Politics

The Fog of War blew me away. Unexpected, revelatory, all that good stuff. Mostly just plain compelling. Errol Morris got Robert McNamara (original) to open up about a lot of his life, albeit not as much as one might like about Vietnam, and it’s really just a gripping picture of a man who was under immense pressure and who made mistakes. I can’t say it answered many questions. MacNamara comes about this close to saying he screwed up Vietnam, but he doesn’t really get deeply into the matter — which is interesting, considering that he flat out says he acted immorally in World War II. Vietnam is closer to him, for some reason. It framed some questions for me: was MacNamara a man with a finely developed ethical sense who acted against that sense out of loyalty to Johnson and Kennedy? Was he a man with a finely developed ethical sense who had an easy time ignoring that ethical sense in order to achieve the desired goals? ...

It’s still my opinion that The Passion of the Christ is going to bring the fanatics out of the woodwork. It looks as though it may also enable David Neiwert’s transmission process (original). Over on Ain’t It Cool News, Harry printed a defense of The Passion by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who he describes as “a well known zealot type is known to do some pretty wild right wing things that I completely do not approve of.” ...

Most amusing quote so far in the Massachusetts legislature gay marriage debate: ”God destroyed a whole city over this issue. We’re trying to save our city, our state. They see the gays and lesbians out here voicing their opinions and they know it’s wrong and we want them to know that we stood up for what’s right.” Beware, Boston! What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah could happen to you!

You know, things aren’t going that poorly. I was listening to Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning on my way into work; unsurprisingly, they did an hour or so on the gay marriage issues. Dennis was sympathetic, by which I mean he told Callahan that he was a closed-minded idiot for yelling at pro-gay marriage callers, and by which I mean that he said he thought the term “marriage” was important and would strengthen gay couples. ...

Kevin Drum does a nice job of shedding light on the AWOL issue. He has a document which shows Bush reporting for duty, presumably in Alabama, on October 29th, 1972. That covers Bush’s comments on Meet The Press last Sunday. He also has a document which shows no Texas service after May of 1972, which also matches. One begins to wonder why Bush hasn’t released his military records, considering this. Drum speculates that Bush was put on paper duty as a punishment; that would match with Bush’s refusal to take a physical. There’s going to be some mystery around this until and unless the records are released. Still, he’s clear on the AWOL/deserter issue and it would behoove us to acknowledge that lest we appear shrill and partisan.

Kerry has a 23 point lead in Virginia polls and a 24 point lead in Tennessee polls. Edwards needed to win those states, and it’s looking very unlikely. Kerry also has a fairly commanding lead in the latest polls out of Wisconsin. There’s still a chance someone could turn it around there, but it’s unlikely.

President Bush says, regarding his National Guard service in Alabama: There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don’t just say “I did something” without there being verification. Military doesn’t work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama. This really simplifies the question. It’s not about the honorable discharge, or whether or not it was OK to miss some service as long as you got the OK from your CO, or any of that. It’s about whether or not he showed up in Alabama. This isn’t a matter of missing documentation, either; it’s about documents which show no service in Alabama in 1972.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court just ruled (original) that civil unions won’t satisfy the constitutional requirement to permit gay marriage. This guarantees that a Massachusetts constitutional amendment will wind up on the state ballot in 2006. Despite all the whining about judicial activism, this is the only way Massachusetts voters were going to get to vote on the issue — the Massachusetts legislature wasn’t going to go out of their way to put a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage on the ballot. Seems to me that a) the judges acted correctly, fulfilling their obligation to rule on Constitutional questions and b) their actions have made it possible for the matter to be considered by the voters. Ironic.

According to Sistani’s office, there was no assassination attempt. That’s a distinct relief.

Look! Consequences. Consider this as, perhaps, retribution for the suicide bombings up in Kurdish territory.