Sanctimony May 7, 2003February 23, 2017 You’ve probably seen this, by Joshua Green, from the Washington Monthly, titled ‘The Bookie of Virtue’ and subheaded: ‘William J. Bennett has made millions lecturing people on morality – and blown it on gambling.’ About $8 million, the article estimates. One imagines the $8 million could have gone to better causes. But it was his money, not ours; and, being a man of virtue – indeed, pretty much owning the virtue franchise – he gets to do with his money what he wants. The problem with Clinton/Gore is that they taxed guys like Bill Bennett too heavily, crimping their ability to invest in new businesses and create jobs.* The rich are so much more prudent and productive with their money than ‘the government.’ Give the government $8 million and they’ll spend it on some fool thing like teachers or Headstart. The good news is that Bill Bennett appears to be just the kind of typical American the Bush tax cuts are geared most generously to assist. I don’t know whether they’ll save Bennett the same $327,000 a year that Bloomberg News Service estimated Dick Cheney will save. Maybe more, maybe less. But however much it comes to, he needs it, he deserves it, and we can be sure he’ll steward it wisely. *Although, unaccountably, 22 million new jobs were somehow created in those years, compared with the more than 2 million lost so far under President Bush. And then there was this from the April 24 Baltimore Sun: Fund-Raiser For GOP Pleads Guilty In Case Of Child Pornography A prominent Republican fund-raiser who once said former President Bill Clinton was “a lawbreaker and a terrible example to our nation’s young people” pleaded guilty yesterday in Baltimore Circuit Court to production of child pornography. Richard Anthony Delgaudio, who was sentenced to two years’ probation before judgment, admitted to taking lewd photographs of a 16-year-old girl he met in East Baltimore’s Patterson Park in 2001. In some of the photos, he was engaged in sex with her, court records show . . . Nor, apparently, was she the only or the youngest girl involved. And, finally, this last week from the Philadelphia Inquirer: Santorum Mailing Angers His Critics Not long after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum sent out a letter asking for money for a nonprofit group lobbying against same-sex marriages. “I know it may sound like a huge exaggeration, particularly in light of the attack on America, but this may truly be the most important letter I ever write you,” Santorum wrote. . . . “If you can only make one contribution to a political organization this year, make your gift to Alliance for Marriage today.” So there you have the priorities of the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership. The terrorist attacks were bad – no question – but perhaps the most important thing he’ll ever write you about is the effort to forbid people like Charles and me from having the same economic and civic rights any heterosexual couple can have. The good Senator, one can only presume, sees the world (as we all do) through his own experience. He may be deeply attracted to his male friends, and so, to him, it may appear that if you allowed guys to act on their feelings, they’d all ditch their wives and abandon their children and . . . and . . . and . . . well, incest, polygamy, man on dog . . . anything! My own view is more sanguine. I think most guys are straight and actually want to be with women. I don’t think that respecting gay relationships is going to cause heterosexuals to become homosexuals. Certainly, respecting straight relationships has not caused me to become heterosexual, hard though I tried growing up. Yes, there are more than a few guys – Senator Santorum may be one of them – who could go either way. I don’t envy them that confusion, whatever Woody Allen may say. (He has said, in jest, that bisexuals have double the chance of getting a date on a Saturday night.) But I don’t think they are so legion as to threaten the procreation of this wonderfully diverse, relatively free society of ours . . . with liberty and justice for all.
Few Things Make Me Prouder May 6, 2003January 22, 2017 We have a lot to be proud about as Americans, but few things make me prouder personally than the quality of our tobacco, and our willingness to stand up to countries – 191 of them – that are seeking to keep kids from becoming addicted. A less bold President, having lost so much of the world’s good will in such a short time, might have decided to take the side of the world’s kids instead of the tobacco companies. But not our guy. Makes you proud to be a Republican, proud to be an American – just plain proud. U.S. Wants to Reopen Talks on Global Anti-Tobacco Pact By Alison Langley New York Times Thursday, May 1, 2003 ZURICH, April 30 – The United States asked officials from 191 countries this week to reopen negotiations on a treaty meant to control the sale and use of tobacco and scheduled to be adopted a month from now at the World Health Assembly in Geneva. American negotiators said they could not accept the treaty as long as it included a “no-reservations” clause, which would prevent countries from disregarding any provisions they found unacceptable. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control would place a comprehensive ban on advertising and promoting tobacco products, except where the prohibition conflicts with national constitutions. It would also impose high taxes on tobacco products and expose companies to liability for their products. It would further require tobacco companies to divulge all the ingredients in their products and print warning labels that cover at least 30 percent of the package . . . . ☞ If you’d like to urge the Bush Administration to stop sabotaging what may be the world’s first public health treaty – click here. (And here, if you can’t wait until tomorrow to read more about Bill Bennett’s addiction to the slots.)
