Glenn Reynolds is satisfied that the Planet Out piece on anti-gay slurs at an NRA panel was correct, and he has condemned such behavior. He makes the common-sense observation that I knew was in there:

As far as I'm concerned, no organization ought to have speakers making nasty anti-gay remarks at its annual meeting, and the NRA needs to get the word out to its speakers. Those who want to make such remarks should be invited to go elsewhere, and those who honestly don't realize that certain remarks are offensive need to learn a bit more. Boyer says that he thinks the NRA is responding to this pretty well, and is trying to address this sort of thing in the future. They'd better, because the NRA has a big enough image problem as it is, and a lot of gun-rights supporters are libertarian types who have no sympathy for anti-gay slurs -- or simply people with good manners who have no sympathy for slurs of that sort anyway.

I'm perfectly satisfied with that.

Two additional points: Arguments about media bias against gun owners are interesting, but they're even weaker than usual here as a defense. (Not that that's what Reynolds or David Rostcheck are doing, exactly; I'm just talking here.) I know that the panelists thought that the media was biased against gun enthusiasts, because that's what the dang panel was about. If you think that the media is biased against you, it's beyond idiotic to tack a huge red "kick me" sign to yourself.

Every special interest group is pissed off about the coverage that they recieve. Kathy Kinsley, in my comments, notes that "It's just that the nutcases get the publicity. On either side." I agree 100%. This does a huge discredit to public debate. But that's the world we live in, folks. I'm thinking of the Million Man March. The organizers kept asking attendees to scrupulously obey the law, be polite, and pick up their trash. On the day, they did their best to keep the nutcases off the stage (with the obvious exception of Farrakhan). Right or wrong, they felt that the press had two stories they wanted to tell: "Anti-Semitism at the Million Man March" and "Violence at the Million Man March." The organizers did their best to avoid giving them the opportunity, and the press had to actually cover the event.

You can read people who understand this in the Firing Line discussion board that Reynolds references. Here's someone I could sit down and have a beer with:

I wouldn't call that an anti-NRA hit piece. I wouldn't call it proof of pervasive anti-gay bias in the NRA, either. But let's be honest with ourselves here. The NRA leadership screwed up by having someone who at best can't keep their foot out of their mouth and at worst has an anti-gay bias and doesn't have the sense to keep it to themselves. Remember, the NRA is a political organization that exists to produce concrete, narrowly-defined political results; it isn't a right-wing comedy club.

You'd think that after decades of being stereotyped as a bunch of paranoid future spree killers, redneck Bambi-blasters and neo-Nazis they'd have the sense to not attack Rosie in such inept fashon. I could spend hours blasting Rosie's politics with rhetorical nuclear weapons without going to the low ground for cheap laughs.

Seond point: Glenn surely just meant this as a joke. But I've done a little reading, and it turns out that comparing gun control activists to Nazis is not actually an apt comparison at all. As it turns out, gun control activists want to limit the availability of certain weapons and/or ammunition. The Nazis were a political party who tried to conquer Europe and murder every Jew, gyspy, homosexual, Communist, and Slav in the pursuit of a racist fantasy about the superiority of the Aryan race. The Onion regrets the error.

This is pretty funny:

CAMP DELTA - Reclining comfortably on the foam mattress in his new prison in Cuba, Al Qaeda prisoner Abu Mustafaoui couldn't help shaking his head in disbelief as he spoke to members of the press for the first time.

"I heard some talking head on CNN, I think it was the sexy blonde one, say that 'if the United States loses the protection of its Constitution, then the terrorists will have already won,'" said Mustafaoui. "With all due respect to the infidel Paula Zahn, we don't consider that a 'win.'"

Glenn Reynolds made this observation about whether Israel's critics were anti-Semitic:

Sure, you can criticize Israel without being antisemitic. But when you criticize Israel for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.

With that in mind, I'm uncomfortable with the angle that Reynolds is continuing to take regarding the story about anti-gay rhetoric at the NRA convention. He hasn't criticized it, because he's simply refused to believe it. He hasn't called anyone a liar, exactly, but I find his unswerving faith in the goodness and tolerance of NRA members, and his corresponding distrust in the trustworthiness of a reporter for a gay publication, weird.

It seems to me that you've got to have some kind of grounds before you accuse a reporter of bad faith. It's not enough to rely on your own impression of the target of the story. To date, one panelist has come forward and said, yes, I called Rosie a freak (but it wasn't a gay thing.) No panelists have come forward to deny the week-old story. Grover Norquist, who isn't a wimp, and doesn't exactly lack for media contacts, has not cried "slander". If I'm missing some other reason to doubt the story, let me know.

