The End Of The Empire

Lately I have been feeling like the United States is on borrowed time as a world power.  This is not exactly an original thought, but watching the complete dysfunction in Washington and the state capitals (particularly the chaos engineered by the Republicans and Tea Party) makes me think there is no hope for the future of this country.  What’s really bothering me is not so much that we will be overtaken soon, but that it will be China doing the overtaking.  A repressive oligarchy that cares absolutely nothing for its populace and is not answerable either . . . well, that’s just unsettling.  Why can’t it be India or Brazil?  On the other hand, human civilization is near an end given the way we are overusing our natural resources and destroying the planet.

I wonder if one day I will wake up feeling like the British do–both pining for the glory days when they actually mattered (and yet also regretting them.)

I Miss Posting Regularly

Alas, at this moment, it is just not feasible. Please bear with me for the next few months, and I will try to update with longer posts at some point soon.

Very Curious . . .

My most popular post this past week has been the last one: a one line phrase about giving up.

Should this be a sign?  On Oscar night is it fair to ask “Do you not like me?  Do you really not like me?”

Why I’m Giving Up . . .

Beyonce in a remake of “A Star is Born” directed by Clint Eastwood.

I feel I don’t need to say anything more.

Finally, A Fierce Advocate

For most of his term thus far, President Barack Obama has been derided by LGBT advocates primarily because of the Justice Department’s defense of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and The Defense of Marriage Act in court.  The Justice Department has made some serious missteps along the way, particularly its first attempts to defend DOMA, which recycled every anti-gay canard in the book.  It was a very disappointing start from someone who called himself a fierce advocate for the LGBT community.

Although I too have been very disappointed at times, the truth is that even prior to the DADT repeal a few months ago, Obama had done a tremendous amount for the LGBT community, far more than any of his predecessors–in fact, far more than all of his predecessors combined.  However, before the repeal of DADT, everything victory had been administrative, which means that if a homophobic bigot such as Mike Huckabee were to becomes President, all of the Obama Administration’s good work could be erased almost immediately.  It is different with legislation; because getting Congress to do anything takes a tremendous amount of effort, repealing prior legislation is almost impossible (unless the courts do it–more on that below.)  It’s why DADT will stay repealed despite the rumblings of some idiotic freshman Republican Representatives.  It’s also why it is so hard to repeal DOMA legislatively, although God love Dianne Feinstein for trying.

LGBT advocates have always known that the only way to overturn DOMA is judicially.  DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional for at least two very good reasons: (1) the federal government is supposed to recognize state marriages; and (2) state governments have to recognize marriages performed in other states.  Yet DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows states the option of not recognizing them.  (Also, it is a law that blatantly and unconstitutionally discriminates against a class of people.)

Now, it is true that the federal constitution does not explicitly mention marriage, which is why DOMA was not struck down immediately.  However, marriage has always been left to the states.  Marriage and probate law are the two major areas that the federal government steers clear of.  It is unthinkable that say the state of Wyoming, let alone the federal government, would refuse to recognize a marriage from Colorado.

When DOMA passed, there was no such thing as same-sex marriage in the United States.  Only the Hawaiian state Supreme Court had found a state constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples and that was quickly overturned.  Nevertheless, the writing was on the wall, and Congress overstepped its bounds to make sure that if there were any more Hawaiis, then neither the federal government nor the other states would be bound by such formalities as the constitution.

So why does DOMA still exist?  No one has challenged it yet.  Given the makeup of the Supreme Court in 1996 (when DOMA passed), LGBT advocates were justifiably afraid that a majority of the Justices would create horrendous precedent for same-sex couples.  Sodomy laws were still on the books in a few states, and Supreme Court jurisprudence had by and large been very unfavorable to the LGBT community.  Although that had started to change with Romer v. Evans, challenging DOMA would have been akin to civil rights litigation suicide.