A Few More Questions and the Final Word May 5, 2003February 23, 2017 Rick Neville: ‘The mailer I just received from my Congressman touting the President’s tax cut plan states that ‘a working couple making $40,000 a year will see their taxes reduced from $1,178 to $45.’ Is this accurate? He has a ‘town hall’ meeting scheduled. If his numbers are incorrect I’d like to ask him about it.’ ☞ I assume the numbers are accurate for some couples, depending on the number of kids they have, among other things. Most U.S. households will save much less. But I would ask your Congressman . . . where does all this wonderful money come from? Where does the $327,000 a year Dick Cheney will save on his taxes come from? And the $7 million a year Sandy Weill will save on HIS taxes? Isn’t it true (I would ask him) that we will be borrowing money in order to do this, and so in effect taxing our children (who can’t vote), by saddling them with trillions more in National Debt to service? And isn’t it true (I would ask him) that, to the extent we don’t borrow, we’ll be cutting programs that help kids to make room for these cuts? Because isn’t it true, I would ask him (as security guards were wrestling the microphone out of my hands) that the Congressional Budget Office examined these tax cuts and said they should NOT be expected to provide any dramatic economic growth – that they might even hurt growth? I would ask him whether it’s not true that this year’s budget deficit alone – likely to be over $500 billion – works out to roughly $5,000 more in National Debt per household. (If he says it’s not true, ask him what HE thinks $500 billion divided by 100 million works out to.) Finally (I would ask him), isn’t it true that taking on trillions of dollars more National Debt will weaken the dollar and eventually push up interest rates? Which will cost the $40,000-a-year family more for their car loan and their mortgage payment? The downsides of this don’t much matter to the wealthy. If rates on car loans and mortgage go up, so what? They’ll just buy for cash (and pick up some higher-yielding tax-free municipal bonds). If each family takes on an extra $5,000 in National Debt each year, so what? The wealthy are saving $327,000 a year. THE FNL WRD Dan Albro: ‘The only word with no vowels listed so far was nth. Cwm and crwth have the vowel ‘w.’ After all, vowel is defined in terms of sonorancy value (or lack of constriction, depending on whether you’re defining these things in terms of acoustics or articulation), not what letter of the alphabet you write it with – when we say ‘and sometimes y,’ we mean ‘the glyph called ‘y’ is sometimes used to denote a sound with a sonorancy level in the vocalic range.’ To take Welsh-derived words into account, we should say, I guess, ‘and sometimes w and y.” Rich McAllister: ‘Must have been a bunch of Welsh people around Alabama where I grew up and learned that vowels were ‘A E I O U and sometimes Y and W.”
All Hands on Deck May 2, 2003January 22, 2017 Leave aside the sheer goofiness of this guy who went missing during his term of military service landing on the Abraham Lincoln in a fighter jet . . . and leave aside that this war was won mainly with weapons that the Clinton/Gore administration approved and financed (drones were not built in a day) . . . and never mind the fact that the nation never got to debate anything like the full picture of what we have embarked upon . . . and leave aside, also, the ‘untidiness’ of allowing much of Iraqi culture to be destroyed (don’t miss Frank Rich’s recent report suggesting it would not have required hindsight to have done much better). Leave all that aside. (And join with the President, as we all do, in saluting the courage and competence and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.) The line that struck me in the President’s speech last night was this one describing Iraq as a place ‘where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.’ True enough, and appalling. But think about it. Here we are, short on decent health care and education for millions of our own kids, and the decision is made not to channel more money into health care and education, but to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars so that people earning more than a million dollars a year – who have two or three lavish homes already – can save $327,000 a year on their taxes (just to take the example of Vice President Cheney, let alone the really rich), to build even more elaborate and luxurious homes for themselves. Obviously, the comparison is not direct and the equivalence is not complete. But are we not a country that, more and more, has an extended ‘royal family?’ Not linked by blood so much as golf club memberships and shared hangar space for our private jets? All of which would be great – I have flown in private jets and ohhhhhhhhhhh is it ever cool – if we were bringing everyone else along at the same time. But we’ve stopped doing that. It seems that under Democrats, for the most part, the rich get richer but so does everyone else. Under Republicans, the rich get richer and the poor get laid off. And their kids lose school lunches. Rather than stimulate the economy by borrowing to help states struggle with their worst budget problems since the Depression, and to build great new schools and repair bridges and hire nurses and teachers, we are borrowing to give people who made $5 or $10 million last year a big tax break. Why are we doing that? Monday: A Few More Questions and the Final Word