I'm not accusing Reynolds of being anti-gay, because he's not. But he doesn't apply this level of reflex skepticism to other reporters (or bloggers). Maybe the NRA members he knows are wonderful people, but it isn't just us loony liberals imagining the link between homophobia and the hard right. To wit. It took me less than a minute to find a thread like this in the "humor" section. Is it so hard to imagine that the NRA has a contingent of Freeper types who make the sacrifices necessary to attend their conventions?

And would it kill Reynolds to say that gun control advocates shouldn't be compared to terrorists or Nazis, and anti-gay rhetoric has no place in a discussion of media roles of gun owners? If it happened?

I've just started a feature for my team at work that I thought I'd share.

Disease of the Week:

ICD-9 Code 310.7: Moral Imbecility

Moral imbecility is a rarely used psychiatric diagnosis, created in 1835, for the set of symptoms that would most likely be diagnosed as “sociopathy” or “antisocial personality disorders” nowadays. The essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:

Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder fail to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviour. They may repeatedly perform acts that are grounds for arrest (whether they are arrested or not), such as destroying property, harassing others, stealing, or pursuing illegal occupations. Persons with this disorder disregard the wishes, rights, or feelings of others. They are frequently deceitful and manipulative in order to gain personal profit or pleasure,(e.g., to obtain money, sex, or power). They may repeatedly lie, use an alias, con others, or malinger. A pattern of impulsivity may be manifested by a failure to plan ahead. Decisions are made on the spur of the moment, without forethought, and without consideration for the consequences to self or others; this may lead to sudden changes of jobs, residences, or relationships. Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder tend to be irritable and aggressive and may repeatedly get into physical fights or commit acts of physical assault (including spouse beating or child beating). Aggressive acts that are required to defend oneself or someone else are not considered to be evidence for this item. These individuals also display a reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others. This may be evidenced in their driving behaviour (recurrent speeding, driving while intoxicated, multiple accidents). They may engage in sexual behaviour or substance use that has a high risk for harmful consequences. They may neglect or fail to care for a child in a way that puts the child in danger.

Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder also tend to be consistently and extremely irresponsible. Irresponsible work behaviour may be indicated by significant periods of unemployment despite available job opportunities, or by abandonment of several jobs without a realistic plan for getting another job. There may also be a pattern of repeated absences from work that are not explained by illness either in themselves or in their family. Financial irresponsibility is indicated by acts such as defaulting on debts, failing to provide child support, or failing to support other dependents on a regular basis. Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder show little remorse for the consequences of their acts. They may be indifferent to, or provide a superficial rationalization for, having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from someone (e.g., "life's unfair,' 'losers deserve to lose," or "he had it coming anyway"). These individuals may blame the victims for being foolish, helpless, or deserving their fate; they may minimize the harmful consequences of their actions; or they may simply indicate complete indifference. They generally fail to compensate or make amends for their behaviour. They may believe that everyone is out to "help number one" and that one should stop at nothing to avoid being pushed around.

Moral imbeciles/ sociopaths/ antisocial personality disordered people can be very high-functioning individuals, marked with a consistent lack of understanding or interest in the impact that their actions have on others. Politicians, in particular, are often accused of being sociopaths. I’ll leave you to fill in the blanks here.

Disease of the Week is a new feature that will continue every Friday if someone reminds me. Disease of the Week is brought to you by the number 7 and the letter Q

In praise of conservatives:

1. I haven't said this before, but hats off to Andrew Sullivan for taking a risk and getting back on the stage for "Much Ado About Nothing". It's a beautiful thing, and a nice reminder to me about the rewards of getting off of my treadmill and having an adventure.

2. I think I'm developing a platonic crush on Eve Tushnet. Besides being a witty, entertaining writer, she's a paragon of intellectual honesty who truly lives her faith. There are other bloggers who consistently challenge their own prejudices, write arguments instead of catchphrases, and show what it means to combine compassion with conservatism. But none of them blogwatch me (I don't think).

3. Lileks has got the goods here:

But who is in charge of those refugee camps, exactly? Why, Israel, right? They occupy them! Really? Let’s look at Jenin, which as we all know the Israelis decided for no particular reason to bulldoze to the ground, killing millions. (Or, as the Palestinians insist, 53.) It’s administered and funded by the UN Relief and Works Agency... UNRWA runs the schools, runs the food warehouses (which, as the Weekly Standard points out in the last issue, were used as munition dumps as well) administers health care, and acts as an administrative quasi-governmental organization completely separate to, and indeed hostile towards, Israel.