In the late 1990′s things started to change.  Vermont led the way with its civil unions law.  Then came the double whammy in 2003 of Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision which required the state to offer marriage to same-sex couples.  More states enacted civil union and same sex marriage laws.  DADT was overturned by Congress.  Despite the setbacks, and there have been many, the gains have been monumental.  Lawrence, as flawed as the decision is, cast a very long shadow, and despite (or perhaps because of) its vagueness, lower courts have been trended to find a more expansive holding with regard to gays and lesbians.  This meant that anti-gay laws cannot stand.  First and foremost among them is DOMA.

So getting back to Obama, when the Justice Department defended DOMA, LGBT advocates were crushed because throughout his presidential campaign he heavily implied that he thought DOMA was unconstitutional.  The Justice Department learned from its initial tone-deaf missteps, and its attempts at defending DOMA were half-hearted at best.  Nevertheless, the law was still being defended by the Obama Administration.*

Until today.

The President has directed the Justice Department to argue that DOMA is unconstitutional.  That means that the federal government’s position whenever DOMA is challenged is that the law should be struck down (at least in districts with no precedent.)  Although it is not unique for the Executive Branch to argue that standing law is unconstitutional, it is exceedingly rare–almost unheard of.

Moreover, and to me this is the even bigger deal, the Justice Department’s official position is that sexual orientation is a protected class and merits heightened scrutiny.  As I have discussed before, reviewing a law with heightened scrutiny means that the law is far more likely to be struck down.  Presumably this would mean DOMA and its progeny would fall.

But here is the problem–although the Justice Department’s official position is that sexual orientation is a protected class deserving of heightened scrutiny, the Executive Branch does not make that determination, the courts do–specifically the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court holds that sexual orientation is not a protected class, then it is not until Congress or the Constitution change (or the Supreme Court personnel does.)  Furthermore, a new Administration may change Justice Department policy.  Additionally, DOMA is not left undefended.  Members of Congress are permitted to defend it now that the Justice Department has declined.

So does this mean that the Administration’s position is worthless?  Absolutely not.  In fact, this may be a blessing for the courts.  Courts hate to be out in front of public opinion because of the political fallout.  It is very rare for a court to lead the way–that’s why there was only one Warren Court (the era in the 1950′s and 1960′s when the Supreme Court dramatically altered civil and criminal rights law.)  Because the federal government’s official position is that DOMA is unconstitutional, the courts may be more willing than before to strike DOMA down.  Although that might not make a difference in front of the Supreme Court, it also just might.  When the case comes before the Supreme Court, the Court will ask the Justice Department for its official position.  An attorney from the Solicitor General’s office (perhaps even the Solicitor General) may well argue for ten minutes or so before the Court and tell the Justices that DOMA is unconstitutional and homosexuals deserve stronger protection under the law (watch for Justice Scalia’s head to explode if that happens.)

President Obama made a very strong point today–his administration will no longer defend any laws that are rooted in anti-gay animus.  Dahlia Lithwick does a great job summing this all up if my analysis is not enough. Read her take anyway.  She’s always worth it.

So assuming the Supreme Court follows the Justice Department, what happens next?  Well, it is dangerous to speculate, but there probably will be two different courses of action.  The first is to get rid of the entirety of DOMA.  Remember, the current lawsuits only challenge one part of the law.  There is still the matter of the states refusing to recognize other states’ lawful marriages.  Assuming that the Supreme Court does indeed grant heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation, then there will be a state-by-state law campaign to get rid of all laws and state constitutional amendments that outlaw same-sex marriage (and adoption).

The second course of action will be to go after federal government laws that discriminate against same-sex couples.  These are laws you may not immediately think of, but are still very important: tax laws, particularly those dealing with marriage and inheritance, immigration laws (letting a same-sex spouse stay in the country as one would with an opposite-sex spouse), government worker benefits, particularly health care.  These are no small potatoes.

