The idea that the appalling abuses at Abu Ghraib can somehow be excused by the savagery of regimes elsewhere in the Middle East is, of course, nonsense, but these words from Lebanese journalist Rajeh Khuri (quoted in the Washington Post) need to be remembered too. Rightly, he condemns the betrayal of American ideals that Abu Ghraib has come to represent, but then he goes on, in a piece entitled “The Chorus of Tearful Crocodiles” to say that what matters is not the rote denunciations in the Arab press of those cruelties, but silence about something else.

"We are concerned with the detention centers and jails filling the tunnels of regimes in the Arab world and the shredding of the soul of Arab citizens and their honor without one official batting an eyelash… Hundreds have perished in silence and out of sight, without even a cold announcement, and thousands have gone into detention and have not returned. . . . Then there are the names of those who disappeared and dissolved like salt between the ocean and the Gulf."

Bush was right to apologize to the Iraqis for what was done, and, politically it may have been shrewd to couch that apology in wider terms to all Arab peoples, but we should be clear about one thing. The denunciations of America by the Arab press outside Iraq has no more moral (politically speaking, it is something else) significance than the sight of a weeping Goebbels. It’s nothing more than the howling of a coterie of hand-picked hypocrites, flaks for the fascists, theocratic or otherwise, who run their countries, journalistic attack dogs who, it seems, have learned to love their leashes.

The notion that Americans are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves is a key part of the bloated and overblown ‘war on obesity’. How then to explain yesterday’s announcement by Krispy Kreme that the company was cutting its earnings guidance by ten percent due to the increasing popularity of low-carb dieting?

If Americans can turn away from God’s doughnuts, there is no need to worry about this nation’s collective willpower.

In another example of the sophistication and generosity of Sharia ‘law’ , Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara State [Nigeria], has ordered the demolition of all churches in his state.

Meanwhile, an eighteenth century statue in a Spanish cathedral showing St James slicing the heads off Moorish invaders is to be removed to avoid causing “offense” to Muslims. Quite what pious Muslims would be doing within a Christian cathedral was not explained.

Blogger Mick Hartley has more.

I don’t know much about Republican Representative George Nethercutt, but this was not one of his finer moments. Contemplating the possibility (now abandoned) that Major League Baseball was going to allow advertisements for the new Spiderman movie to be plastered all over its bases, Nethercutt decided to get involved, writing a letter to Commissioner Bud Selig, citing, of course, the interests of ‘little leaguers.’ Bah!

America’s new national pastime is clearly politicians sticking their snouts where they not belong, but only of course, in the interests of ‘the children’.

Via, naturally, Radley Balko.

The New York Times is now taking up the idea that Abu Ghraib can, in some ways, be linked to abuses that seem to be tolerated, or even encouraged, within the American prison system. In time, of course, we may discover (I hope not) that Abu Ghraib was part of a deliberate policy, tacit or otherwise, but looking at the details (and the correctional service background of some of those against whom allegations have been made) it’s difficult not to suspect that there is some connection. A society that condones prison brutality will, in the end, be brutalized. It really is that simple.

Perhaps it’s too much to hope that this will actually happen, but if anything good is to come out of this miserable affair, it should include an overhaul of conditions in this nation’s prisons. You doubt that that’s necessary, well read the Times story and, say, the allegations of Roderick Johnson:

”In a case that began in 2000, a prisoner at the Allred Unit in Wichita Falls, Tex., said he was repeatedly raped by other inmates, even after he appealed to guards for help, and was allowed by prison staff to be treated like a slave, being bought and sold by various prison gangs in different parts of the prison. The inmate, Roderick Johnson, has filed suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.”

It seems like a good moment to repeat the question I put a few weeks ago on the Corner to that ambitious Mr. Spitzer, New York’s attorney general. In the context of the prosecution of a Wall Street trader facing thirty years in jail, Spitzer was quoted by the Financial Times as noting (it seemed, with some satisfaction) that “this is state time…State prison has a certain edge to it that is not always present in the federal system. These prisons are not country clubs.”

I asked then, and I’ll ask again, what do you mean by “edge” Mr. Spitzer?

Twitching, sweating and angry under the pressure of unaccustomed mockery, the freaks, fanatics and fools who fill the ranks of Iran’s hardline clergy are increasing their attempts to ban The Lizard , the new Iranian movie that satirizes their superstitions, stupidity and self-importance.