Who pays for UNRWA?

Their annual budget is about $335 million. A year ago they came up short, and needed more money. $47 million was raised by UN members. A breakdown of contributions included some interesting details: Sweden and Norway combined kicked in $27 million. The sole Arab state, Bahrain, gave $30,000.

Surely that cannot be! Surely the Arab states lavishly fund efforts to raise the wretched standards in the refugee camps. Well, let us go the annual prostration of the UNRWA head before the League of Arab States. He begins:

"The political and financial support that UNRWA has received from the Arab countries during its nearly 51 years of operation is a testimony of the Arab world's commitment and support to Palestine refugees. "

Later in his speech, a telling detail:

"Ever since 1987, this esteemed Council’s resolution no. 4645 has called on Arab countries to increase their contributions to the Agency’s annual budget to their 1981 level of 7.8% of UNRWA’s annual budget. In 2000, total Arab contributions to UNRWA’s budget were 1.9% only. Having the privilege and honour to be here on behalf the 3.8 million refugees we serve and the 22,000 employees we employ, I sincerely hope that your esteemed Council will find a way to implement its 14 year old resolution which will bring us much closer to making ends meet this year and for as long as our services are required."

The Arab states are expected to contribute a pathetic 7.8% to fund the very refugee problem they created, and they can’t even contribute 2 percent.

Let us count the number of bombs set off in Saudi Arabia to protest the wretched conditions provided by Arab underfunding.

4. Martin Roth has a worthy Australian Christian blog; check him out.

Instapundit's first strikes about the NRA convention stories are way beneath him. His arguments are that:

(a) gun control advocates are like Nazis, not like Islamic terrorists.

If you've got to call your opponents Nazis, you're losing the discussion. This tactic would get you laughed off of Usenet, and it's just plain out of character for someone as smart as Reynolds.

(b) He isn't bothered when every member but one on a panel about media images of gun-rights proponents insults gays; the quotes are vague and suspicious.

Let me say again: gays don't have a blessed thing to do with gun images in the media. So why did they keep coming up? Imagine that there was a panel, in France, about images of France in the American media. Imagine that the French panelists:

- called a prominent Jewish critic of France a "freak"
- said the media skips over pro-French stories because of its pet causes, including reporting on Jewish issues
- said Jewish issues are "not important to Americans"
- said that Jewish issues are pushing out more important lessons in the public schools
- said the media don't cover the French because they don't have French holidays in America like Yom Kippur or Hanukkah
- said that people who didn't like the French wanted you to be Jewish

That's a lot of comments about Jews in two hours.

Let's say the French moderator and the French audience reacted to these comments about Jews with laughter and applause. You could probably overlook one of these comments, or two, or three. But at some point, wouldn't you say, "They really don't like the Jews, do they?"

Portal of Evil says this is a hoax, and they're probably right. But life would certainly be more interesting if it wasn't. It's supposedly a service for single rich guys who have noticed woman of their dreams, Nora Ephron-style. They will surreptitiously find out all about her interests, her past, her likes and dislikes. Then,

We'll design a coincidence. We can arrange for the two of you to first meet at a convention, and then -- a few weeks later -- end up, coincidentally, seated next to each other on a trans-Atlantic flight. Or find yourselves, coincidentally, trapped in an elevator together.

You, armed with information about her, charm the socks off of her and get married. Or something like that.

UPDATE: Ginger Stampley emailed me to let me know that this is definitely a hoax. Apparently, the web designer's other sites include:

http://www.sensationzone.com/ (Wanna go have sex with strangers?)
http://www.d-b.net/dti/ (Clones 'R Us)
http://www.bluepacificbank.com/ (Filipino gambling bank??)
http://www.japanesedrunk.com/ (Let this drunk do your marketing!)

Den Beste has an interesting post about the development of an "ultimate stink bomb". In principle, this sounds like a cool non-violent way to clear an area or building. But if you're expecting a stink bomb, how hard is it to deaden the sense of smell? I mean, Lysol does it. Formaldehyde does it. I'm guessing that this weapon would be useless by the time it was actually deployed, except for crowd control after championship games.

Joan Rivers can go fuck herself.

Instapundit has got a great point here about televising the Moussaoui trial:

It won't be "ugly," it'll be beautiful. By doing that, he'll be playing into our hands. We should be encouraging him to rave, and we should put it on TV. His "terrorist buddies" can't be persuaded, only killed. But everyone else will realize what we're dealing with -- which will build support for harsher measures against terrorists and the nations (*cough* Saudi-controlled Arabia! *cough*) that fund them and provide them with ideological, logistical, and diplomatic support.

