The Agenda:

Testing the Premise: Are Gays a Threat to Our Children?

What the "Dutch Study" Really Says About Gay Couples

Federal Hate Crime Statistics: Why The Numbers Don't Add Up

Refuting Christianity Today

  Favorites:

Still Life At Sunset

Anderson Cooper and Scooter

Wandering, Wondering

The Aperture of Memory

Easter's Birthday

The First Time I Cussed

  Photo Essays:

The Anasazi Ruins of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

Monsoons of 2004

Miracle Mile

Now Showing / Reflection on Hayden, Arizona

When Harry Met Stella
Saturday, May 22, 2004

Differences in communication styles between a Midwesterner (me) and a Southerner (Chris) often result in profoundly different interpretations of the same conversation. Take this one we had over breakfast this morning:

Goodnight, Felix
Thursday, May 20, 2004

Tony Randall was not gay. He was metrosexual before metrosexuals were cool – before metrosexuals even had a name.

How many cool 84-year-old metrosexuals do you know? How many are cool enough to be talked into being covered in mud on the David Letterman Show to poke fun of his prim and proper (not gay) image? Or cool enough to commandeer a tour bus full of senior citizens from the Late Show and take it to New Jersey?

AP

He was best known for his role as Felix Ungar, the fastidious, stuffy, not quite gay half of “The Odd Couple” (who were not really gay and definitely not married) with his lifelong, perfectly platonic friend and cohort Jack Klugman, who played the sloppy sports writer Oscar Madison (not even metrosexual). That series ran from 1970 to 1975.

After that, he had his own television series called “The Tony Randall Show”, in which he played a pompous, not terribly gay Philadelphia judge. Then came a very brief stint on another series called “Love, Sidney”, in which he played a single, middle-aged commercial artist (hello?). He got his start playing fussy characters in several Doris Day / Rock Hudson (hmmm…) movies.

He was passionate about live theater in a very flamboyant but not too gay sort of way, founding the National Actor’s Theater in 1991 using $1 million of his own money. He was starring in a perfectly straight revival of “Right You Are” when he became ill in December and was checked into the NYU Medical Center for triple bypass surgery. He remained there until he passed away in his sleep Monday night at age 84.

AP

At nineteen, he married his college sweetheart, Florence, and they remained married until her death some fifty-four years later. He then married Heather Harlan, who was some fifty years his junior, and he became a father for the first time at age 77, and again at age 79.

How many cool 77-year-old metrosexuals do you know who are up for starting a family at that age?

Good night, Felix. Sleep well. You deserve it.

Changing the World, One Fedayeen at a Time
Monday, May 17, 2004

It occurred to me as I was browsing the dusty corners of Tucson's finest used book store, that perhaps the single greatest problem that we Americans are experiencing among our newfound Arab friends is rooted in our poor communication skills. We keep hearing about the lack of Arabic speakers in the U.S. armed forces and intelligence agencies in Iraq. I propose that we should reprint these handy little phrase books and distribute them to the troops. I really do believe that, little by little, one Iraqi at a time, we can begin to bridge the gap that stands between us and the kindly Arab on the street, and begin on a lifelong journey of friendship and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and commerce. After all, all we really want to do is just get along, don't you agree?

Heads Up!
Monday, May 17, 2004

Hey Panchesco! The gig is almost up!

You might want to consider revising the interrogation policies of your photo ministry, now that Congress is on the verge of passing a law against “up-skirt” photos that finally brings the U.S. into compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

I don’t want to come home one evening and find you featured on Sixty Minutes II.

The Aperture of Memory, Revisited
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

So, this is the “Announcement to the World” that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been hiding behind ever since this scandal broke. This tiny five-line paragraph is what he considers to be sufficient disclosure that something has gone terribly, terribly wrong at Abu Gharib prison. It really doesn’t say much.  Not much at all.

But then the pictures came out and the world came to understand what was going on. The pictures changed everything. These pictures are indelible, unshakable images that reverberates in the hearts and guts of everyone who sees them.

You can describe what you see with words, but words are merely intermediaries. They are perfunctory couriers of facts and opinions, filtered by the perception of the speaker, and filtered again by the perception of the listener. But pictures require no description – they just are.