The Daily Telegraph is reporting comments from Ahmad Jannati, the head of Iran’s powerful Guardian Council, whining as he grumbles that, "the screening of such movies must be confronted because this makes fun of clerics. It should be banned."

In a way jihad Jannati has got it right. Humor can be a devastatingly effective weapon against the evils of theocracy. No wonder he’s worried. The world needs to see a lot more of such mockery, and not just in Iran. To start with, has, The Lizard, I wonder, been shown in Iraq. And if not, why not?

I'll be on Monday night to talk about my column. Here's how he opened last night's show:

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again everyone.

The worst is yet to come. That's what the secretary of defense indicated today before the Congress. There are more pictures, many more, and there are videos too and they depict scenes, according to Mr. Rumsfeld, worse than anything we've seen so far.

So should they be seen? Indeed, should the original photos have been seen at all? It will not surprise you to know that to me the answer is clearly yes but I put the question out there tonight after reading a piece today by Jonah Goldberg, who will join us on Monday.

In the piece, Mr. Goldberg, the conservative columnist, argues that CBS, which aired these pictures first and then the rest of us should have sat on them because of the damage they have done. He correctly notes we withhold pictures all the time, people jumping out of the World Trade Center, for example.

Again, he'll join us on Monday to argue his point fully. We'll argue ours in two sentences. You don't appreciate what happened in that prison until you see it. No one did and now the world will judge us not simply by the pictures but how we handled those who were participants in the degradation of people who had no power at all.

This image of a powerless secretary unable to summon up a cheap piece of plastic in the face of a "catastrophe," as Rumsfeld described the prison scandal, was a long way from the boldly assured Rumsfeld of a year ago. Back then, during the U.S. military's lightning drive on Baghdad, the civilian architect of two wars in two years described a computerized force in which data leapt from soldier to satellite to smart bomb, in which unimaginable firepower was just a few keystrokes away.

Rumsfeld was a sort of Achilles for the Information Age, and his bold assurance won him a place among People magazine's sexiest humans. President Bush nicknamed him "Rumstud."

Like Achilles, he had a vulnerable heel. Rumsfeld returned over and over again to the idea that the military has effectively handled the prison crisis as a criminal matter but failed to realize that those pictures were, themselves, high-tech dynamite. One-stripe soldiers could zip the disastrous images through the ether, but the Pentagon could not get them onto Rumsfeld's radar screen at even an 18th-century pace.

From a reader:

Jonah, Recognizing it's very difficult for conservatives to have an objective thought about the mainstream media, but please try to imagine the outcry if graphic pictures were shown of the mutilated "contractors" (can we stop calling them "contractors" since they don't do home repair and call them "hired guns" for that is what they are!) in Falluja. Mr. Goldberg, you know as well as anyone, if CBS showed the ghastly close-up photos and video of men hanging upside down burned beyond recognition, Rush, O'Leilly, Jonah and the rest of the cabal would have screamed about the insensitivity of the "liberal media." The simple fact is the prison abuse scandal is an important story that must be told in full. The American people need to know what is happening in Iraq in our name. Our national leadership volunteered this country for this war and we need to know where we stand so we can measure success or failure of this operation as we make a decision in November. Anyone who tries to withhold information or skew this story either doesn't trust the American people with the truth or has an agenda which includes protecting President Bush or both. Thank you for your time.

From a reader:

You are kidding, I hope. You blame the release of the photos for doing us damage? The damage was done by the perverts and sadists in Bush's war-profiteering venture. How can you be so dumb as to blame the messenger? The greatest curiousity of your attitude is that you couldn't see that your mother and her ilk should not have foisted destruction on America by going after a private sexual matter by Bill Clinton. And yet you condone this evil and want to keep it hidden. Jonah, you are a dope. And George W. Bush is a sociopath, a pathological liar, and a dangerous creature.

In an email titled "kudos" in response to my column today:

Damn right! And the photos of Auchwitz and Dachau should never have been shown. What did we learn from these? They just distracted us from the more important issues.

