General: August 2003 Archives

Do you feel safer now than you did two years ago? John Ashcroft thinks you should, and he's spending your tax dollars on a month-long publicity tour for the U.S.A. Patriot Act trying to convince you. He even has a web site: Preserving Life & Liberty.

I understand that we live in a dangerous world and that some restrictions on our personal liberty may be necessary to ensure our safety. Unlike a lot of people, I don't resent the additional security at airports. I'm pleased to see it. But there's something about Ashcroft that scares me. He seems never to have heard of a surveillance technique that he didn't want to use, and seems not to notice that there's a problem when the President can declare a U.S. citizen to be an "enemy combatant", depriving that person of all normal rights of a criminal defendant. Granted, the "enemy combatant" ploy isn't part of the Patriot Act, but how much confidence can you expect me to put in an Attorney General who defends it? How can you expect me to believe him when he tells me the Patriot Act needs to give him more intrusive power?

I'm sorry. I don't trust John Ashcroft any further than I can spit, and I can barely miss my toes.

This is frightening. John Dean (yes, that John Dean) reports:

On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.")

Time magazine published the story on July 17, and Newsday published it on July 22. Novak says that "two senior Administration officials" sought him out; Time attributes "government officials"; and Newsday notes that a "senior intelligence official" said that Wilson worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer" (quotes are from the Dean article).

Why is the Bush administration naming clandestine CIA operatives to journalists? Dean argues that

The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush Administration's bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.

I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but I find it hard to believe that any administration would reveal the identity of CIA operatives for such crass political reasons. Having said that, what possible reason could there be? Given the enormous threat such leaks could pose to our ability to gather foreign intelligence, it seems to me that the House and Senate Intelligence committees ought to be asking that question. Why aren't they?

Source: 365gay.com - (Los Angeles, California) The Roman Catholic Church says the confirmation of the first gay bishop of the Episcopal church could jeopardize relations between the two faiths.

I say good riddance. Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting to the point where they want to tell the Catholic Church to go to hell? I'm not saying this about many Catholics who do their best to find their way in life and in this church, but the Catholic Church has in recent years become nothing but a church led by small-minded bigots dressed in robes who are interested in protecting their enterprise (if you really think this has nothing to do with money, I have a bridge to sell you!).

It's a sad reflection on the Catholic Church too. They could be using their money to reach out to people in need of help. Instead, the choose to use rhetoric that divides and instills hostility in people.

I can't help but think that they are using gay marriage and the installation of the first gay Episcopalian bishop to draw attention away from their own house with all the accusations of sexual abuses of priests. The issue of gay marriage has provided them with a nice distraction from that controversy. Jesus would not be impressed.

Anyone who's seen more than 5 minutes of a Fox News broadcast knows they call themselves "fair and balanced." You can decide for yourself whether the description is accurate, but before you decide to describe anything you produce as fair and balanced, you had better check with your lawyer. Fox registered the phrase "Fair & balanced" as a trademark in 1995. So Fox News isn't just fair and balanced it's Fair & Balanced™.

Why do I mention this? Well, Al Franken has written a book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right that will be published in late September. It seems that the folks at Fox were not amused by the title. They filed a trademark infringement lawsuit on Monday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan to stop his publisher from including the offending phrase in the title of his book.

According to the Associated Press:

The lawsuit also says that Franken has been described as "increasingly unfunny.''

I have news for the good folks at Fox. There's someone decidedly "unfunny" here, and it isn't Al Franken.

This is to all the heterosexual (legally) married couples out there who thought that your marriage was about your love and commitment to each other.

Rick Santorum: Why? Because -- principally because of children. I mean, it's -- it is the reason for marriage. It's not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that's not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, "married." Marriage is not about affirming somebody's love for somebody else. It's about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.

As Andrew Sullivan said in his blog:

Today's Republicans are out to get you too. Santorum then says the following: "I'm not that familiar with civil union laws." Huh? When Brit Hume presses him on whether he would support any benefits for gay couples, he demurs. This is a U.S. senator who has put himself into the forefront of the gay debate who doesn't even know what civil unions are. You know what? I believe him. He hasn't thought for a second about the good of homosexual citizens. And why should he? And in this he's not alone. I still don't know, for example, whether National Review would officially approve of any benefits for gay couples at all. I don't know what Stanley Kurtz would support short of marriage. Or Maggie Gallagher. Or David Frum. Or president Bush. What does he favor for gay couples if not marriage? This is odd. Wouldn't these people be far more persuasive if they offered an alternative to marriage? It would certainly make them seem far less homophobic. They could take the position that they'd be happy to have civil unions but draw the line at marriage - and they'd get a lot of support. So why don't they? Could it be that their real agenda is not simply keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual but keeping gays as marginalized and stigmatized as possible?