And Now, A Word Or Two About Money (And Two More Words Without Vowels) May 1, 2003February 23, 2017 Be greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy. — Warren Buffett ☞ And when they are not particularly either? When – as now, and most of the time – they are sort of in the middle? Well, then, I guess: Be patient. (This is not, I will admit, the world’s most helpful advice. Okay, so maybe buy 50 shares of Sony – SNE – now that it’s been marked down to $24.75 from $59.95 in under a year?) # CWM David Morrison: ‘The only commonly used English word with no vowels is NTH.’ Monna Wier: Puzzlemaster Will Shortz, who presents puzzles to listeners on NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday, last week mentioned CRWTH. It’s a Celtic instrument. The use of the ‘w’ as a vowel, he says, is Welch.’ # WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? Don Epstein: ‘I was late for work Tuesday because I was reading every word in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Minneapolis Star Tribune about the Wall Street scandals. Most of it was not new information – okay, the research people sold their integrity to obtain higher investment banking fees for their respective banks. We’ve known that for months. ‘But in Tuesday’s Market Place column on the front page of the Times Business Section, there was this: ‘In a newly disclosed tactic, Morgan Stanley and four other brokerage firms paid rivals that agreed to publish positive reports on companies whose shares Morgan and others issued to the public. This practice made it appear that a throng of believers were recommending these companies’ shares. ‘From 1999 through 2001, for example, Morgan Stanley paid about $2.7 million to approximately 25 other investment banks for these so-called research guarantees, regulators said. Nevertheless, the firm boasted in its annual report to shareholders that it had come through investigations of analyst conflicts of interest with its “reputation for integrity” maintained. ‘Among the firms receiving payments for their bullish research on companies whose offerings they did not manage were UBS Warburg and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. UBS received $213,000 and Piper Jaffray, more than $1.8 million.” ‘It’s been a while since I practiced law . . . but doesn’t this take these scandals to a whole new level? Doesn’t this mean there was a ‘conspiracy’ among these banks to defraud the public? I am just floored that this new development is not an enormous news story tonight.’ ☞ Morgan Stanley used to have the best name on the street (and seem to think they still do). But many of us have long argued you’d be better off in index funds or, if you trade stocks directly, reading Barron’s or Forbes and investing via a deep discount broker.
Not ONE of You Favors Incest — Or Santorum April 30, 2003January 22, 2017 Obviously, this audience is largely self-selecting. Still, most of the time I will get at least a few e-mails blasting my point of view – even if the most critical ones tend to be anonymous. Interestingly, though, on this controversy, no one has written to take Santorum’s side (or the President’s or the Majority Leader’s for defending him). As usual, your comments are more interesting than mine: Randy Woolf: ‘Santorum says, ‘If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy . . . polygamy . . . adultery . . . incest . . . anything.’ All logic classes will have been improved by this marvelously compact example of fallacious reasoning. Basically he is saying ‘gay sex should be forbidden, or you will have to allow other forbidden things.’ But the only relationship between the things on his list is that they are forbidden! Once gay sex is not forbidden, why would it be included in the list? Gay sex, which is victimless, has no parallel in bigamy, polygamy and adultery. You may as well say: ‘If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to make coffee in your home [stimulants are forbidden by some religions, after all], then you have the right to make crack cocaine . . .anthrax . . . anything.” Rudy Serra (former Detroit Human Rights Commissioner): ‘It only requires a little thoughtful consideration to understand the false and hurtful nature of Santorum’s bigoted remarks: The American Heritage Dictionary defines bigamy as: ‘The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another.’ The state has an interest in being able to identify the parties to any contract. Civil marriage, of course, is a contract. Accordingly, the state can assert an interest in limiting marriage to one spouse at a time. Doing so helps to define child support obligations, spousal support duties, and inheritance and property decisions. None of these interests apply to private, consensual, unpaid sexual activity between competent adults. (And, of course, gay people are not presently permitted to marry each other at all. Thus, it is impossible for them to commit bigamy.) Polygamy is defined as: ‘The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time.’ Again, since it is the state that ‘licenses’ marriage and confers benefits to those who are married, the state has an interest in limiting marriage to one spouse at a time. In contrast, private, non-commercial adult sexual relationships involve no legitimate state interest. Imposing one group’s subjective definition of ‘sin’ is not a sufficient justification for making something a crime. Adultery is: ‘Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.’ Few states enforce laws against adultery because of the voluntary nature of the offense. Nonetheless, even here, a state interest in protecting the marriage contract and the innocent spouse creates some justification. In addition, once again, the interests of actual or potential offspring is also implicated. These justifications are absent in the case of sodomy since laws make sodomy a crime regardless of whether one of the participants is married. For those who view marriage as a religious sacrament, rather than a civil contract, the proscription against adultery is more often treated as a religious issue of ‘sin’ than a matter of felony laws. Finally, incest is defined as: ‘Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.’ Since it is accepted that intra-family sexual relations result in genetic defects, the state can assert a legitimate interest in public health. In addition, the state has an interest in preventing the exploitation of younger, inexperienced persons subject to sexual aggression by those charged with raising them. Neither rationale applies in the case of sodomy. Santorum’s statement was an attempt to create ‘guilt by association.’ By implying that the most vile and taboo of sexual acts were equivalent to gay sex, he foments prejudice. Even his later rationalization was offensive and outrageous. He claimed that his remarks did not pertain to ‘lifestyles’ but that’s exactly what they did. His attempt to imply that there is a single, monolithic gay lifestyle is equally bigoted. Some gay people are celibate. Some are monogamous, some are promiscuous, and some have never experienced ‘sodomy’ (just like heterosexual people). The University of Chicago Study entitled “Sex in America” concluded that up to 25% of Americans engage in anal sex at some point in their life. The term ‘sodomy,’ unfortunately, is religious in origin – and has been used to stigmatized everything from witchcraft to masturbation. The case being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to do with incest, adultery, polygamy or bigamy. It has to do with recognizing that the state has no business telling competent adults in voluntary, non-commercial relationships what they can and cannot do unless there is some legitimate social interest. In the case of bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery the interest is easy to identify. So is the bigotry in Santorum’s hurtful and hysterical rhetoric. Douglas Pinter: ‘I believe there is an economic issue here – that civil rights and economic vitality are directly linked. Let me explain: In managing hundreds of employees in three shift operations, I found that there was always some rule, regulation or lack of incentive du jour that was touted as the cause of their lethargy, malaise, lack of commitment, etc. Most were corporate policies I didn’t have the authority to change. When I was able to alter a misguided policy, another one took its place as the new root of all evil. ‘I discovered that what unleashed creative and committed employees with new ideas that generated new services and profits was acknowledging the diversity in a workforce, not just ethnic, gender, economic or sexual, but psychological – some had career interests in the company, some were just paying the rent while they secretly couldn’t wait to leave. When I went around to the offices in my region, I acknowledged these differences and told them that they should honor that within themselves and that I would help them get to their next role in life or in the company – but that while we were working together in our current roles, we were going to commit to excellence. Turnover stopped, service went up, new ideas proliferated. By honoring them as individuals with a responsibility to participate fully in any way they could, we created our own regional economic prosperity and growth when performance in other regions of the country were flat. ‘The real issue is that narrow views of who is acceptable or what one ‘should be’ are straightjackets to human potential and therefore economic vitality. That doesn’t mean anything goes and it doesn’t mean we should accept polygamy and bestiality . . . but I think there is a strong argument in here about one of the real reasons we had prosperity during Clinton’s eight years. People felt valued. All people.’ David G: ‘For a party that preaches ‘family values,’ I have to ask what kind of values as a father does Dick Cheney have? The Vice President of the United States’ lesbian daughter’s lifestyle was just ripped by a Senator of the Vice President’s party, and yet, Cheney is silent. Maybe he can’t communicate his disgust from this week’s undisclosed location, but my goodness, if you love your child, and you outrank the guy who made these comments (last time I looked the VP was the PRESIDENT of the Senate), family values would dictate sticking up for your child.’ Jim Skinnell: ‘I took his comments to mean that if the Supreme Court were to allow sodomy, then they should allow all other acts that are currently illegal (murder, burglary, etc.). I think his choice of other illegal sexual acts for comparison was the big mistake. But, I also don’t know what the case really involves. Is it trying to overturn the conviction of the two men arrested? If so, then why not overturn a murder conviction? Or is to remove the law from the books? If the latter is the case, then his comments can certainly be taken as anti-gay and he should act accordingly and either apologize, resign, both, or more.’ ☞ What is being decided at the Supreme Court is whether or not the Texas Homosexual Conduct law under which these guys were arrested and convicted is Constitutional. The Republican Governor of Texas and his predecessor, President Bush, both support the law – as Santorum obviously does. The justices, I expect, will find 9-0 that it is unconstitutional, even though some of them, I think, will find that way on limited grounds: namely that it’s fine for the government to outlaw oral sex, but then that has to apply to everybody, not just gay people. Of course, if my predictive powers with the Court are as good as my predictive powers with the Dow, there’s no telling what will happen. Canaan Huie: ‘Senator Santorum stated, ‘I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions.’ My immediate reaction to that statement was that I must not be as big a person as Sen. Santorum, because I do have a problem with intolerant bigots, regardless of whether they act on that orientation. This type of statement always seems so hypocritical because it can be applied to practically any situation (for example, one could say ‘I have no problem with feminists, I just have a problem with anyone who acts on the belief that women should be treated equally to men.’) I guess Sen. Santorum feels that gays and lesbians have the right to life and to some liberty, but not to the pursuit of happiness. ‘He also stated: ‘You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families.’ I give families much more credit than Sen. Santorum does. First, many families made up entirely or partly by people who engage in ‘homosexual behavior’ are strong and healthy – just as many purely ‘heterosexually-behaving’ families are dysfunctional beyond belief. Second, if an act of gay sex can ‘destroy the basic unit of our society,’ it doesn’t say much about the strength of families.’ Stephen Gilbert: ‘I don’t understand why many Democrats (especially those in elected office) can’t help responding to people like Lott and Santorum by demanding that the Republicans remove them from their positions of power. My understanding of what the Republican party stands for today seems to require that such people be its standard bearers. When they ‘go public,’ it increases the chance that a few more voters will see what the party is about.’ Chip Ellis: ‘I thank you for printing my comments last week. As a member of Log Cabin for 12 years [the gay Republicans], I see this as a pivotal time for the Republican Party. Santorum’s comments may turn out to be a good thing if public reaction is strong. The Supreme Court Justices may see that it is now unacceptable to the public to uphold anti-gay sodomy laws – that is, mainstream views toward gays and lesbians have changed since the Georgia sodomy case [Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986].’ ☞ As mentioned above, I think we may well get a 9-0 decision our way, so the even the conservative Justices can, in effect, all say – look, we’re not bigots – and then go on to find against us on employment, adoption, hate crimes, the military, immigration and civil unions. So it’s great that Log Cabin tries to educate the Party from within – sincere thanks for your work toward that end. But now that the Republicans have proven themselves three administrations running to be wild deficit spenders, adding trillions to our national debt, why are you a Republican? Because you’re against stem cell research? Because you favor weak Treasury Secretaries and S.E.C. chairs? Oops. I’m getting oppressive. All I really mean to say is: If you ever decide to make the switch, you would be most welcome in the Democratic Party. But if Bush/Ashcroft win again, the Judiciary is going to shift further toward the Santorum point of view. Jarett C: ‘You’ve finally posted a political position I agree with. However your take on it may be a bit too dismal. Surely this is exactly the sort of case that could bring the ‘sex offender’ list to the Supreme Court so they can declare the list as unconstitutional. I am registered as a member of the Republican Party, and on all matters of fiscal importance, I tend to agree with the opinions of the Republican Party [adding trillions to the Debt to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy]; however I feel that many of our elected officials seem to have confused ‘amendment’ with ‘Commandment.’ What I think would be more appropriate to look at is the age of consent in this country, which can be as low as 13 (for homosexual relations) or 14 (for heterosexual relations). Ask yourself: Should a 16-year-old girl having consensual sex with her 15-year-old boyfriend be criminalized long after her juvenile record is sealed and be branded as a ‘sex offender’ for life?’ Next column: I swear it will have something to do with money, even if I have to give each of you a dime myself.
Your Mutual Fund: A Raspberry or a Tomato? April 29, 2003February 23, 2017 SCRABBLE PLAYERS Do you know the word CWM? It means circus. Is there any other word in English with NO vowels (considering that Y, like ketchup, is both a fruit and a vegetable)? FOOD ENTHUSIASTS (and Marketing Majors) There’s a delicious new food on the shelves – dried plums. But don’t eat too many at one time. SURVIVAL TIP Every household should have a case or two of peanut butter under the bed. It outlasts any earthquake, hurricane, tornado, flood, or power outage; can be flung with deadly accuracy to stun but not kill an intruder; and provides a life-sustaining 6600 calories per 40-ounce container. It even floats. (Get the extra-chunky kind to have something to do while you’re waiting for the electricity to go back on – you can count the chunks.) For fluid and spice, you would want several cases of V8, which, like CWM, has no vowels but is both a fruit and a vegetable juice. ACTIVELY MANAGED MUTUAL FUNDS: WORSE THAN YOU THOUGHT? Morningstar reports that in the 20 years ended December 31, 2001 (not up to date because I have been carrying this WSJ clipping around with me for years, and it just out of my pocket along with two 34-cent stamps and a gum wrapper) U.S. stock funds returned an average compounded annual return of 13.8%. (Remember, even though the decline was well under way by then, this particular two-decade stretch was one of the best in history.) The Wilshire 5,000 index was up 14.3% over the same period, which proves for the umpteenth time the obvious: that on average, mutual funds will do worse than average (worse, that is, than the broad market indexes) because, unlike the indexes, their performance is weighted down by fees and expenses. Ah, but this 13.8% was only for the funds in existence at the end of 2001. And mutual fund families have a habit of shutting down or merging their worst performers, never their best. It turns out that if you adjust the numbers for the rotten funds that disappeared along the way, the return was not 13.8%, but 12.7%. Why the big gap between the 14.3% compounded return of the index and the 12.7% return of the funds? Fees and expenses, which probably did come to something very like the 1.6% annual shortfall. (Add in the tax-disadvantages of actively managed funds, and the upfront sales charges of load funds, and the performance gap gets considerably wider still.) And just in case you thought a 1.6% performance gap was trivial, two points of reference: First, it seems less important when it’s chipped off of 14.3% than it would if it were chipped off of, say, 6%, leaving you just 4.4%. Second, $10,000 growing at 14.3% (to go back to that dreamy and unrealistic number) for 40 years compounds to $2.1 million. At 12.7%, thanks to the active management you were paying for, and assuming no sales fees or tax disadvantages, to $1.2 million. So except for the dyslexic, this really matters. (At 6% versus 4.4% both numbers are lower, but the difference no less dramatic: $103,000 versus $56,000.) Tomorrow: Your Thoughtful Santorum Feedback, Complete with Management Tips and the Age of Consent in Albania
