AatomBomb

Inbox

June 30, 2005

To: The Staff of Time Inc.

I decided today that Time Inc. will comply with a court order requiring it to deliver subpoenaed records to a Special Prosecutor and grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame matter. I made the decision after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal court order requiring production of the documents in a case involving Time’s White House correspondent, Matt Cooper.

Agreeing to hand over the subpoenaed records represents the most difficult decision I have made in more than 36 years in the news business. Given the seriousness of my decision for journalists at Time Inc. and throughout our profession, I am sending you a copy of the announcement we made earlier this morning.

I believe that most of you know the origins of this case. If not, you may want to read or reread the letter I sent to the readers of Time and Fortune last month, after we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court decisions which held Matt, Time Inc. and Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, (but not the NYT itself) in contempt. A copy of that letter to readers is attached to this memo.

Should you have questions or comments, please send them to me by e-mail. I shall do my best to respond to them in a timely fashion.

Thanks and best regards,

Norman Pearlstine

Editor in Chief

         

Developing:

July 6, 2005

To: Time Inc. Staff

Today, after being personally and directly contacted by his confidential source, Time White House correspondent Matt Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a CIA operative. This means Judge Hogan of the Federal District Court has vacated the contempt citation and Matt will not be ordered to serve a jail sentence.

Here is Time Inc.’s statement on today’s development:

As we said before today’s hearing, Time Inc. respects Matt Cooper’s right to make his own decision in this important legal matter. But by personally and directly releasing Matt from his obligation to confidentiality, his source has made the decision for Matt to testify a simple one, as other journalists have already testified in this case after being released by their sources.

TheReligiousLeft

A few months ago I wrote that the current wave of religious excess on the right might  "galvanize the Democrats in this country, and finally draw the fault lines of a Religious Left."

Allie Carter, a Master's student at the University of Chicago Divinity School, obviously agrees, and with two fellow bloggers has started FaithandJustice.org, a left-of-center religious blog.  She got a healthy plug on OxBlog recently, so I certainly hope they get the attention they deserve.  I'd love to start disagreeing with religious types on both sides of the political spectrum.

Pride

"All is mystery; but he is a slave who will not struggle to penetrate the dark veil."

- Benjamin Disraeli

"I will not fear
Fear is the mindkiller,
Fear is the little death
That brings total Oblivion
I will permit my fear to pass
Over me and through me
And where it has gone
I will turn the inner eye
Nothing will be there
Only I will remain."

- Frank Herbert, Dune

"We could even try new strategies for risk reduction among gay men —
strategies that emphasize positive ways to care for our health rather than
negative ways to scare the bejeezus out of everyone."

- Andrew Sullivan

OnlyHuman

"Parasites are not only incredibly diverse; they are also incredibly successful. There are parasitic stretches of DNA in your own genes, some of which are called retrotransposons. Many of the parasitic stretches were originally viruses that entered our DNA. Most of them don't do us any harm. They just copy and insert themselves in other parts of our DNA, basically replicating themselves. Sometimes they hop into other species and replicate themselves in a new host. According to one estimate, roughly one-third to one-half of all human DNA is basically parasitic.

Once you broaden your definition, you can label many things parasites. A lot of people ask me, "Do you think humans are parasites?" It's an interesting idea and one worth thinking about. People casually refer to humanity as a virus spreading across the earth. In fact, we do look like some strange kind of bio-film spreading across the landscape.

I think it's a pretty good metaphor. If the biosphere is our host, we do use it up for our own benefit. We do manipulate it. We alter the flows and fluxes of elements like carbon and nitrogen to benefit ourselves--often at the expense of the biosphere as a whole. If you look at how coral reefs or tropical forests are faring these days, you'll notice that our host is not doing that well right now.

However, as you can probably tell from my talk, I don't think there's anything all that bad about being called a parasite. Parasites are very sophisticated; parasites are highly evolved; parasites are very successful, as reflected in their diversity. In fact, I would say that we may be parasites, but we're not very good ones. Successful parasites do a very good job of balancing--using up their hosts and keeping them alive. It's all a question of tuning the adaptation to your particular host. In our case, we have only one host, so we have to be particularly careful."