What he said. It would certainly be the most entertaining show in years.

I usually don't read or link to Ann Coulter; she doesn't represent anyone but herself. But in this column it's kind of fun to watch her struggle about who she hates most. I think, after careful reading, that she hates, in decending order:

1. Muslims
2. liberals
3. the French in general
4. Le Pen

Le Pen comes out looking pretty good on the Coulter-o-meter, actually.

(link via atrios)

I always look forward to Thursday mornings for the brilliant Tom the Dancing Bug. The Super-Fun-Pak Comix are my favorite, and today's God-Man ad is especially funny if you remember the old Hostess ads in comic books.

As a special treat, here are some links directly to Super-Fun-Pak Comix through the ages.

Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!
Ruben!

And here are two post Sept. 11 cartoons I found especially eloquent.

Terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, killing thousands
Are things the same yet?

UPDATE: Alert reader David Margolies pointed out that I misspelled "Ruben" many, many times above. My ass has been fact-checked.

Check it out: Evan Day notes how strange it is for Nader to take credit for helping the Democrats win the Senate by motivating left-leaning voters to go to the polls and vote for Democrat Maria Cantwell. Cantwell won by a slim margin, putting the Senate at 50:50.

Evan Day notes that this is an odd thing for Nader to take credit for, since he actively campaigned against her.

I think I notice another problem with Nader's claim. I saw Nader speak at the Labor Temple in Seattle (my dad's a Naderite) late in the summer of 2000. During that time, Cantwell, who was running as a "new Democrat" was in a primary battle with Deborah Senn, a former state insurance commissioner who was basically running as an unreconstructed liberal and touting her litigation and regulation-happy record. Anyway, during Nader's speech, he said something along the lines of "you better pray to god that Deborah Senn wins that primary, cause you're not going to have much of a choice otherwise" (I can't find the exact quote, unfortunately). So Nader was basically saying that Cantwell was one of those evil Al Gore- type moderate/conservative free-trading Democrats the Greens had to defeat. It's possible that the only reason the Greens didn't have a candidate in that race, throwing the seat to Gorton and keeping the Senate Republican, was that they actually thought Senn would win the nomination. Given that, it's pretty strange for Nader to be taking credit for Cantwell's victory.

Atrios has a dang good point:

It's amazing how often the "anti-Clinton" administration uses either the "Clinton did it too" or the "It was Clinton's policy" defense of their various bumblings.

And he's got a dang good quote to back it up. Check it out.

Drudge says that 11 Congressional pages are being expelled after allegedly smoking marijuana in somebody's basement.

Two thoughts:

1. Well, at least they weren't heavy petting or listening to records with bad words on them. This seems so 80s to me, for some reason.
2. I hope that all these kids are rich. One of Bush's first actions in office was to step up enforcement of the rule that denied federal financial aid to students who had been convicted of drug posession. Clinton had relaxed this rule, but Bush, a lifetime teetotaler who struggled financially to put himself through school, had the moral authority to apply such a law, which by definition only punishes poor and middle-class students.

Via Amygdala, a thoughtful essay by Ursula K. Le Guin about the condescention and ignorance that many people have when it comes to non-realistic fiction. I don't know what it means that two of the best liberal bloggers are professionals in the science fiction field, but I think it's pretty neat.

Diane at Letter from Gotham, who has a keen ear for British stories, has been on top of the story of a London synagogue which was recently vandalized by some unknown proto-humans.

Why in the world would David Brock insist that many conservatives are secretly homophobic? Hmmm...

During a two-hour panel discussion attacking the media for distorting the views of gun-rights proponents, all but one speaker took an opportunity to slam gays and lesbians -- including O'Donnell -- in some manner.

O'Donnell, who had a much-publicized 1999 tiff with actor Tom Selleck about his NRA support, is "not cool, she's the freak," said conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, a frequent guest on "The Howard Stern Show" and Fox News.

Schlussel also referred to straight actor Jude Law, who she said admitted to hesitating before handling a gun for one of his films, as a "girly man."

Conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway complained that the media skips over gun-rights stories for its various pet causes, including reporting on gays. Gay issues "are not important to Americans," Conway said.

The media, she added, has somehow forced changes in the public school curriculum that has resulted in an ignorant public. "They're so worried now about how many mommies Heather has that (the teacher) runs out of time" to teach basic civic lessons.