So the final question is why now?  There was really no political gain, and the announcement came out of the blue.  When DADT was repealed, I thought that the Administration was going to pack up, say that it kept its major promise to the LGBT community, and would worry about DOMA after reelection.  I have to say that I am shocked.  It really feels like the LGBT community has, finally, the staunch ally that we were promised.  The arc of the moral universe may have bent a little more today toward justice.

Footnotes:

* There are currently two cases pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that challenge that section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal government purposes as only one man and one woman.  The Second Circuit hears cases from Vermont and Connecticut, both of which legalized same-sex marriage.

More Mainstream Recognition For Marta

Newsweek published a really good article about Marta.  (Thanks for Jeff Kassouf at Equalizer Soccer for pointing this out.)  I am glad to see her get the recognition that she deserves, and I imagine that more will come as the Women’s World Cup approaches.  I have to admit that I am rooting for Brazil, and I am getting scared that the lack of togetherness will harm the team.  They are the most talented squad and Marta is far and away the supreme talent of the women’s game–they should win if either football or life were fair.  Unfortunately, neither is.

Although the best hope for the WPS is generally thought to be an American victory, I am beginning to think that a Brazil win would be the WPS’s best hope.  No player represents the league, or women;s football, more than Marta.  A Brazil win may very well legitimize the game, and perhaps bring in enough of a crowd who will want to see both the world’s best player who led her side to its first title.  This is how the WPS should market the league if Brazil were to win.  Although Germany is still the favorite.

The Newsweek article ends with a reminder of how Marta is changing attitudes in Brazil:

For all her star power, Marta alone cannot change the fragile math of women’s sports.  But back home, things have already begun to turn. Although, like her, the best female players have to leave Brazil to earn a living, a quiet revolution is sweeping the back country. “The only sport that girls used to play was handball,” she says. “Now they all play football.” The beautiful game may soon find its next Marta.

My one quibble: there is only one Marta just as there is only one Pele.  But football is big enough to have more than one star.  It is only appropriate that the next generation of greats should come from Brazil.

 

Anonymous v. The Westboro Baptist Church

It’s war.  Anonymous, the online hacker collective which has of late become something of an attack dog for Wikileaks and Julian Assange, has found a new target–the Westboro Baptist Church.  On February 16, 2011, Anonymous ordered the church to cease and desist all of its hateful activities.  It warned:

[Y]ou will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover.

The church simply responded “Bring It!”  I’m sure their private discussions were even classier.

Like all normal people everywhere, I have no love of the Westboro Baptist Church.  I am definitely in the minority of liberals (and probably lawyers of all political stripes) when I saw that I firmly believe that the church should lose its case currently pending before the Supreme Court.  But then again, I also believe that the First Amendment has been expanded well beyond all intention or recognition.

Anonymous, as a collective, does not seem to have any set goals other than to cause general anarchy and mayhem, although many of their activities, particularly of late, have a free speech bent–particularly with regard to Wikileaks.  Which is why this attack on the Phelps clan is very disturbing to me.  Although, personally, I would love to see the Westboro Baptist Church go down in flames, the fact that an online collective has decided what is good and what is bad, and (more importantly) has the power to do something about it, makes me uneasy.

The First Amendment does not apply here–it is a prohibition on government only.  One of my pet peeves is when people say, “I have the right to free speech” whenever someone tries to stop them from talking.  It’s not true, and they don’t.  The First Amendment limits the government’s power to act.  However, I can stop someone whose speech I don’t like by kicking him out of my home.  A business can stop him by removing him from its premises.

The reason that the First Amendment was created was the fear that good speech would be squelched because of its content by a bad government.  In 1789, only governmental authority could effectively use that power–hence the First Amendment was an attempt to stop the federal government from becoming a bad one.  As a result, speech of all content is protected–the government cannot say what is right or wrong, even when the voters want it so (or at least that is the theory if not always the practice.)