Sen. Ted Kennedy remarked that these pictures threaten to replace the Statue of Liberty as the enduring symbol of America in the eyes of the world. I’m afraid that at least right now, he’s right. Certainly, Pete Howe, former director of photography for Life magazine, is correct in saying, “the iconic images coming out of this war may be the amateur photographs of Iraqi prisoners.”

And Keith W. Jenkins, photo editor of the Washington Post Magazine, further elaborated on the problem, saying that “with the technology now, the amateur photographer is as capable as a professional journalist and is operating with the same tools: Digital camera, laptop and an Internet connection… The embedded process was supposed to give government a better handle on what journalists were doing, but now you have this whole rogue operation of civilians with digital cameras who have access to things the media don’t.”

The tactic of embedding journalists was supposed to prevent the damaging photos of the messier aspects of war from reaching the public, but nobody apparently stopped to consider the proliferation of the soldiers’ personal digital cameras and ready access to CD-ROM burners and the Internet.

During the congressional hearings, Secretary Rumsfeld decried the release of these photos. He decried the terrible smear on America’s reputation caused by their release. He described how the pictures made him feel sick to his stomach. Unfortunately it appeared that he regrets the pictures more than the actual facts of the abuse. He reserved his most graphic words of disgust and shock for the pictures.

He expressed particular exasperation at how quickly the photographs proliferated, exclaiming, “We're functioning… in the Information Age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise."

He offered another warning: "There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it is going to make matters worse... I looked at them last night and they are hard to believe.”

I’m sorry he’s surprised. Welcome to the new world of shock and awe.

The best way to keep the pictures out of the newspapers and off of the television screens is to simply make sure the abuses don’t occur in the first place. It never ceases to amaze me when this extraordinarily simple course of logic escapes our leaders.

The Day We Made a Billion Enemies
Wednesday, May 5, 2004

I have no intention of turning this thing into a politically-motivated blog. I really wanted to write something amusing and light-hearted about Cinco de Mayo or something, but I read this copy of the Defense Department’s investigation of Iraqi prison torture that NPR has obtained and posted on its website. It requires Adobe Acrobat to read, but read it and be shocked. □■□■□ AFP The sense of betrayal is palpable. The sense of shame is burdensome. The sense of outrage is righteous. The last good argument for going into Iraq, the one remaining argument that could still be counted on to silence the critics – aren’t the Iraqis better off without Saddam? – is completely torn to shreds. Some will argue that these are the actions of a few rogue soldiers, but so far it doesn’t appear that way. Not with all of the finger-pointing taking place among the higher-ups. That kind of passing-the-blame doesn’t happen when the real story is that a bunch of low level rogues running amok. If that were all there was to it, they would just punish the guilty and move on. Higher-ups point fingers at each other in order to deflect criticism levied against them. At least that’s what the dishonorable ones do. Besides, arguing that this is some sort of an anomaly (really now, we’re not quite as bad as the evil dictator we replaced) is humiliating. Saying, “yeah, we’re bad, but not as bad as Saddam” isn’t the kind of expression that makes the heart well up with pride. To the contrary, it rings false. These photos say to the world that we are as bad as Saddam. For me, it is a moment of gut-wrenching, personal shame.
Reuters / New Yorker	There – I’ve said it. I am ashamed to be an American. I didn’t always feel this way. In fact, I didn’t feel this way at all until just last weekend. Whatever horrible news we heard from Iraq, there was one thing I knew was true: we were much better, much more civilized, much more magnanimous in spirit and animated by a sense of fair play and the rule of law than the brutal dictatorship we replaced. With all of the miserable failures we’ve encountered along the way, I always knew one thing: our commitment to justice and democratic values was the source of our strength and pride.