The President v Andrew Sullivan April 27, 2003January 22, 2017 So the lines are drawn. The Democratic leadership has been calling on Senator Santorum to apologize. The good Senator stands by his disparaging remarks. He does not believe that Americans – gay or straight – have a Constitutional right to privacy in their own bedrooms. (For the full transcript, see Thursday’s column.) And if some are offended by his likening intimacy between gays and lesbians to incest, well, so be it. And the Republican leadership stands by Santorum. ‘The President believes that the senator is an inclusive man,’ White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. ‘The President has confidence in Senator Santorum and thinks he’s doing a good job as senator – including in his leadership post.’ Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist also stands behind Santorum (literally, at news conferences) and echos the assessment: Senator Santorum is an inclusive man. Salon has a different take. ‘Reporters should question Santorum and his defenders at every opportunity,’ Salon argues. ‘Do they think Vice President Dick Cheney’s gay daughter Mary should be prosecuted for her ‘homosexual acts?’ Does the GOP believe in a right to privacy? Should adultery be criminalized? What about contraception?’ Salon concludes: It’s worth remembering who was Texas governor in 1998, when police burst into the bedroom of the gay couple whose case is before the Supreme Court: Yes, it was Fleischer’s boss, our President. He’s had plenty of time to rethink that law, which was enforced on his watch, and he hasn’t. He had all week to rethink Santorum’s outrageous remarks, and repudiate them, and he didn’t. After watching a segment about Santorum on Fox News the other night, I stayed tuned as the network segued into an Iraq update, and a Fox commentator decried the country’s Shiites for trying to “introduce religion into political life.” Of course the president’s party is trying to do the same. Let’s hope Santorum’s candor wakes more Americans up to the fact that Iraqis aren’t the only ones at risk of losing their freedom to religious fundamentalism. [Note: As conditioned as the next guy to free sneakers just for visiting a free website, I was not about to pay to read Salon. I clicked here, to read the full story for free (although I had to watch a 15-second ad to get past the lead). But then it asked me whether I was not troubled by ever greater media conglomeration (I am) and whether I think a free press is actually worth a nickel a day (I do) and before you know it, Salon had my credit card. No paper, printing, freight or disposal to burden the planet, and it follows me automatically wherever I go. I chose the faster-loading $30 ad-free version. Oddly absent was the gag reflex I normally experience spending money I don’t have to. Indeed, I felt rather good about it.] Kevin Clark: ‘There’s lots of good commentary on Senator Santorum and the Texas sodomy case at andrewsullivan.com – you might want to point your readers there for more info.’ ☞ Andrew is a brilliant man and, despite our political differences, a friend. I am happy to see him taking on Santorum. But I do note that Andrew is one of the reasons there’s no one in the White House to veto Santorum; one of the reasons that for the next 30 years we’ll have a Judiciary more sympathetic to Santorum’s view than we otherwise would have; and one of the reasons Santorum is in the majority, setting the agenda, rather than the minority. I am frequently asked how it can be that fully 25% of gay and lesbian Americans voted for Bush/Cheney. One reason is that there are, of course, lots of issues that matter to gay and lesbian people besides attaining equal rights. Some were no doubt attracted to the sound balanced budget they were promised. (Yet candidate Bush’s numbers were clearly off by a trillion dollars from the very start. There was simply no way, recession or no recession, war or no war, he could have done what he promised – and most knowledgeable observers realize that he and his advisors had to know this all along.) Some focused on the prospect of tax cuts. (But will they get anything like the $44,500 a year President Bush himself will get or the $327,000 a year Dick Cheney will get? And did they realize how many kids would lose their school lunches and after school programs as a result? How many veterans would see their benefits crimped? Most astonishingly, how many new trillions would be added to our National Debt, with all that implies as a drag on our future prosperity?) Some took heart in the knowledge that Dick Cheney would be vice president. (But has the VP said one public word to Santorum in defense of his own daughter?) Or the knowledge that the President himself has plenty of gay friends. (But what does that matter when he appoints an Attorney General, and so many others throughout the Executive and nominated for the Judiciary, who feel otherwise?) I think a lot of those gay and lesbian Republicans who voted for the President needed ‘permission,’ as it were, to feel OK doing so. Andrew, with his wit and passion and charisma, gave many that permission. Last thing on Santorum (Tuesday: your comments . . . and eventually back to money-making ideas, I hope). On one level, it is all very hypothetical. When was the last time you – or anyone else you know – were arrested in your bedroom for having proscribed sex (such as heterosexual oral sex, which remains illegal in some states), taken to jail, kept in jail overnight, and ultimately convicted and fined? The point is not that this is likely to happen to you any time soon. The point is that the number three man in the Senate Republican leadership strongly believes this is okay. He does not regret what happened, only that the Supreme Court might restrict the ability of states to do more of this kind of thing. And the President of the United States and Republican majority leader in the Senate, and most of the rest of the Republican Senate, all stand behind him. They are entirely entitled to feel this way! And those who believe in the separation of church and state – and in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – are entirely entitled to be frightened. Tomorrow: Your Mutual Fund – Raspberry or Tomato?