The background of this case (For full story: The Mercury News):

A Marine reservist facing a court-martial says he's being prosecuted for criticizing the military at anti-war rallies and for publicizing his application for conscientious objector status at a news conference.

The Marines argue they pursued charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen Funk because he skipped out on 47 days of training in defiance of orders by his commander.

A pretrial hearing is scheduled Monday, when Funk's San Francisco attorney, Stephen Collier, intends to ask a military judge to dismiss the charge of "shirking important duty'' on the basis that Funk has been selectively targeted.

"Funk was the only one who didn't show up when his unit was being mobilized for the war, and he's the only one being prosecuted,'' Marine spokesman Capt. Jeff Poole says. "They told him, 'You'll be in trouble if you don't show up.'''

Funk, 21, who says he joined the Marines because he wanted the discipline but acknowledges now that it was a mistake, also recently made public that he is gay. He thinks he has been treated unfairly because of his sexual orientation, but says that was not an issue in his application for conscientious objector status. (click below to see the rest of the excerpt from this story, or on the link above to read entire story).

As much as I hate to admit this, I have to side with the military on this one. When you join the military, you give up certain rights. Actually, you give up a lot of rights that we take for granted. One of them is changing your mind after you commit to serve. You can change your mind, but there will be consequences. I think the thing that bothers me most about this case is that you have two entirely different issues. Whether Mr. Funk meant to or not, he combined the two just be bringing them up. Mr. Funk is telling the military that he went AWOL because somewhere between the time he signed up to the time he was suppose to report for duty, he became a conscientious objector. Oh, and by the way, he's gay and just happened to mention that in the report.

It's as if he's trying to get out for being a conscientious objector and if that's not good enough, he'll state that he's gay and "don't ask, don't tell" will do the rest for him. To be fair, I'm not going to assume that was what he was trying to do, but anyone reading this will read that into it. I'm sure the military has, and I'm sure the public will. It looks bad and does a discredit to the service men and women who are trying to serve under the stupid and idiotic "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Mr. Funk should have shown up for duty, and stated that he was a conscientious objector. He may have been shipped out until his conscientious objector status was handled. He should have kept his sexual orientation to himself and not made that a separate issue. If his sexual orientation was part of what made him file for conscientious objector status, it wasn't important to state that in his appeal to be a conscientious objector.

Yesterday I mentioned a new book by James Dobbins, America's Role in Nation Building, that describes how hard it is to build nations. Daniel Drezner points out that the book was published by Rand, and you can order a copy from them for $35, or read chapters on-line. (The page claims that you need Acrobat v5.0 to read them, but I skimmed a couple with Acrobat v4.0 and didn't have any trouble.)

The press release for the book includes the following comments from Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, Interim Administrator for Iraq:

Jim Dobbins and his team have produced a marvelous 'how to' manual for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. I have kept a copy handy for ready consultation since my arrival in Baghdad and recommend it to anyone who wishes to understand or engage in such activities.

I wonder if Ambassador Bremer has suggested that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice read the book. Hey! What about our President? The President is on vacation in Crawford. Last year he was reading a book about how generals were too wimpy (Eliot Cohen's, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime). How about something a little different this year?

I honestly never thought that Rev. Gene Robinson would make it into bishophood.. is that a word? And now that he has, I'm puzzled as to what all the confusion is. I understand that many didn't want this to happen, but we are beyond that now. From listening to the news, you would think that Christ had returned or the world was ending. He's a gay man who became a bishop - get over it already! I do have to say this about the Episcopalians however, they do have great insence! Also, New Hampshire is a little state (and a long way from England). It's hard for me to believe that this isn't much ado about nothing.

This points to a key issue that I have with many religions. I don't believe in punishing people for issues they have no control over. People are born with their sexual orientation, it isn't learned or developed because the father figure in your life was a wuss or because you had a domonearing mother. Just like it's true that you don't have hairy palms from well... you know.

There are a lot of untruths about homosexual persons in the world. Some time ago I came to the conclusion that it was time for the church (about 90% of them) to pull their heads out of their asses and actually try to understand that telling a gay person they are going to hell for something they had no control over is not constructive and chances are, with all the discrimination and hatred in the world towards homosexuals, they are probably going through their own hell on earth.