ME Now, I've received a lot of dumb email today making a similar "argument", but nothing crams the idiocy into such a tight space. First, we are not akin to Nazis and the moral equivalence is repugnant. Second, the Abu Ghraib abuses are not similar to death camps. Third, it wasn't in the interest of the Nazis to have the images of the camps revealed to the world. It was in the interests of their enemies -- which is part of my point. Fourth, I never said and do not believe that the photos should never have been released, simply that releasing them now does more harm than good. Sigh.

I benefited from his counsel over a span of nearly 20 years….But never more than from his example these past seven months, after doctors discovered that a cancer had wrapped itself around one of his veins.

Monsignor Herron came to speak of his illness as a "luxury" that enabled him to think and reflect, to grow in gratitude rather than resentment -- in short, to meet the challenge that Christ himself offered his first priests: "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of?"

KLo-

Whatever you might think of him, James Carville is loyal to his bride.

I was sipping and reading at the Books-a-Million in Baton Rouge a coupla weeks ago when Carville walked in, bought three or four copies of the Matalin book and a Joe Muggs cappuccino to go.

From a reader:

Jonah,

You agree with Ponnuru that if Sullivan is right, then the Virginia law is persecution (Ponnuru's term). And yet in that case, you only think the law is "ill-advised" and "they're free to do it". That's tolerance of the radical, anti-gay Right.

Remember, Sullivan's point is that he theorizes the mainstream Right is lying when they claim they only oppose same-sex marriage in the name of marriage and aren't anti gay. Even though the Virginia law may not be a fair test of Sullivan's thesis (Ponnuru's point), you sure gave credence to Sullivan's theory with your reaction.

How about a strong condemnation of the law under Sullivan's interpretation? How about confirming that federalism should be trumped by persecution?

Me: Not quite. Though I should have been more clear: If Andrew's reading of the law is correct, then I agree that the law is ill-advised and wrong. I don't necessarily think the law constitutes persecution in the way Andrew does. And even if it does qualify as some kind of "persecution" -- a fairly nebulous word -- it does not automatically follow that it trumps standards of federalism. For example, we all remember Clarence Thomas' "notorious" conclusion that a prison guard did not violate the constitution when he illegallybeat up a prisoner. Something can be an outrage and a crime and not be unconstitutional.

In my book, for the persecution to justify trumping federalism it would need to meet a standard which justifies federal action, which is a high bar for me. I think I'm being perfectly consistent here in that I opposed, for example, sodomy laws but I didn't find them to be necessarily unconstitutional.

From a reader (and for the record I don't consider myself a comedian, I just look really funny naked):

Jonah, I've been reading NRO for a year or so now. While I've always appreciated your politics, I have to admit I initially found you dreadfully unfunny. It took me 6 months or so to figure out you even fancied yourself a comedian. Well, I don't know how it happened, but I've caught myself laughing out loud a few times over the past months. You are definitely funny in my view now. Keep up the good work. I'm sure I'll wake up tonight from a dream in which this line figures prominently: "I'll run your piece when I want beeeyotch [Flex]."

From a reader:

Jonah,

Note the changed headline on the Independent's Moore story:

Last night: "Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt"

Today: "Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'"

Fair point from a reader, though I've always been comfortable with the fact that we're answerable to a higher standard:

You forgot one crucial difference though in your examples. We're the ones who invaded another country for the stated goal of improving their lives. When that is our rationale for occupying a country, it's not surprising that we'll be held to high standards.

Yes, yes, we all know that, according to the New York Times , Ronald Reagan is somehow responsible for most of what has gone wrong in the world over the last thousand years or so, but it was still surprising to find the following claim in the middle of Alessandra Stanley’s Thursday piece on the demise of Friends:

“"Friends" came along after the Reagan-Bush recession of the late 1980's and early 90's, a period that had fostered shows like "Married . . . With Children," "Roseanne" and "The Simpsons," caustic comedy centered around dysfunctional, financially strapped, families.”

Really? “The Reagan-Bush recession”? Sigh. Let’s take a look again at the record. Married... With Children was launched towards the end of the Reagan presidency, in 1987, a year when GDP was growing between 2-4 percent a year, the fifth consecutive year of GDP growth. Roseanne slouched onto our screens in 1988, another year of solid economic performance. In 1989, it was Homer Simpson's turn to show up and, yes, the rate at which GDP was growing fell that year from around 4% but it was still expanding - by slightly above 2% - in December. By the time the economy finally (and fairly briefly) entered into negative territory, the Gipper had been out of office for almost two years, and all the three shows supposedly fostered by this supposed Reagan-Bush recession were well-established.