- Carl Zimmer, Columbia University

Nomi

Rami played with Daniel Isengart again downtown, doing the Klaus Nomi thing.  Coincidentally, my friend Jero from Spain sent me a link to a treasure trove of nightlife pictures from the New York scene in the 70's and early 80's.  Klaus Nomi is featured in several of them.
Here he is on stage at Xenon. 

And at Pravda.

Compare that to Daniel's interpretation below.  Not bad.  He definitely gives you the whole disaffected alien vibe. Check out this new movie about Nomi's life.

Brilliant

Scott has stopped me cold in my argumentative tracks with a brilliant maneuver:

"At the risk of being accused of arguing my recent adversary and good friend in blogging AatomSmith's point for him I am going to reprint for you the op/ed piece written by former Republican Senator and Episcopalian priest John Danforth of Missouri and that appeared in Friday's NYTimes. I figured since you have not started receiving your Times subscription at your new facility you might want to read this. Aatom has called for a more high minded dialogue among men and women of good will on both the right and the left concerning the "culture wars" among other things and as you can see from some of what I have written previously, and from what you have written as well, both you and I have argued that dialogue may be impossible and if not it is certainly not desirable at this point. Obviously, being one who loves to argue, this is a point that I'm more than happy to argue but may or may not be a point that I actually believe in...My inflamatory prior statements aside, what John Danforth says makes me proud to be an Episcopalian and serves to prove Aatom's point beyond a doubt that that there are still big thinkers of good will on both sides who wish to advance the national discussion in a civil and compassionate manner and these are the people we should all be listening to."

Devious bastard, shortcircuiting my brilliant attack by embodying the very sober spirit of reasonable political discussion that I am calling for!  You are truly a master debater, Scott.

I'm still planning on finishing my comments about his last post, but in my own sweet time, naturally.

IGotServed

Scott serves up a brilliant rant in response to my post concerning the Miami Herald column.  It's long, so I thought I'd make it easier on myself and just reprint the damn thing, offering my own take periodically (is there a word for that in the blogosphere?):

Aatom, as you can see, took exception to Leonard Pitts, and me for apparently agreeing with Pitts, when Pitts stated that he always felt that being a gay social conservative was not unlike being a black klansman. Mr. Pitts, being straight, can only speculate upon what it must be like to be gay and a social conservative. Being black, Mr. Pitts has, I suspect, a fairly reasonable view of what it would mean to be a black klansman. Now at some point Aatom incorrectly assumed that Pitts was slamming conservative gays for being "self hating faggots" as Aatom put it and that I was agreeing with Pitts. At no point did self-hating faggots ever enter into Pitt's article. He simply stated that he found gays who were also social conservatives to be puzzling to him along the lines of a black klansman. They are puzzling to me also.

Once I posted the last response I realized that I failed to mention the central problem with Pitts' logic.  The original quote he is responding to states: ""I'm a conservative. And whats wrong with somebody who has what's called an alternative lifestyle or an alternative sexual orientation being a conservative?"  Pitts then makes the logical fallacy of assuming that a person using this language is a "social conservative", carefully inserting the word "social" before every instance of the word "conservative.  In the case of Jim West, of course, one could easily argue (but Pitts does not) that his record belies the more general "conservative" moniker and begs for the social conservative one.  Perhaps, one could also argue, Pitts does not feel that there is a reasonable enough distinction between the larger conservative voting base and the much smaller but arguably more powerful at the moment religious/social conservative wing of the party to be particularly mindful of the distinction.  But his entire argument rests on the distinction, unfortunately, and if he truly believes that "conservative" and "social conservative" mean the same thing, why even bother to lengthen the phrase? 

Speaking of insertions, Scott claims that I pull the phrase "self-hating faggots" out of thin air.  I suppose in the most literal sense that is true.  Let's take a look at what Pitts actually said: "It eludes me how anyone can support a political philosophy that is defined in large part by its open hostility toward people like oneself."  It doesn't strike me as much of a leap to call that the very definition of self-hating.  The term "faggot", of course, was my own little flourish.  It's one of those words you're allowed to use when you are one.