In 2011 things are much different because of the Internet.  Therefore Anonymous, by virtue of its members’ Internet skills, has the power to do what once only the government was able to do–prevent the speech of an individual or a group.  While the First Amendment restrains the American federal and local governments, it does not limit Anonymous.  There may be laws against hacking, but truthfully, no one can stop Anonymous.  Such laws only extend so far.  Anonymous is a worldwide collective whose entirety is not bound by any one code, even if select members are.

I confess to being uneasy.  We have entered a brave new world, and I am not sure I like it.

If any member of Anonymous wants to alleviate (or stoke) my fears, by all means please post in the comments.  Are my fears justified?

{edited 2/21/11:  It appears that the alleged attacks on the Phelps clan by Anonymous was a hoax.  Anonymous reasserted that it does support free speech, and stated it was not (yet) interested in the Westboro Baptist Church, which is reassuring.  Nevertheless, I hold by earlier comments about what would happen when an online collective that is not so in favor of free speech decides to strike a target of which it does not approve.}

Grant Wahl For President!

Of FIFA that is.  Yes, he is seriously running for the position.  He announced it on SI.com, and honestly he makes a compelling case.  On the other hand, he won me over simply by being neither Sepp Blatter nor Mohamed Bin Hammam.

Wahl will never get the job.  He knows it too; this campaign is more to make a point (and a joke) than anything else.  And bravo to him for doing it.  While I imagine that at least 95% of the football following public would vote for him, I am even more certain that 0% of the people who actually vote will do so.  Corruption breeds corruption, and no one  in FIFA will want to clean it up.

Still, one can dream . . .

Dissecting Nir Rosen’s Justification: Sexual Assault And The Blindness Of The Political Left

On February 11, Lara Logan, a CBS reporter, was sexually assaulted and beaten in Tahrir Square while covering the Egyptian riots against Mubarak.  She was rescued by a group of Egyptian women and the Egyptian army.  Both sides of the political aisle have issued disgusting comments about Logan’s tragedy–either personally attacking her, advancing a political agenda, or both.

The most shocking and now infamous of the comments came from the journalist Nir Rosen who wrote via Twitter: ”Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal.” and ”Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don’t support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too.” and ”Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger” and ”It’s always wrong, that’s obvious, but I’m rolling my eyes at all the attention she’ll get.” and ”Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I’m sorry.” and “She’s so bad that I ran out of sympathy for her.”   Rosen tried to retract his statements, but the damage was done.  He “resigned” his position as a fellow at NYU.

On February 17, Salon, like the good little leftist rag that it is, gave Rosen a forum to publicly explain why he wrote what did.  Rather than apologize (or better yet, say nothing), he dug himself in deeper.*  His mea culpa made me dislike him far more than I did.  It revealed quite a bit about him personally and professionally–far more than he no doubt intended, and far more even than what his Twitter comments suggested.  He showed how flawed he is as a both a human being and a journalist.

Before I begin this post, let me say upfront that–like many people–until this week, I had never heard of Nir Rosen.  Now having an awareness of who he is, I consider him a hatemonger, and I am glad his career appears over (although no doubt in a few months he will spew his bile again in the safe confines of leftist rags like Salon or The Nation.)  The lowest form of argument is the ad hominem attack, but because Rosen has made this all about himself, both through his Twitter messages and his non-apology on Salon, it is impossible to separate him from his arguments.

Lest it be said that I am hiding what was really written (as I am excerpting), here is Rosen’s explanation in full.  (I should also link to his mea culpa–and subsequent takedown by Anderson Cooper–on CNN.)

“With 480 characters I undid a long career defending the weak and victims of injustice.”

From the get-go it an insight into Nir Rosen’s ego.  Tellingly, he does not begin with an apology or regret for his comments; he begins with the damage he did to himself.  ”[T]he weak and the victims of injustice.”  That is an almost superhero-esque way of describing his own work, which, on any scale you choose, is of no consequence.