The truth is much simpler. Married With Children, The Simpsons and Roseanne were shows designed to reflect the hardscrabble realities of the Everyman existence, a life that can be tough, recession or no recession.

Just ask Al Bundy.

From a reader:

For years the small town of Murray, Kentucky had been a dry county. The college students were not allowed to vote unless they purchased a city-sticker. A few years ago they were granted the vote. Now the county is wet and the students can graduate and leave without worring about the increased crime rate. I, personally, am not opposed to the county becoming wet. I just believe that those with a long-term stake in the county should make the decision and not those that will leave shortly. It had no chance of becoming wet without the college vote.

I agree with you about the chaos at the prison. However we should disclose that often after you aggressively edit one of my articles you take your shirt off and flex at me. "I'll run your piece when I want beeeyotch [Flex]."

Nick Confessore and his friend at Rolling Stone don't like it when small towns discourage college kids from voting locally. I haven't read the whole Rolling Stone piece, but I am at a complete loss as to why this is such an outrage. College kids, broadly speaking, do not live in the towns in which they go to college. They may go downtown to the record store, they may buy some buffalo wings and beers at the local bars, they may even make a few bucks at the local mall. But they don't -- as far as I know -- pay property taxes, they don't pay any taxes at all save perhaps sales taxes. They don't care about property values, the quality of the schools, the business climate, the traditions, values, standards, prospects etc of the small town they're in -- at least not in the way residents who devote their lives and their children's upbringing do.

So why should it be easy for college kids to vote in local elections? (Or why is it somehow outrageous to ask the question?) I know from my reporting in Burlington that the UVM kids are enlisted by the socialist (yes socialist) leadership of the town to pass all sorts of business un-friendly referenda and the like. If you're a working man in Burlington who lost the opportunity to work on a new highway or construction project because a bunch of Voter-Rocking college kids from out of town passed a no-growth resolution, wouldn't that annoy you?

It's very easy to demand that a town be eco-friendly and whatnot when you're an -- often spoiled -- tourist who has distant parents paying your bills and zero investment in the town's ongoing success. I don't think kids should be barred from voting locally necessarily. But creating standards for residency biased against the temporary visitors we call college students troubles me not in the least.

I blame CBS for the mess we're in.

I tried to get this out on CNN this morning and buttered it.

I think Rummy should walk up to the table, take the oath, offer his prepared apologies and explanations and then, at the end of his remarks, he should take out a long Japanese knife. He should then cut off his pinky. If this Yakuza style contrition doesn't work he should look to the ranking Democrat on the committee and continue removing fingers until he gets a Shogun-like nod that his offering is acceptable. He should then wrap-up up his hand, curtly bow, and then say "I am now pleased to take your questions."

Something else to consider is the suggestion (implicitly made here by Instapundit) that the abuse of Iraqis by US troops in Abu Ghraib could be a reflection of the way in which sexual humiliation and violence in American jails now seems to be accepted (and sometimes even celebrated). Of course, we do not yet know all the details of what went on. We know even less about the motivation of the individuals against whom these allegations are being made, but it is striking that a number came from prison guard jobs back home. Now, this could simply be explained by the fact that (a) corrections officers were a natural choice for the army to make when deciding who should work as guards at Abu Ghraib, and (b) that there can always be bad apples in any group. It's also important to stress that the vast majority of prison guards in the US are decent people doing a tough job under very trying circumstances. Nevertheless, it never does any harm to ask again whether jailhouse brutality ends up brutalizing the society that condones it.

The answer, I would think, is clear.

The men and women who engaged in this behavior abused and humiliated their captives, dishonored their country and deserve severe punishment. But if we want to prevent this type of conduct from ever occurring again, we not only need to punish those responsible but also look at all the possible factors that might give occasion to such abuses -- including the breakdown in discipline and unit cohesion that have gone hand in hand with gender integration in the military.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Remember when gay rights was supposedly all about "tolerance"? This is
more evidence that from the beginning, tolerance was only the means, with
unconditional acceptance always the end goal.