OK, Let’s Get REALLY Jiggy April 24, 2003February 23, 2017 As the Associated Press reporter said to Rick Santorum in their now famous April 7 interview (transcript below), ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about ‘man on dog’ with a United States Senator, and it’s sort of freaking me out.’ So I guess the first thing I need to link you to is this classic Salon story on gay animals. There is some evidence to suggest that God not only made gay and lesbian people, but that He may have made gay and lesbian animals as well. And the next thing to say is how consistent the Republican leadership is on stuff like this. Trent Lott, the Senate’s highest ranking leader until recently, likened gays and lesbians to ‘alcoholics and kleptomaniacs.’ (It was not long after this that I attended a fundraiser at which the host pretended to steal President Clinton’s watch.) Imagine if he had chosen some similar comparison for African Americans or Hispanics, Asians or women, Italians or Jews. (The difference, he would presumably say, is that there is nothing wrong with being a woman or Italian. But the Bible has told him that it is an abomination for two people of the same sex to lie down together, as it is for people to wear garments made of more than one fabric, or for them to touch the skin of a pig, or to remarry after divorce. These are abominations that decent citizens simply do not commit. Nonvirgin brides must be stoned in the public square until dead, and slaves have been commanded [Colossians 3:22] to obey their masters ‘with fear and trembling [Ephesians 6:5].’) Lott’s counterpart over on the House side was Dick Armey, famous for mispronouncing his colleague Barney Frank’s tongue-twister of a last name. (He pronounced it: ‘Fag.’) Imagine if he had mispronounced it Barney Kike, or if – back in the days when there was actually an African American Republican in Congress – he had mispronounced that colleague’s name, J.C. N-word. I’m guessing it could have caused an even bigger flap than the Barney Fag mispronunciation. In America in 2003, and surely from a Congressman, all three are completely unacceptable. Now Lott has been demoted for celebrating Strom Thurmond’s segregationist Presidential run a few decades back (I would have presumed he meant it in jest until I re-read Colossians and Ephesians), and Dick Armey has gone back to Texas. But House majority leader Tom DeLay is at least as mean and bullying and homophobic as Armey ever was. And those who had hoped Lott’s replacement as Majority Leader, Senator Frist, would be an improvement – well, he must be some improvement – were given pause by his support of Santorum’s remarks. ‘Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate,’ Frist told the press, ‘and to suggest otherwise is just politics.’ Santorum says he thinks it’s right that the police be able to arrest two men in the privacy of their bedroom for having consensual sex . . . he hopes the Supreme Court will uphold that . . . because otherwise, if the Supreme Court were to find that they have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their home, we’ll then, people would have the right to do anything victimless and consensual in the privacy of their bedrooms. And surely the government can’t allow that. Think about it! Can you really allow consenting adults to do whatever they want in bed? Is this the American way? It’s not the Republican way, by gum, if Rick Santorum, third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, has anything to say about it. ‘I have no problem with homosexuality; I have a problem with homosexual acts,’ explained the inclusive, compassionate Santorum yesterday. So he would have no problem with people like Charles and me – faithful partners of nearly nine years now – so long as we agreed never to touch each other. Or at least not to touch each other with anything in mind that Senator Santorum would consider objectionable. His compassion, as Senator Frist apparently sees it, would extend to feeling sorry for us . . . sad that, to fit his definition of decency, we must forever be denied the human intimacy that comes naturally to us. Hey, listen – if we want to love each other – I mean, physically – we can always go to one of those remote, Godless, uncivilized backwaters of the Earth like, say, Europe. (The mayors of Paris and Berlin are both gay. In the Netherlands, gays can marry. The armed forces of all the members of NATO save two, I think, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.) But not in this man’s America. Not if Senator Rick Santorum and the kind of right-minded Supreme Court Justices he hopes to see have anything to say about it. Are you sure you’re closer in philosophy to Rick Santorum and to the borrow-and-spend Republicans who added $3 trillion to the National Debt last time around and seem headed to add even more this time? Now that the Republican leadership has moved so far to the right – this is not Dwight Eisenhower’s or Nelson Rockefeller’s Republican Party! – are you sure you’re not a business-minded DLC Democrat? Let’s give Senator Santorum the last word, from a town hall meeting in Williamsport, Pennsylvania yesterday where he vigorously defended the remarks that caused all the commotion: ‘If the State can no longer regulate moral activity within the home, then you open up the possibility of a whole host of activity which may be a whole lot immoral.’ Now, here’s an unedited section of the April 7 Associated Press interview with Sen. Santorum (R-PA). The only thing I’ve done is boldface a single line a find particularly chilling: AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that? SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home, this “right to privacy,” then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it’s private, as long as it’s consensual, then don’t be surprised what you get. You’re going to get a lot of things that you’re sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don’t really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don’t be surprised that you get more of it. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle? SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle. AP: What’s the alternative? SANTORUM: In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it’s consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that’s fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. AP: Well, what would you do? SANTORUM: What would I do with what? AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What’s the alternative? SANTORUM: First off, I don’t believe — AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality? SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex? SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality — AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out. SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it? SANTORUM: I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in. Clearly, this is a guy who thinks he’s doing the right thing and has the courage to stand up for what he believes – as do the mullahs who force women to wear veils and forbid them to vote or attend school. I am not suggesting Senator Santorum is not entitled to his beliefs, and I imagine he is a very loving husband and father, for which, if he is, he can be rightly proud. I just think his views, like the mullahs’ views, are terribly wrong and unfair and unAmerican (not that any one of us owns the right to define what is American), and it scares me that he enjoys such a leadership role in our government and the support of so many Republicans.