“There is no excuse for what I wrote. At the time, I did not know that the attack against Lara Logan was so severe, or included apparent sexual violence. Even so, any violence against anyone is wrong. I’ve apologized, lost my job, and humiliated myself and my family.”

He says he apologized, although how he did so, remains unclear (perhaps on Twitter?)  Also, note the use of the word “apparent”.  It is a weasel-word adjective that can be used to cast doubt upon its noun.  Logan was apparently sexually assaulted.  Do you hear the lack of decisiveness?  ”I didn’t see her raped, therefore it may or may not have happened.”  Instead of recognizing his failings, he talks about his own humiliation and his family’s.

“But I, at least, don’t want to go down looking like a sexist pig. I am not. I am a staunch supporter of women’s rights, gay rights and the rights of the weak anywhere in the world.“

My first comment would be “too late; you look like a sexist pig.”  But that’s a cheap shot without backing it up.  However, Rosen gives the ammo in his next sentence.  Notice how he juxtaposes the people he claims to staunchly support–women, gays, and the weak anywhere in the world.  It is very patronizing.  The weak need his help!  Rosen conflates “weak” and “oppressed”, and he insults those people he claims to support.  Women are not weak.  Gays are not weak.  They are however, oppressed.  Weak is internal, oppression is external.  The oppressed need allies to help in their struggle.  The weak need people to fight for them.  Rosen’s words are extremely telling about how he views the world–he is not an ally of the oppressed, he is a savior to the weak.  And women are among those he classifies as weak.  Ergo, he has to save them.  This is how he feels about women, and that is sexism.  You don’t have to personally oppress someone to be a sexist pig.  And as a gay man, let me personally assure Rosen that I am not weak.  (Of note, in his interview with Anderson Cooper he says that he is working on the harassment of women by security forces trained by the Americans.  In Rosen’s world, that harassment could only come from America and not from the men of Afghanistan or Iraq, but more on that later.)

“This is not the first time my words have landed me in trouble. I have been challenged many times on my support of resistance movements and my support of engaging with America’s enemies, and I have never and will never apologize for those stances.“

This is a deflection.  Nir Rosen is still not really apologizing.  Instead, he is conflating his horrific comments with his own brand of journalism (i.e. terrorists can do whatever damage they want to a larger power because lack of might makes right.)  He is making himself the victim, a victim of a conspiracy to destroy him for being a champion of the oppressed.  But he would, because Rosen loves victims.  He associates with victims, and now he has an excuse to join them.  For the record, these “resistance movements” as he calls them, are in fact, terrorist organizations–Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and, of course, Al Qaeda.  These groups, not coincidentally brutally mistreat women, gays, and the other “weak” people who Rosen allegedly staunchly supports.  But in Rosen’s eyes they are not American or Israeli, so it’s okay.

“I continue to apologize for this comment because it in no way reflects the way I feel about women or violence. Sexual assault is never funny, and it is a terrible crime. I have apologized to Ms. Logan and her family, and to victims of sexual violence everywhere.“

As far as I can tell, he has only talked about how ashamed he is and how his career has been destroyed.  I don’t believe he has actually in person ever said, “I am so sorry” and then stopped talking.  (He did not even bother to apologize to Anderson Cooper for making fun of him and suggesting that he too should be sexually assaulted when Cooper interviewed him.)  I am also fairly certain that Rosen does in fact believe in violence–so long as the people he supports are the violent ones (a la Christopher Hitchens, whom Rosen also hates.)  Just read Rosen’s Twitter feed if you can stomach it.  It reveals an anti-US, anti-Israel narcissist who champions not the weak or oppressed, but rather the terrorist and the purveyor of violence.  He also champions himself above all.  My personal favorite tweet is this–”If read [sic] my book and liked it, some asshole wrote a terrible review of it on Amazon, so feel free to respond.”