AP But I've been shown to be horribly wrong, and my stomach is shaking with rage. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, we asked ourselves over and over, “why do they hate us?” We saw the celebrations in the streets of Gaza City and could not understand what we could have done to deserve such vilification. But if we had any questions then about why they hated us so, we have removed all doubts now. Each and every Arab in the Middle East now hates us, and they have every right to do so. Who can blame them? We have given them an excellent reason to hate us. We have been outraged to see our own POW soldiers and captives on television, experiencing treatment that is mild compared to what we now see our own soldiers doing to Iraqis. Can you imagine the apoplectic fury Americans would have directed to anyone who would have treated our men and women the same way? Can you imagine the rage of the President and Congress if these were American men and women and not Iraqis? Can you imagine how much we would hate whoever did this to our men and women? Stop and think about it. It's important that you do. It's important to think about how you would react because that is how they are reacting right now.

AP Right now, these pictures are being shown to Yemeni teenagers, and more fighters are being recruited for the cause. Right now, these pictures are silencing Arab moderates who supported a friendly course with the west. Right now, these pictures are vindicating those who argue that America is the Great Satan. Right now, they have the truth on their side, and we can't deny it. They're not crazy or mislead or uneducated anymore. They are not a bunch of zealots burning with a hatred for Israel or love of Islam anymore. These things may still be true, but everything has now been leveled to the same values that we too understand and hold dear: We've committed shameful and outrageous atrocities against their husbands, wives, sons and daughters. Read the report. This isn't a case of the Liberal Media exaggerating a minor incident in order to embarrass our president. It came from one of our own generals.

◄ April 2004
► June 2004

Quagmire Accomplished
Saturday, May 1, 2004

It was exactly one year ago that our president stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of combat operations in Iraq. It has been a huge mess ever since then, and I don’t see a way out it.

Let me begin by saying that I thought we had no choice but to go into Iraq, but my line of reasoning was very different from everyone else. I’m not surprised by that – my line of reasoning often runs differently from everyone else, so why should this be different?
 

AP

I felt that George Bush was making the same mistake that Madeline Albright had made which made the war in Kosovo so inevitable. On the eve of negotiations with Slobodan Milosevic, she made a very public announcement that we would to go to war against him if he didn’t agree to our position regarding Kosovo. When I heard it, I knew immediately that the course for war was set. Milosevic had no choice but intransigence – any other move would have been political suicide for him in the world of Balkan politics. It didn’t matter whether he compromised because he suddenly became a reasonable human being or because he was afraid of the repercussions. Any compromise in the face of threats like that would have looked like capitulation, and that would have been the end of his career and possibly his life. For the negotiations to be successful, Milosevic needed to be able to walk away a winner, even if he gave up more than he got. We took away the possibility of a win-win situation by that very public threat before negotiations began. That made war inevitable.

President Bush did exactly the same thing with Saddam Hussein, but added a twist that made it even worse. He introduced demands that were impossible to satisfy. Remember, Bush said that if Saddam got rid of all of his Weapons of Mass Destruction, war could be averted. We insisted that Saddam comply with U.N resolutions and allow the weapons inspectors back in. It now appears in hindsight that Saddam did all of that.

But here is the conundrum: we went to war because we insisted that Saddam prove a negative, which is logically impossible. You can prove that someone has something, but you cannot prove that someone doesn’t have something. You can’t prove a negative. That’s why our system of justice provides for the presumption of innocence and imposes the burden of proving guilt, simply because it is very often impossible to prove innocence. You can prove someone did something; you typically can’t prove that someone didn’t.

President Bush painted Saddam into a corner from which he could not escape. But he painted us into a corner as well.

□■□■□

AP

Our only choice was war.  The only way to avert it would have been for Saddam to leave. As far as Saddam was concerned, this would be committing suicide. His resigning would have been tantamount to the same thing, and Saddam wasn’t about to do that.

His only choice was war. The only way to avert it would have been for us to back down, and our nation’s own security would have been irreparably harmed if we had done that. Our adversaries would have taken the same lesson as they did from Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia. Osama bin Laden concluded we were a paper tiger because we left Beirut and Mogadishu. More Osamas would have come after us than ever before if we backed down from Iraq. And George Bush wasn’t about to do that.

War was inevitable. George Bush had recklessly tied the Gordian knot. Iraq couldn’t prevent it. America couldn’t prevent it. France and Germany couldn’t prevent it. Neither side could back down.