Life for gays is getting better, but only in the last year or so. The last year has focused more attention to the issues we have to put up with every day, that it's somewhat like entering an age of enlightenment for many of us. Still, in many parts of the world, to be charged with being a homosexual can bring the death sentence or imprisonment. Of course, you never hear the church going against anything like the beheading of homosexuals in other countries. The reason: they are too busy dealing with an openly gay homosexual who made it to the rank of bishop. HOW DARE HE!

Fred Kaplan recalls that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the following statement in testimony to Congress last February:

It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.

It isn't hard to conceive of at all. It was one of the main reasons I had grave reservations about getting into Iraq.. The Bush administration was telling us that the war would be easy and that we'd be out soon afterward. Even I remember that we're still in Kosovo. and Afghanistan. You would think that someone as brilliant as Wolfowitz supposedly is would remember that too.

James Dobbins does.

He was Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan after the Taliban were defeated. According to Kaplan, Dobbins new book. America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, "concludes ... that nearly everything this administration has said and done about postwar Iraq is wrong."

Newsday.com - On the verge of a historic vote, a convention of Episcopalian leaders was thrown into disarray Monday when opponents raised allegations involving pornography and inappropriate touching against the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, who is awaiting confirmation as the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Church officials said that even though the allegations came at the last minute and might be part of a smear campaign, they would be investigated, forcing the church's senior bishops to indefinitely postpone Robinson's confirmation vote.

There was a reason I left the Episcopal Church years ago. When we lived in San Francisco, we belonged to this nice little church called St. Gregory's. There were probably around 30 people or less at any given church service. For the most part, we did our thing and the church hierarchy left us alone.

Then, Kent and I were asked if we'd like to be part of a "study" that the church was starting on developing a service for "same sex unions". This was back in the mid-80's. We went to many meetings and came up with recommendations that the higher church officials (our Bishop) was waiting for (supposedly). Once it left our hands, we never heard about it again. When our church priests inquired, they were politely asked to not talk about it. It was all a formality to try to please some in the church that wanted a religious blessing for gay couples. We got our hopes up because at the time, we were both very much a part of the church and felt that it would enhance our spiritual life together. The experience was an eye opener for me. It's amazing that anything can get done in churches at all. Take all the politics of a business, multiply it by about 1000 times, and you have church politics.

Some people in the Episcopal Church will do anything they can do to keep Gene Robinson from becoming a bishop. His sexual orientation will overshadow anything else he has done or his qualifications. I knew that from the start. I didn't foresee a smear campaign, which is exactly what I believe this to be. If you were the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of this man, why on earth would you wait until just before the vote to express yourself. These allegations are in my view a last ditch effort to keep this confirmation from happening. Unfortunately, all of this will end up causing continued controversy around Gene Robinson, not matter what happens. Some people are so fearful of some things such as the sexual orientation of an individual, that you have to wonder how they get through their days when something really important happens. In the end, my prediction is that Rev. Gene Robinson will not be confirmed.
Church leaders delay gay bishop vote (itv.com)
Last-minute accusations investigated
Allegations delay vote on gay bishop (Boston Globe)

Also in the news....

Newsday.com - UNITED NATIONS: Gay activists demanded homosexual rights be included in international human rights treaties and asked the United Nations to provide equal benefits to same-sex couples.

Speakers at a panel discussion Monday evening organized by the U.N. alliance of gay, lesbian or bisexual employees said homosexuals have made great progress in winning equal rights and fair treatment but warned that discrimination is still widespread.

In April, the U.N. Human Rights Commission faced problems in discussions over its first-ever attempt to tackle the issue - a proposed resolution expressing "deep concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights in the world against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation."

The proposal by Brazil was backed by European countries. But the debate was postponed for a year after Muslim members of the commission said they were against any resolution containing the words "sexual orientation."

Amnesty International has said millions of people across the globe face imprisonment, torture, violence and discrimination because of their sexual orientation. It pointed in particular to Egypt's sentencing of 21 men to three years in prison last month on charges of practicing debauchery.

An article in the Washington Post (State Dept. Changes Seen if Bush Reelected) starts with this interesting phrase:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, have signaled to the White House that they intend to step down even if President Bush is reelected...

The article goes on to say that

Powell has indicated to associates that a commitment made to his wife, rather than any dismay at the administration's foreign policy, is a key factor in his desire to limit his tenure to one presidential term.

Yeah, right. And if you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

I'm no expert in foreign policy, but it seems to me that (a) Powell has tried mightily to steer the Bush administration in a direction less likely to alienate our allies, (b) been hoodwinked by bad intelligence before his appearance at the Security Council in February, and (c) generally been unable to win the bureaucratic battles within the administration against Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney. My bet is that he's frustrated as hell and has just decided to give up.