“So why did I write it? It was a disgusting comment born from dark humor I have developed working in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Lebanon — and a need to provoke people.“

Let me translate:  ”I am a jerk.  That’s just the way I am.  I worked in war-torn countries, which excuses my jerkiness.”

“I have a few think tank friends on Twitter, and we often banter about the morality of WikiLeaks, counterinsurgency and other issues. When I first heard the news about Logan, I assumed she was roughed up like every other journalist — which is still bad — but I was jokingly trying to provoke one of my think tank friends on Twitter, thoughtlessly, of course, and terribly insensitively. Stupidly, I didn’t think the banter between myself and a couple of other guys would amount to anything.“

Basically, Rosen has said over and over again–although in the next breath he denies it–that if a journalist is “roughed up” then it is okay.   Anderson Cooper getting beat up is fine because that is happening all over, although maybe sexual assault is over-the-top (or it is if you get caught for making fun of a sexual assault victim.)  This also proves how stupid Rosen is.  Time after time, errant Twitter comments have become the focus of nation-wide stories.  He is not the first Twitter-buffoon.  Yet those idiots who write these controversial tweets are always surprised when they get caught.

“Now, Twitter is no place for nuance, which is why I should have stuck to long-form journalism.“

And yet, he still maintains a Twitter account.  Two more points about this: (1) his long-form journalism is horrendous, and (2) what could he have possible said in a long-form piece about a sexual assault other than “it’s horrible.”  What more nuance is there?

“And I have been frustrated by the ideological opportunists who have used this ordeal for their personal gain. People whose words have helped create and justify war and genocide are now jumping onto this issue to attack me for my previous journalism (which, naturally, I stand by). People like Jeffrey Goldberg, who has blood on his hands, and now acts like he’s never heard of me, jump in and use the disgusting situation of Logan’s assault as a lever against a longtime rival. Others include Michael Totten, Lee Smith and Jim Geraghty of the National Review, who led the crusade against me. I used a horrible situation as a way to provoke some friends. They are using it to further their careers.“

Whatever one thinks of the left/right divide or of the so-called crusaders whom Rosen names (and I do not think much of them), the ego that he displays is astounding.  First, none of them are furthering their careers; they are all very well-established (particularly Goldberg).  Second, while they may be scoring political points, but (1) Rosen gave them the opportunity, and (2) he is trying to do the exact same thing by turning himself into their victim.  Third, why is using Logan’s tragedy to “provoke some friends” any less horrific or more justifiable than to advance one’s career (even if that were the case)?  It seems to me, both are equally callous and deplorable.  Rosen neglects to mention that his provocation was done in a completely public medium regardless of the intent.  In other words, he was making fun of Logan in front of everyone, even after everyone knew she had been sexually assaulted.  Fourth, once again Rosen’s ego and narcissism are truly on display here at full strength.  Again he mentions his writing (which again he says he stands by).  Additionally he casts himself into the lone voice of truth against the bloody, genocidal right-wing media.  As much as I dislike Goldberg, I think he is spot-on in his takedown of Rosen.  More of Rosen’s narcissism: it really pisses him off that Goldberg genuinely had no idea who he was before his Lara Logan tweets.

“So, given the opportunity here for some nuance, I feel I should explain the point I really was trying to make. Had Logan been a non-white, non-famous journalist, this story would have never made it to the news.“

This is neither nuanced nor accurate.  The savage assaults of women in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and yes, the Middle East are very much in the news.  Do we (the American public) know all their names.  Obviously not, there are too many.  What makes Logan’s story into national news however, is not that she is a white, famous, journalist, but rather than she is a name and a face that millions of Americans already know.