To tolerate something means that one agrees to put up with something that
he or she doesn't particularly care for (cigarette smoking, loud obnoxious
music, conservative opinion, etc.) And more often than not the mental
mechanism used is to simply "tune out" the thing being tolerated. All of
which is to say that the basic attitudes you expressed reflect those of
toleration by any standard definition that I know. And Andrew cries outrage.

The head of a U.S. military police unit at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison is under investigation following charges he secretly photographed naked female American soldiers, officials said on Wednesday. Capt. Leo Merck, 32, a member of the California National Guard who commanded the 124-strong 870th Military Police Company, is under U.S. Army investigation and has been relieved of duty, they said.

Just got a press release from Hillsdale. Here's the intro:

Hillsdale College to Confer Posthumous Honorary Degree On Former Wall Street Journal Editor Mr. Robert Bartley

Hillsdale, Mich., May 6, 2004—Former Wall Street Journal editorial page editor and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Robert Bartley is being presented with a posthumous honorary degree of Doctor of Journalism from Hillsdale College. Bartley’s widow, Edith, will accept the degree on behalf of her husband during the College’s 152nd Commencement exercises on May 8, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn will present the degree.

I've received a few emails along these lines:

Hi Jonah,

One of your correspondents wrote that "the Heritage Foundation database he [Cameron] is incensed about cites exactly four of his articles, all published in a reputable academic journal called Psychological Reports, which is found in countless university libraries."

Though the name sounds impressive enough, Psychological Reports is virtually worthless as an academic journal. It (like the other journals that Cameron has published in) ranks near the very bottom in terms of impact on the field. Meaning, no scientist reads the journal. Andrew Sullivan is quite right to complain about the HF linking to these articles. Cameron's "work" is nothing more than a fig leaf for people who want "reputable research" to cover their naked bias.

It was Diogenes who said he wasn't a citizen of any nation, but a citizen of the world. But it took a member of the Beastie Boys to translate the case for cosmopolitanism into a political indictment of George W. Bush:

"He's just a sick f***. I think we'd be hard-pressed to get someone worse than Bush. I think if you had to sum it up he's an incredibly selfish man and his administration in my opinion puts Americans ahead of people in other countries."

From a reader:

Thank you! Even though I'm not a big fan, I do watch the show, and the treatment of their child has been striking. And believe me, I in no way expect realism from a sitcom. But this is ridiculous. From what I've seen, there's no recognition they even HAVE a child--she's going off to Paris, boo-hoo, we'll miss you. Where's the kid? What's going to happen to it? (Him? Her? I don't even remember.) It's a subject worthy of further exploration, I'd say....at the risk of getting hooted at like Dan Quayle.

Okay here are few thoughts in no particular order:

First, I take it as a compliment when Andrew says I'm anong the "best of them" even if I don't agree with agenda in which the compliment was couched.

Second, Andrew's charges of conservative anti-gay hypocrisy, copping-out, disdain etc. are in this narrow context predicated on his assertion that A) the Virginia law is exactly what he says it is and B) That is is self-evidently so to everyone, including conservatives. I don't know that A or B are true. From that email I posed below it doesn't sound that way.

Indeed, Andrew's tactic of asserting as objective fact that something is outright bigotry and then shaming anyone who disagrees with him is a very frustrating one, most common to protagonists in racial arguments. So-and-so says support for racial quotas are required for non-racists, therefore anyone who opposes quotas is a racist. I'm still far from convinced that anyone who opposes gay marriage is ipso facto a bigot.

Third, I think Andrew does have a good point that conservatives who are more professionally and publicly invested than I am in gay issues are obliged to address events in Virginia, even if it is only to rebut Andrew's characterization of them. So, I guess I do think Maggie Gallagher and Stan Kurtz should respond in some way. But, as I said I don't speak for them and Andrew's attempt to make my personal "cop out" into NR's editorial policy doesn't wash with me.

Fourth, I will concede that being enmeshed in my book has made me more tunnel-visioned than I might otherwise be. And perhaps I would have spotted the Virginia thing sooner.