Grover Norquist, an NRA national board member and columnist for the American Spectator magazine, took a shot, too. He noted that it might not be as evident to the media that most Americans favor gun rights because "we don't have annual parades for gun owners so everyone can appreciate that gun ownership is an alternative lifestyle and look at how great we are." He also insisted that the liberals "don't want you (men) to date girls."

Each of these comments brought applause and laughter from a crowd composed mainly of middle-aged hunting and shooting enthusiasts, as well as from the panel moderator, former "Dallas" star Susan Howard.

Of course, there are many, many honorable conservatives who actually believe that a person's sexuality is his or her own business. But honestly, how much does this suprise you?

And what in the world does homosexuality have to do with gun ownership?

In the off-chance that you didn't read Andrew Sullivan this morning, he's having a good day.
- He's got a good point, taken from a Buckley article, that the Catholic church imposes a standard on gays- lifelong celibacy- that is resaonably demanded only to priests (and nuns).
- He skewers a typically dumb Gore Vidal quote about how the war is all for oil.
- He links to a depressingly accurate TNR piece about how divided the Democrats are about Bush's tax cut. Sometimes I want to throw out the Democrats and replace them with the writers for the New Republic, who put on a better fight against Bush's tax cut than the Democratic party ever did.
- He praises American Catholics for being liberal in their attitudes about homosexuality, married and women priests. (44% of Catholics favor legal same-sex marriage! Wyld Stallions!)
- And he saves a beagle.

Good show, Andrew!

I had a thought- since oil is consumed for chemical fertilizer in the production of corn (1.2 gallons for every bushel, according to the NYTimes), is it a given that ethanol actually displaces any oil consumption?

One scientist at Cornell found a pretty damning set of numbers: An acre of corn can produce 328 gallons of ethanol, but consumes 140 gallons of follil fuels to plant, grow and harvest. Even before conversion, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon. After that, it gets even worse.

It turns out that the net energy value of ethanol, the energy produced burning it after the energy costs of production, has been seriously addressed by a number of scientists, who have come to some wildly disparate answers. Check out this paper, especially the literature review (search for "Table 1").

Great article about the dumb-ass way that stock options are treated by accounting and tax laws. When a company gives its executives stock options, for accounting purposes, they don't count as expenses. However, they do count as deductions for tax purposes. If a company with no other expenses had revenues of $1m, and it gave away $1m worth of stock options as compensation, it would tell Wall Street that it had profits of $1 m, while telling the tax man that it had no income at all. This is one of the methods that Enron used to avoid paying taxes for four out of five years. It's all perfectly legal right now.

It's nonsense, and everyone involved knows it's nonsense:

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, superinvestor Warren Buffett, and former Securities and Exchange Commission head Arthur Levitt--the cream of America's financial establishment--all want to require companies to deduct the costs of stock options on their financial balance sheets. So do the Council of Institutional Investors (the country's main shareholding organization) and Standard & Poor's (the main credit-rating agency).

But:

The business lobbies that pack K Street are determined to block any change in accounting and tax rules, as they did in 1994 and again in 1997 when Levin and McCain introduced similar legislation. The Business Roundtable, the American Electronics Associations, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers--acting through the newly formed Coalition to Preserve and Protect Stock Options--have lined up squarely against Levin-McCain. And in spite of George W. Bush's avowed commitment to reform, they've found an ally in the president. On April 8 Bush told The Wall Street Journal, "Alan Greenspan is very smart. I'd hate to get into a debate with him." He then proceeded to do exactly that, explaining that he opposed any change in the way businesses counted stock options.

Joe Lieberman, to his discredit, is leading the fight against reform from the Democratic side, and Daschle has grown noncommittal about the issue. Just what we need.

I want to applaud Bush's urging that mental health should be treated like any other disease. This is a brave and, dare I say, compassionate stand for him to take.

On the other hand, when he says such legislation should "not significantly run up the cost of health care," he's not right. The Surgeon General's report found that over 50 million Americans suffer from mental illness every year. How could it be possible to provide more complete treatment for these people without significantly increasing the cost of health care? It seems that HMOs are correct when they say that a real fix would add billions to health care costs.

Taken as a whole, his statement seems to be based on one of four premises.

1. Mental health problems are rare enough that treatment will be cheap. This is, regretably, not true.
2. Mental health problems are cheap enough to treat that a meaningful initiative wouldn't be expensive. This is not true, either, to the best of my knowledge.
3. Mental health treatment is neither rare nor cheap. However, he's willing to promote and sign a bill that would incur the necessary costs in order to ease the suffering of the mentally ill, and to reduce the significant costs to society of untreated mental illness.
4. He's just making a speech that will have no follow-up. Or, he wants a cheap, symbolic bill in order to have a "compassionate" issue to run on in the next elections.

