it, from the Late Edition transcript.
“A.Q. Khan is out of business and he is out of the business that he loved most. And if you don’t think that his national humiliation is justice for what he did, I think it is. He’s nationally humiliated.”
Via Respectful of Otters. Why is it harder for Rice to say “The President misspoke” than “We think selling nuclear secrets is a trifle”? “National humiliation” is an appropriate punishment for choosing to appear on reality television. For selling nuclear secrets, it’s rather inadequate.
by Ted on October 5, 2004
Speaking of this, there was another passage from Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes column that caught my eye as a former market researcher. (I actually asked a question about this during the Media Notes Q&A session, but it wasn’t selected.)
Luntz, who is under contract to MSNBC, had already spent $30,000 on recruits for several focus groups…
I worked in market research from 1997 to 2001. By some measures, it wasn’t very long, but it was long enough to get an idea of the costs involved in conducting a market research project.
[click to continue…]
by Ted on October 5, 2004
by Ted on October 4, 2004
Recently, Christopher Hitchens wrote a typically deeply-principled piece in which he accused “most… Democratic activists” of rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would be deeply ashamed anyone supposedly on my side cheering for death and injury to Americans and civilians. Unfortunately, Mr. Hitchens doesn’t help me identify these traitors. He neglects to identify a single Democrat by name, or point to a single incriminating quote. I guess Slate isn’t giving him enough space, or something.
It’s much easier to identify Republicans who have, quite literally, voted for torture. They’re the Republicans in the House Judiciary committee. On party-line votes, they have defeated Democratic attempts to strip out provisions that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to deport anyone suspected of terrorism to a country where they could expect to be tortured. This power would not be subject to judicial review. (Katherine at Obsidian Wings has much, much more about specific cases of extraordinary rendition.)
Many of these Representatives are in safe seats, but not all of them. Indiana Rep. John Hostettler is identified by OurCongress.org as especially vulnerable.
I would be pleased if Rep. Hostettler was forced to answer some questions about his votes for torture. I suspect that the best way of making this happen is by contacting the newspapers in his district. Letters to the editor normally have to be accompanied by the name, address and phone number of the writer. They have to be short, and they have to be polite.
The Indianapolis Star has a special Letter to the editor page.
The Evansville Courier can be reached at letters@evansville.net.
The The Times-Mail can be reached at mikel@tmnews.com.
Supporters and detractors of the war in Iraq can agree that the world was a better place after we shut down Saddam’s torture chambers. If we follow up by procuring a time-share option in the torture chambers of Syria, Egypt, etc., history will not be kind to us.
UPDATE: Liddy asks why don’t I include a link to Hostettler’s opponent, Jon Jennings. Good question.
by Ted on October 1, 2004
Katherine has a significant post on the potential legalization of outsourcing torture. Opponents of the provision include the American Bar Association, the 9/11 Commission, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. This isn’t over.
The office of Edward Markey has sent a letter to President Bush on the provisions of the bill in question. UPDATE: The whole letter is below the fold. Here it is in .pdf form.
[click to continue…]
by Ted on October 1, 2004
by Ted on September 30, 2004
The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership’s intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago.
The provision, part of the massive bill introduced Friday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would apply to non-U.S. citizens who are suspected of having links to terrorist organizations but have not been tried on or convicted of any charges. Democrats tried to strike the provision in a daylong House Judiciary Committee meeting, but it survived on a party-line vote.
The provision, human rights advocates said, contradicts pledges President Bush made after the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal erupted this spring that the United States would stand behind the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Justice Department “really wants and supports” the provision.
Kudos to the Washington Post for picking up on this. If this is defensible, I’d really like to hear a defense. Until then, I’m going to contact my Representative again.