Fifth, I cannot even count how many times I have written in this space and others about how I favor federalism for gay marriage. Indeed, Andrew has written approvingly of my views on this score in the past. Well, part of the whole laboratories of democracy thing is for different states to experiment. Andrew wants to single out the treatment of gays as particularly and especially worthy of conservative attention at the national level. That's understandable. But from where I'm sitting there are any number of things going on in states relating to criminal law, racial spoils, gender nonsense, drugs, censorship, this, that and the other which I don't approve of but that I would not presume to ban either. Sometimes I comment on them, sometimes I do not. But I don't make a point to follow nearly any of these trends as closely as Sullivan follows gays. This might be a sign of too much indifference on my part to some readers, but it also my be a sign of Andrew's excessive focus on gays to others.

Last: If my comments are as profoundly revealing as Andrew says, I want a raise. Just kidding (wink wink).

However, I do think it is quite revealing when Andrew says that he sometimes wishes conservatives hated gays rather than not being bothered by them. It's revealing on two counts. First, I think it displays how radical Andrew is becoming on this issue, wanting everyone to be as radicalized as himself. It's also revealing because at a time when gays are making unprecedented progress in America and the world (and even the Virginia thing strikes me more as a halting of gay progress than a reversal of it), Andrew can see a conservative who's not particularly bothered by or about gays as more troubling than someone who sputters with hatred at them. This if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us approach doesn't strike me as very sensible (or conservative). Indeed, it doesn't even sound like the Andrew Sullivan who's done more to win hearts and minds on gay issues than anybody on the right.

I'll post his response in full:

This strikes me as a revealing comment by one of the most enlightened conservatives at National Review, Jonah Goldberg:

"Most conservatives who don't regularly write about "gay issues" refrain from doing so for a fairly simple reason: they don't care about them very much one way or the other. Speaking solely for myself, I don't track every event in the world of homosexually oriented public policy. The first time I hear about most of these sorts of things is from reading Andrew Sullivan's site. I think this is a sign of my generally libertarian attitude toward gay stuff. I don't think the silence of conservatives on such events as those in Virginia is a sign of our approval, my guess is it's a sign of our ignorance."

This is a cop-out on many levels. National Review regularly and rightly publishes many, many articles on the issue of marriage rights and gays. They have recently run several pieces about the issue in Norway, Holland and Scandinavia - even down to nuances such as variations within Norway. They are covering the national debate as they should. How many pieces have you read about Massachusetts in NRO? But a major state has done something just as radical as Massachusetts in reverse. And Republicans who have said they do not seek to harm gays do not comment when Virginia does such a thing. This cannot be an oversight. It is deliberate blindness to their own extremes. Jonah's second point is simply insulting. If one half of a gay couple cannot visit her spouse in hospital minutes away from where Jonah lives, he's not interested enough to worry about it. And I repeat: Jonah is the best of them. Conservative opinion on gays ranges from boredom to outright hostility and animus. There are times when I prefer the animus. Hating someone at least takes that person seriously. Not being able to be bothered while a minority is persecuted (and that's the only interpretation of the Virginia law) is the moment when inactivism becomes indistinguishable from moral abdication.

I'll have more to say about this in a few minutes.

Update sorry for the bad formatting of this before. I fixed.

Two views:

As a gay modcon, I have to reluctantly concur with your observations. OTH, ain't nobody perfect nowhere. You raise issues Andrew doesn't spend much time on, and vice versa. All I can add in his defense, though, is that things always look different to minorities than they do to majorities. It's just an unfortunate fact of life. From AS' (and my) point of view, hypocrisy on gay equal rights is screamingly awful, but to a straight person who is clueless on what it's like to be gay in America, it is equally possible to ask, "what's the big deal?" Ah, life--where's the manual?

Jonah,

Andrew Sullivan is "on a tear" about Paul Cameron, all right. Like you, I know nothing about Cameron in general, but I would note that the Heritage Foundation database he is incensed about cites exactly four of his articles, all published in a reputable academic journal called Psychological Reports, which is found in countless university libraries (including the fairly modest one at my university). Surely Heritage is not responsible for investigating everything about Cameron's life, non-academic writings, and opinions on public policy, just because it cites his peer-reviewed work in psychology.
As for Virginia, here is the full text of the law recently passed that has Sullivan so outraged:

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

This can be hardly be said (in Sullivan's words) to be a law that "voids civil unions of any kind, under any name." Only those that "purport" to "bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage" are "prohibited." The legislature clearly wanted to head off any effort to create civil unions that are gay marriage in all but name. And if they're against gay marriage, why not?