Bush could emerge as a real hero here, or he could make me even more cynical about his motives than I have been.

If you haven't seen the American Prospect's new blog, check it out. I'm glad that the left has some professionals doing this.

Here's an interesting item:

AND YOU THOUGHT CLINTON WAS GOOD? Judy Keen of USA Today reports that the Bush political team has the most effective, most organized and most focused political operation of any administration in recent history. Bush has headlined more than 23 fundraisers since taking office and collected more than $66.8 million. Bill Clinton, vilified as "Fundraiser in Chief" by the Republicans, had appeared at only half as many at the same point in his presidency. (And recall that Bush stopped fundraising for some months after September 11th.)

There's a really interesting, although slightly thinly argued, piece about how cities without gays and rock bands are losing the economic development race. Houston actually comes out at number 7 for big cities, behind Seattle and Boston, but ahead of New York and Dallas. I wouldn't want to put money on the author's methodology, but I'm still happy to see us at #7. Go Houston!

If a kind person happened to email me the text of the David Horowitz article in Salon today, I'd be grateful. I can't imagine what he has to say that Chad Conway doesn't cut off at the knees.

Here's what Conway says:

During one of many amusing and stimulating phone conversations I enjoyed with Horowitz over the years, a piece he had written on some gay issue came up and he said to me, "The problem with the gays is that they are all hysterical!" I laughed and said, "David, you don't think I'm hysterical, do you?" "Jesus," said Horowitz, "you're not gay, are you?" He than apologized for the remark, and I laughed it off, enjoying his discomfort enormously. The How-I-Came-Out-To-David-Horowitz story paid for a martini or two, but never at the expense of Horowitz -- I always relayed it with the humor I received it. No offense taken...

Horowitz is wrong for trying to turn this on Brock. For the record, I don't think Horowitz is anti-gay and I always enjoyed him. But, yes, he did, before he knew I was gay, make an anti-gay slander to me and Brock was quite right to use it as an example of the sorts of things said when "we," the homos, are not in the room. I wish at this point David Brock had told the full (funnier) story and used my name in his book -- far better than being outed by Horowitz.

I'm guessing that Horowitz says that it isn't that bad to say that gays are all hysterical, and he probably points to his own (legitimate) support of gays in the past. That's not unreasonable. But, I agree with Conway that Brock was at least as reasonable in his characterization of the remark. It's hard to see how David Brock comes out a liar in this instance.

I found a truly stunning book in the bookstore this weekend: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. This is a book which can be enjoyed in at least three different angles:

- If you're interested in gay issues, you'll see 700+ pages of evidence that homosexuality is widespread in the natural world, rather than a conscious choice that only misguided humans make.
- If you're interested in biology or zoology, you'll be fascinated to read about how common this behavior is, and how animal behavior has been deliberately mischaracterised or editorialized by supposedly impartial naturalists.
- Plus, it's got countless graphic photos and drawings of gay sex between animals. You know you're curious.

My fiancee virtually begged me to buy it for my mom for Mothers Day, but I didn't.

Seanbaby, the funniest man on the Internet, has started writing a column for Surfmetro magazine. Here's a little gem from his review of an anti-drug video from 1983:

Straight Up starts off with heartthrob Chad Allen skateboarding in a parking garage. He runs into the ''cool gang'' led by Kevin. And they are bad to the max. The entire gang is made up of a whiny Asian girl, an adorable 10-year-old black boy and, of course, a fat kid. Someone should have told Kevin that his badass street gang looks like it should be singing ''We Are the World'' in some kind of Wussiest Kids Ever feelings workshop. They really are one Latino in a wheelchair away from looking like the bridge of a Star Trek spaceship.

When Chad arrives, Kevin's hardcore gang is busy consolidating their drugs and alcohol. Between the four of them, they have a fifth of scotch, two beers, a pack of cigarettes and at least half a pound of weed. This sends a clear message to viewers: immediately go make friends with the children from educational films. Chad awkwardly greets them, and they start making fun of him because he doesn't want any beer. Then they, like every group of drug users does, try desperately to give their drugs away. This was a common theme in all drug-free education of the time, junkies handing out their drugs freely to strangers. It would have saved a lot of film if someone told educators that that was like teaching us how to escape from a pit of quicksand made out of winning lottery tickets. To this day, no one has ever said, ''Fine, mister, I'll have some of your heroin if you just get off my back.''