Talking Trash Say Hello to Senator Santorum April 23, 2003January 22, 2017 WHY STOP AT HATS? Yaakov Har-Oz: ‘Lest you think a meat hat is the last word in carnivorous fashion, click here. IX-NAY ON THE AM-SPAY Michael Burns: ‘Spamhole does the same thing as SneakEmail but does not require that you register, and the ‘fake’ account stops forwarding automatically at a preset time (up to 72 hours) after you create it.’ MY TRASH CAN I know it’s unnatural to develop feelings for a trash can – let alone to pay a three-digit price for what could otherwise have been a $4.99 purchase – but what can I tell you? The heart has a mind of its own. My Williams Sonoma 10-gallon butterfly trash can is a thing of beauty. It is a brushed stainless steel sculpture – and it’s fun! Far from hiding it flush against the wall, I have it jutting straight out into the small kitchen it effectively bisects. Go crazy with your $3,000 Sub-Zero refrigerator, if you will. Me? I get goose bumps every time I step on the pedal of my $179 hydraulic (hydraulic!), brushed-stainless-steel trash can. It’s been nearly a year now, yet my feelings only grow. OH, AND SAY HELLO TO SENATOR SANTORUM You may have seen what the third-ranking Republican senator said to the Associated Press Monday: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy . . . polygamy . . . adultery . . . incest . . . anything.” This in the context of the case now before the Supreme Court in which police entered the bedroom of two Texas men, found them having sex, arrested them, and threw them in jail in accordance with the Texas ‘Homosexual Conduct’ law. Once convicted, they were forced to pay fines and are now considered sex offenders in several states (which can’t be a plus when you go on a job interview). Chip Ellis: ‘I have known Rick since college. The only thing that surprised me about his comments was that he made them publicly – he has always been politically crafty. It may have had something to do with his comments from last week criticizing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for not including him in the tax bill compromise discussions. Rick always wanted the Senate Majority Leader position. Rick may be trying to solidify his conservative base in a power play.’ When Majority Leader Trent Lott was arguably wistful for the good old days of segregation, not long ago, on the occasion of Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday, he was forced to resign his leadership position. (Lott had previously likened gay Americans to ‘alcoholics and kleptomaniacs’ without Republican sanction.) The question arises whether this rather more direct slur on everyone from Newt Gingrich’s sister to Dick Cheney’s daughter to Arizona Republican congressman Jim Kolbe to perhaps 20 million other law-abiding, tax-paying, nicely dressed Americans is okay with the Republican Party. (The Democratic Party was, of course, quick to denounce it.) The White House, in an inauspicious start, had no comment. I’m not saying you have to be thrilled if you find out your child or uncle or secretary or boss is gay or lesbian – that’s your business. But does the political party that prides itself on wanting to limit the reach of government really want to say it’s okay for police to break into your bedroom and arrest you for what you are doing in bed? Obviously, this happens virtually never. But the point is that it did happen and, when its Constitutionality was challenged, people like the former and current Republican governors of Texas defended it. And now comes the third-ranking Republican in the Senate not only to defend the arrests and convictions, but to liken intimacy between consenting adults to incest. The justification with these things is always the Bible. But it’s worth noting that the Bible was long used to justify slavery . . . ‘slaves, obey thy masters’ (Colossians 3:22) ‘with fear and trembling’ (Ephesians 6:5) . . . was long used to justify denying women the vote . . . and prescribes death for nonvirgin brides (Deuteronomy 23:21). What are Senator Santorum’s views on slavery, suffrage, and death to nonvirgin brides? My guess: ‘against,’ ‘for,’ and ‘against,’ in that order. So why condone the arrest of two citizens in their own bedroom? Why treat gay citizens differently from straight ones? Could the answer be simple bullying bigotry? It would be different if Santorum were 90. (Not to say there are not an awful lot of enlightened 90-year-olds, God bless ’em – my stepdad, for one.) But Santorum is a young man and ought to know better. He should act his age.