“So why all the focus on Logan? The U.S. media did not care when Egyptian journalists (or any other Egyptian) were being jailed. Only when pretty white people showed up did Egypt really start to matter, and then, they were preoccupied with the scary Muslim Brotherhood possibly taking over, or what would happen to poor Israel now that there was a “threat” of democracy in Egypt.“

First, the U.S. media has in fact reported on jailed Egyptian journalists.  It is not in the news every day, that is true, but the world is incredibly big and lots of injustice goes on everywhere.  There media tends to focus on the latest and not decades-long stories.  That is the nature of the beast. Once the riots started, suddenly Mubarak’s oppression became news again.  The “pretty white people,” as Rosen derisively calls them, showed up because Americans wanted to know about the riots–not the other way around as Rosen believes.  And this dismissal of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the fear of democracy in Egypt shows an appalling lack of historical sense about the Muslim Brotherhood and revolutions in general–which almost never end in democracy.  And of course, it always comes back to Israel.  Israel is the bugaboo of the left.  Everything in the Middle East, in the entire world, revolves around Israel.  There is this delusion that if Israel weren’t there than the Middle East would be a happy conflict-free place.  The political left refuses to acknowledge what blatantly stares them in the face: (1) everyone in the Middle East hates each other, and (2) if Israel ever let down its guard, there would be a genocide of Jews on par with the Holocaust.  Israel’s neighbors can lose a hundred times, Israel cannot afford to lose even once.

“I really have been outraged by Logan’s stories in the past, which I feel have defended American imperial adventures that cost the lives of many thousands of people in the Middle East, glorified American special forces even while they were killing innocent Afghans, and praised Gen. Stanley McChrystal, while condemning her own colleague, Michael Hastings, of Rolling Stone (because he hadn’t served his country, she said). My resentment of Logan was because I felt she was a terrible journalist who supported wars that I had covered.”

And here we go.  He is not defending what he said, but he’s defending why he hated Logan.  It’s an implicit blame-the-(real)-victim.  He has to justify his dislike of her, which he has tweeted about prior to February 15th.  It’s a cheap way of trying to get himself sympathy.

“Racist right-wing pundits can say whatever they want on serious platforms, Ann Coulter can call for more journalists to be jailed in Egypt at CPAC (and be met with applause) but I made a callous joke on Twitter, a medium far less serious (I thought), and an entire mob turns on me.“

In other words, Rosen believes that he is the real victim.

“It’s hard not to be cynical about many of the sanctimonious responses I have received. Especially when they come from people who support every kind of American war (or Israeli war), tolerate racism against Arabs and Muslims, and — while focusing on the plight of celebrities — ignore outrages like our scorched-earth policies in Kandahar. The attacks have aimed at ending my career, but my career will endure because my work stands on its own.”

Once again he manages to tout his own writing, as well as condemn both America and Israel.  Everything he writes is self-justification, a way of placating the leftist masses whom he knows will support him, as they do Julian Assange.  The last sentence shows exactly what a muddled wreck Rosen is–first he ruined his own career, then the right-wing journalists ruined his career, then they tried to ruin his career, now they will never be able to ruin his career.  What a progression in just a few short paragraphs.

“I’m baffled by the fact that 1,000 new people started to follow me on Twitter. What do they expect to read? It’s a bizarre, voyeuristic Internet culture and everybody in the mob is looking to get in on the next fight first, to be at the center of the thing that’s happening, even if there’s nothing really there.”

This rings incredibly hollow.  People go on Twitter to communicate with the larger world and to follow celebrities–even if the only cause of celebrityhood is by being a controversial figure.  If you read Rosen’s Twitter feed from before the incident you would see that he is trying to reach a larger audience.  Now he condemns people for following him.  A cynic might even think his attacks on Logan were a cynical way of getting more Twitter followers.

“I hope that one day people will believe me when I say that I did not mean it and that it does not reflect who I am. I hope that people will take time to read my work and understand that I have spent my career taking a lot of heat for defending victims of all kinds, not just Arabs and Muslims. And I hope Ms. Logan and other victims of sexual violence will one day forgive me for my terrible mistake.”