A brief anecdote about Patrick's wise comments on European condescension: When I lived in London, I had a number of liberal British friends whom I met mostly talking politics online. As a liberal who had gone through some trouble to experience living abroad, I was a bit of a "token American" among a group of people who didn't have any particular love for Americans. I had one British friend in particular, a truly lovely woman whose friendship I treasure, who took to introducing me as a "European-American" (i.e., not an ugly American.)

I wish in retrospect that I had had the guts to point out that the phrase was (a) more than a little insulting and (b) ironically, the same phrase that white supremacists often use to describe themselves.

To quote Mayor Mike Haggerty, "Have my ears gone insane?" Via Grim Amusements:

In his first legal response to charges that the Rev. Paul R. Shanley began molesting a Newton boy when he was 6 years old, Cardinal Bernard F. Law has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents contributed to the alleged abuse. [...] Carmen Durso, a Boston lawyer who represents others who say they are victims of abuse, said he found no legal fault with the language. But for Law to make use of it, Durso said, ''is dumb beyond belief. It is a stupid argument to make when you know that Catholics are already angry at you.'' Added Durso: ''From the start, the archdiocese has been incredibly stupid in the way they have handled this crisis. And as hard as it was to do, they have managed to make things worse.''
Last night, the parents of the boy, who was allegedly abused by Shanley between 1983 and 1989, said they are furious. ''To say my son is legally responsible for his own abuse at the hands of this monster Shanley when my son was only 6 years old is horrific,'' Rodney Ford, the father of Gregory Ford, said in an interview. In the lawsuit, the Fords charge that Law was negligent in overseeing Shanley, who he knew, or should have known, was a danger to children.

I'm sifting through my superlatives to describe my fury and nausea at the idea of the Church blaming a 6-year-old for negligence in his own sexual abuse. This is evil. This is the kind of argument that creates vigilantes. I swear, if I was that father, I would need to be restrained right now.

ANOTHER THOUGHT: I'm going to put aside for a moment the fact that the child was included in the suit. Let's pretend for a moment that Cardinal Law was only arguing that the parents should be held negligent. Do they want to argue in court that parents should know better than to leave their children with a priest? What a horrible defense.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: I may have been getting a little too hysterical here. Apparently, the lawyer just used a boilerplate defense; it seems that it's common practice in sexual abuse cases to blame the victim and his or her parents. Great. It looks like the lawyer just cut and pasted it. It's also probably unfair to blame Cardinal Law personally for the defense that his lawyers prepared. I'm still angry, but it's a disgusted anger, rather than a white-hot Rambo fury.

My friend sent this to me with the title "Golf is hot". You'll love it.

Wow...

At least nine national cable networks have turned down a potentially lucrative -- though controversial -- ad schedule from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia. No national cable networks are known to have accepted the ads.

The 10-day flight is an image campaign from the Arab nation. The tagline for the spots is "The People of Saudi Arabia -- Allies Against Terrorism."

National cable networks that have passed on the Saudi spots include A&E, AMC, Bravo, History Channel, Lifetime, USA Network and The Weather Channel. In total, the Saudis plan on spending more than $10 million on image advertising... This network ended up walking away from a buy that was worth approximately $300,000 to $400,000, the executive said.

To review: these cable networks are asked by the Saudis to play a series of television commercials, which is what they do a quarter to a third of the time. In return, they would get hundreds of thousands of dollars. The networks refuse.

In contrast, the government is asked by the Saudis to withdraw women from air traffic control posts, making a mockery of the American way. In return, we will get nothing. We bent over and said, "No problem, Oilerino!"

What kind of a world do we live in where the government needs to take ethics lessons from cable TV execs?

UPDATE: The ads in question are built around laudatory quotes from American political leaders about how the Saudis are our allies against terror. Shamed searched for the quotes on Google and Nexis and couldn't find a published source for them. Interesting...

It is with a heavy heart that I have to report that Chris has passed away. By all reports he was a talented, funny, adventurous guy that anyone would be proud to call a friend. His passing has left a terrible absence for his friends and family. I can only offer my deepest condolences. I'm so sorry.

And another thing: I followed the mini-flap about whether or not David Brock lied on Crossfire pretty closely. As you probably know, Andrew Sullivan and the Media Research Center accused David Brock of lying on Crossfire. The rush transcript said "I have not been on Fox at all." In fact, he had been on Fox, in mid-day. It turns out that Brock said "I have not been on Fox, Fox prime time." Andrew Sullivan sort of corrected himself, but put the blame on Brock for speaking too softly. Tim Noah makes the same argument.