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

After reading both of the obituaries, I could not help thinking that the NY Times published an article about Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his first wife's death, while the Washington Post published an obituary that was truly about Mrs. Mandela, her life, and her point of view.

The Times becomes trashier day by day.

Michael - I agree, but I think it's even worse than that. It was a lie that it was a lie in the first place. Joe Wilson now admits in his book that Iraq did in fact inquire about uranium in Africa, or at least that's what Wilson's own source thought at the time. So all of the Wilson-inspired hoopla (or horse shinola) that it was all a lie was in fact not true. Bonus fun: The Iraqi agent who allegedly sought yellowcake was none other than Baghdad Bob himself. You can read all about this in the Washington Post.

None of this justifies deliberately outing Wilson's wife -- if that's what happened -- but if Wilson was as dishonest (or incompetent) as he now seems to have been when he was grandstanding on this specific allegation, it's not surprising that folks at the White House hated his guts.

Fred Barnes notes that it is theoretically possible for the Democrats to regain the Senate even while Bush wins re-election--if Daschle also wins re-election, Democrats lose only two races among the five in Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida, and Louisiana, and the Democrats pick up all four of the vulnerable Republican seats in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma. Everything Barnes says is true, but he doesn't say whether he thinks that a Democratic takeover of the Senate is more likely than an increased Republican majority. I think just looking through the conditions listed above suggests that Republicans are still likely to pick up seats.

I would also add that even if the Democrats net two seats, in their dream scenario, conservatives will have the same number of solid votes--the two gains in the South will neutralize the losses in Illinois and Oklahoma. (Indeed, people who are tougher on Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois than I am may consider that a pick-up.)

Andrew Sullivan is on a tear about the Right and gays again. He makes some legitimate points. For example, I don't know anything about Paul Cameron except what his critics say about him but if Andrew's right about him, conservatives shouldn't have anything to do with Cameron.

But this sort of raises my problem with Andrew's approach in this post:

The other insistence by those opposed to equal marriage rights is that they are not averse to private contracts that might amount to some sort of civil unions. "See?" - they say. "We don't hate gays. We just love marriage!" Yet in Virginia, a law was just passed that explicitly denies the validity of any such contracts, voids civil unions of any kind, under any name, and may eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court for the radicalism of its attempt to prevent even private legal arrangements to protect such things as hospital visitation. This was a Republican-sponsored measure, and exposes the lie that the Republican party is tolerant of gays but draws the line at marriage. Have you heard Stanley Kurtz or Maggie Gallagher oppose this law? Have you heard a single conservative commentator worry about it? Recall that Kurtz is aware of five same-sex marriages in a remote region of Norway but is apparently unaware of what has just happened in Virginia.

Stan and Maggie can answer for themselves. But as a conservative who came out (pardon the phrase) in favor of civil unions a long time ago, I think Andrew's missing a basic point. Most conservatives who don't regularly write about "gay issues" refrain from doing so for a fairly simple reason: they don't care about them very much one way or the other. Speaking solely for myself, I don't track every event in the world of homosexually oriented public policy. The first time I hear about most of these sorts of things is from reading Andrew Sullivan's site. I think this is a sign of my generally libertarian attitude toward gay stuff. I don't think the silence of conservatives on such events as those in Virginia is a sign of our approval, my guess is it's a sign of our ignorance. Besides, every day I have to pick and choose what I am going to get outraged about enough to denounce. I have a full plate.

But it seems to me that to require regular denunciations on all issues gay advocates consider outrageous is unfair and counter-productive. Unfair because it in effect is demanding that everyone be as passionate about gays as gays are and counter-productive because mau-mauing conservatives into making choices may not move them into making the choices gays would like.

As for the substance, all I know is what Andrew says about it but I think Virginia's move sounds wrong. I think it's crazy to deny adults the ability to choose who can visit them in the hospital or the ability to share property. However, as a supporter of federalism, which Andrew claims to be as well, I don't know exactly what he wants conservatives at the national level to say about Virginia's democratically decided decisions. If it's okay for Massachusetts to be 100% in favor of gay unions up to and including marriage, and if Barney Frank is right that it's nobody's business but Massachussets' what Massachussets does, why is what Virginia does so different?