See now, here is the problem.  After reading his Salon screed, I believe that Rosen completely meant it, and it does reflect who he is.  He is a believer in the cult of victimhood, and that anyone who is poor and/or oppressed cannot possibly be bad, whereas nothing that comes out of America or Israel could possibly be good.  What’s more is that Rosen has only expressed remorse about how this incident has affected his own career and how he is viewed.  I believe that deep down Rosen is glad this happened to Logan.

What strikes me most about Rosen’s sob story is that although he while uses the word “apologize” four times, he never actually said that he is sorry or that he regrets what he said on a personal level.  What I see is someone who is sorry because his career has been destroyed, and because his sanctimony has been stripped from him.

The truth is that sexual violence toward women has always been as much a blind spot for the left as for the right.  Most recently, the Julian Assange case has shown the depth of sexism and downright misogyny that exists in the political left.  Should we be surprised that Rosen is a supporter of Assange and Wikileaks?  Just as Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore, two self-proclaimed champions of the oppressed, rushed to defend Assange, so too does Rosen rush to defend himself.

No matter how into equality they claim to be, men on the left (and some women too) have always pushed women aside.  The abolitionist movement split in two because so many men would not support women’s suffrage.  During the 1960′s student riots at Columbia University, female students were shut out of the leadership by the men.  They were implicitly told to go do women’s work, while the men led the charge.  Even in the early 1970′s heyday of the gay rights movement, the lesbians (and transgendered) were pushed out by gay men.

I am currently reading a book about the great William Brennan, possibly the most significant Supreme Court Justice of the 20th century.  For years he flatly refused to hire female clerks, despite being a champion of women’s rights.  Even after he hired his first female clerk in the early 1970′s it was years before he hired a second one.

Elected female leaders are few and far between, and two of the most significant (Thatcher and Merkel) are from the political right.

The truth though is that in politics, the oppressed do not matter so much.  Supporting oppressed groups is a way of jockeying for power between the political left and right.  The American political scene has, since the 1980′s (and especially since 1994), become all too similar to that of historical Latin American.  The Latin American left and the right had different opinions on many things, the role (and power) of the Catholic church in particular, but ultimately, they two sides were mirror opposites of each other.  They used the same brutal methods against each other and against their people.  Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and the military juntas of Latin America were from the political right.  Stalin and Mao were from the political left. The French Revolution ended the reign of the Bourbons but brought about Napoleon.  The Iranian Revolution replaced the reign of the terrible Shah with the even more terrible Ayatollahs.

I feel secure in saying that Nir Rosen does not regret his statements about Lara Logan.  What he regrets is that he will no longer be an effective mouthpiece for his political ideology.  And having seen his ideology, I can only be grateful.

Footnotes:

*  Rosen’s apology generated hundreds of comments.  From the four pages of reader comments that I could stomach (out of many more), reaction has been split between (1) those who believe (as I do) that what he wrote was a self-serving way to attack the powers-that-be and (2) typical Salon foot soldiers who “forgave him” despite never actually being angry with him at all.  Salon‘s editor-in-chief Joan Walsh (whom I blame for the site’s steady decline in quality) did not defend Rosen exactly.  She sidestepped the condemnation by issuing a tu quoque argument on the equally vile comments coming from the political right.

Rufus Wainwright Is A Father

Viva Katherine Wainwright Cohen.

So, let’s recap:

On the baby’s father’s side, she is connected to the Wainwrights, the McGarrigles, and the Roches.  And her maternal grandfather is Leonard Cohen.

If karma were fair, young Viva will have no musical or literary talent whatsoever.

I used to love Rufus Wainwright, but the last album of his that I bought was Want II.  I wasn’t so into the next album, and he just got a little bit too over the top.  The album immediately after Want II broke the spell and the love.  (I do want to get his Judy Garland at Carnegie Hall tribute though.)  My feelings about his music and about the character he puts forward are very complicated.

Nevertheless, congratulations to all involved, I guess.