There's one way to find out for yourself- go listen to the audio. It's online. Go to Media Whores Online and search for "Audio of David Brock statement". Click on it and listen. I report, you decide. But here's my impression:

- It seems to me that Brock said "Fox prime time" in the same tone of voice that he said "I have not been on Fox at all". It's not an aside, not a sotto voce, as Andrew Sullivan asserts.

- And it seems to me that Andrew Sullivan is playing a dishonest game. He's done the same thing to Paul Krugman, Michael Moore and SpinSanity. He accuses a liberal (or an assumed liberal, in the case of SpinSanity) of some nefarious action, but he gets the facts wrong. Later, he admits that his accusation was incorrect, but rather than apologize to the person he's slandered, he still manages to continue to smear them.

I don't think that Sullivan accused Brock in bad faith on Friday; I would feel free to use an online transcript as a source. But I think that this kind of "apology" is rude at best. After admitting that Brock told the truth, he continues to spin- his own mistakes have gotta be the Brock's fault! By the end of his correction, he's back to full-throated sniping again. Here's how he ends it:

"Brock played the game like a pro, even gulling CNN's transcriber. He's getting as good as Clinton. But my apologies for an innocent error nonetheless."

Whatever. Again, listen to the audio, and tell me how it's fair to accuse Brock of "gulling" anyone by speaking in a level tone of voice. As far as his awkward attempt to throw in Clinton, all I can do is throw up my hands. Media Whores Online may not be your cup of tea, but they're right on when they describe the new standard that Brock's critics are applying to him:

"David Brock is required to say everything loudly and at least twice. If he fails to do so - or if he is "not heard" by his right-wing critics, David Brock has lied.. even if he has told the truth!"

Two thoughts:

1. I got steamed enough to write again when I saw this link in Charles Kuffner's blog. If you missed it, the Saudi Crown Prince asked for female air traffic controllers to be barred from directing his plane. And we fucking did it.

A Federal Aviation Administration employee, speaking to The Dallas Morning News on condition of anonymity, said the request was granted on portions of the prince's flights between Houston and Waco.

Says Charles, "I'm sure we'll hear an explanation from the Bush camp that Prince Abdullah meant no disrespect to women and that we liberals are just being overly sensitive about the whole thing any time now. Good thing our president has moral clarity."

I am really, really angry about this. Bloggers and pundits on the left and right have stood up for the values that make us the good guys in this war- our tolerance, our plurality, our respect for the dignity of every person. It seems to me that we've just demonstrated that our core values are disposable. And it wasn't even for a good reason- the Saudis just requested that we violate them, and we had no problem complying. Makes me wanna holler. If these principles are worth sending my brother abroad to risk his life for, aren't they worth standing for in Texas?

Bloggers who still believe the "rope-a-dope" theory of Bush diplomacy may recall that Muhammed Ali didn't invite George Foreman home mid-fight to sleep with his wife. But then, Foreman didn't have oil. Charles Dodgson put it beautifully:

Bush's defenders on the net say this would be misleading. The true Bush diplomatic strategy, they claim, is deep and complex, and cannot be understood by simply taking the administration's public positions at face value. It is an elaborate series of bluffs, feints, and jabs, a kind of diplomatic blindfold chess, at once treacherous and Machiavellian in its methods, and nobly Jeffersonian in its outlook and aspirations --- which just happens to require, at this point in time, in service of its recondite tactics, that the President appear to be a dim-witted rube who agrees with whatever he most recently heard from anyone with a manly voice and a firm handshake.

2. I spent some time catching up with my reading this weekend. I think that the New Yorker is in many ways the most optimistic, life-affirming publication I regularly read. The news is constantly filled with doom 'n' gloom. Pundits and bloggers are even worse. My favorite novels are generally pretty depressing, and you have to choose your non-fiction carefully to obtain much uplift.

But while the New Yorker often reveals horrible or alarming news, it also shows that the world is full of brilliant characters and stories if you only scratch the surface. In the recent "Money" issue, for example, there was a fascinating story about a con artist in the 1920s and 30s who pulled off a massive "Nigerian bank scam" based on the nonexistent lost fortunes of Sir Francis Drake. He managed to swindle, and keep swindled, tens of thousands of midwestern farmers for years and years. Through the Depression, through his arrest, even at the point that he was sent to a mental asylum (he seemed, at the end, to have come to believe his own claims), he had farmers planning luxury resorts that they would build after the Drake money poured in.

It's not exactly "Chicken Soup For the Soul." But a world with a billion fascinating stories is exactly the kind of world I want to live in.