It was for that reason – and only that reason – that I supported going to war. My feeling was that we were left with no choice, so let’s get on with it. But I was angry at George Bush for putting us into this position. I said at the time to everyone who would listen to me, that the war would be a cakewalk. We’ll march in, and the Iraqi army will crumble within days. I was very confident that combat would be very brief. But I was also convinced that the aftermath would be a disastrous nightmare.

□■□■□

The same administration that derided the Clinton administration for its penchant for “nation-building” offered no plan for building Iraq into a democracy. They went in with no discernable post-war plan for security or governance. They downplayed every difficulty since marching into Baghdad. And they continue to pretend that all is going well, according to plan, that there is nothing to be concerned about, and that things will work out in the end. And most unforgivably, they do all of this without an exit plan.

The elder George Bush insisted during the first Gulf War that there be a clear, definable exit strategy. The junior George Bush and his administration have not even begun to think of one. The result is the present quagmire, from which there is no way out. Not since Vietnam have we been in a situation that we simply cannot get out of.

We can’t cut and run. If we do, Iraq will become the new Afghanistan, a lawless entity in which terrorist groups will flourish. And by the way, because we’ve taken the eye off of the ball in Afghanistan, it is already descending into lawlessness. President Hamid Karzai may hold the title of President of Afghanistan, but he’s effectively just the President of Kabul.

We can’t bring democracy to Iraq. There has to be a home-grown experience with democracy before it can take root, and Iraqis have had no such experience whatsoever. Germany and Japan are often cited as examples of nations which successfully transitioned from dictatorship to democracy, but their experiences are not analogous to Iraq. Both German and Japan had parliamentary democracies that were replaced by dictatorships. While their democracies failed, the people nevertheless had a memory and experience in how to work within democratic institutions, and perhaps more importantly, were able to draw lessons from those failures to prevent it from happening again. Iraqis have no such lessons from history to draw upon.

We can’t even bring stability to Iraq. We weren’t greeted with smiling faces and open arms. The roads were not carpeted with rose petals. In the past year, ordinary Iraqis have long since become too disillusioned with the ongoing violence to entrust their individual security to the Americans. And as long as individual Iraqis can’t feel secure enough to work with Americans, the chasm that exists between them and the military will continue to widen.

□■□■□

I wish I had been blogging during the months leading up to war so I could have set my original predictions in writing. That way I could brag about how I saw all of this coming. But since I didn’t, I’m open to the skeptical admonition that talk is cheap. But on this one-year anniversary of President Bush’s declaring an end to combat operations, it is a good time to reflect on where we’ve been and where we’re headed. So in that vein, I have a few predictions that I’m ready to commit to:

• I predict that our ongoing problems in Iraq will prevent us from going after real threats anywhere else in the world.

• I predict that regardless of who’s president next year, our freedoms will continue to be threatened by foreign enemies and our own government alike.

• I predict that regardless of who’s president next year, we will continue to lose credibility as an impartial peace-maker in the Middle East.

• I predict that regardless of who’s president next year, we will still have troops in Iraq and the people of Iraq will hold us responsible for everything that happens for years to come.

• I predict that the longer we stay, the more reasons Iraqis will have to hate us.

• I predict that the time will come when we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq under conditions that will weaken our prestige. I fear, but won’t predict, that the men and women of our armed forces may wind up as scapegoats, much as the veterans of Vietnam were. I fear, but refuse to predict, that the brave soldiers who volunteer to protect us will end up sharing the blame for everything that goes wrong, and if so, this will be a terrible tragedy all over again. They deserve much better from us, and most especially from our leaders.

• I predict that when we withdraw, we will be seen as weak, and that our perceived weakness will make us targets for further violence and terrorism, and that our security will be seriously compromised.

• I predict that after we withdraw, everything that happens in the Middle East for many decades will be laid at our feet.

• I predict that we will now have a permanent enemy among the world’s Arab and Muslim populations, regardless of the inclination of their leaders.

I know that the world is now more dangerous in unpredictable ways. Colin Powell was right: “You break it, you bought it.” We bought it big time.  Quagmire accomplished.

Freewayblogger.com