I am puzzled by anyone whose life is devalued to such an extreme by a group of people (social conservatives) that he or she is viewed as not even worthy of being allowed to work in a public school or to be allowed to adopt children and yet somehow feels that they still want to be in that club that holds them in such contempt.

It appears that Scott is also going to run with the term "social conservative" all the way to the gun store.  If that's the argument we are having, then we may as well call it quits, because I couldn't agree more.  If your political philosophy is based in any way, shape or form on any combination of the works of James Dobson and the King James Bible, then you are by nature antithetical to a platform of gay rights.  The problem is that Scott, and Mr. Pitts, are using some sleight of hand here and playing to the fact that the most visible conservatives in the world right now happen to be of the Dobson/King James/Q'uran variety.  The silent majority of conservatives out there who still believe in some form of basic human decency and are more concerned with tax rates and homeland security than abortion and gay marriage are about as visible as the liberals who still believe in basic human decency, health care and the rights of women (the ones that aren't power-lunching their way to the top at least.)  Don't believe there is a silent majority of rational conservatives?  Then why would you want to slander the very few visible gay ones in DC?  If they are in the minority, wouldn't that make them even more important?  It's as if some liberals want the GOP to become the social conservative party.  In fact that is exactly what they want.  Reducing your perceived enemy to a simplistic bogeyman is the oldest and purest political trick in the book.  Just ask any "Hollywood Liberal Elitist."

I am puzzled by anyone who wants to be in that aforementioned club and is possesed of a natural condition (being gay)over which they have no control, certainly less control than say the choice of ones religion, and yet are denied by that same club that they want to be members of the full measure of citizenship and it's privildges expected by everyone else.

And even though neither Mr. Pitts nor I mentioned the Log Cabin Republicans (LRC) Aatom did, I am puzzled by them nonetheless for as Aatom points out in his well written lecture of me and as the LCR likes to point out on their website, they, Log Cabin Republicans, are busy working from within to change the Republican Party and to recapture it from the religious right. I am puzzled by them I guess because the fact that they feel the need, albeit a noble one to be sure, to change the Republican Party from within begs the question, when the Republican Party was being coopted by social conservatives who want nothing more than to see fags dissappear where the fuck were the Log Cabin Republicans?

I mean I think the question that needs to be asked along with the one above is really quite simple and that is: Why did the Republican Party get "hijacked" by social conservatives like the James Dobsons of the world in the first place?" And the answer? Because they let it.

I fear we're entering a slightly hysterical line of reasoning here.  I mentioned the Log Cabinites as one example of gay conservatives who reacted, in the most powerful way they could as a mere lobbying group, to an inexcusable flirtation with cementing gay civil rights out of the Constitution forever.  If they really want to be a part of the "club", which seems an awfully reductionist way to describe a political party, loudly withdrawing your support of the Republican nominee for President of the United States seems a pretty weird way to ingratiate yourself.

As far as the "where were they?" line, I think we need to clarify the concept of party politics a bit.  It is certainly not the sole discretion of any one "special interest" or lobbying group to determine the course of the party's platform.  If that were the case, where was the HRC when Bill Clinton signed away our rights in the military?  Or the liberal gay lobby when he signed the DOMA, one of the most significant legal stumbling blocks to gay marriage in existence? 

The so-called hijacking of the GOP by the religious Right is neither a fait accompli nor a permanent state of affairs by any stretch of the imagination.  Liberals who think this way should be much more concerned about the "hijacking" of their own party by the religious extremists who run ANSWER, or the so-called "pro-Palestinian" groups that share a bank account with Zarqawi.  The Dems who reject the kind of hate-filled nonsense that is spewed at these farcical "peace" marches are about as invisible as the Republicans who should be denouncing the quasi-theological meddling of the feds into innocent people's lives. 

Because they let it, indeed.  We've all let politics become a silly flea circus filled with what Joe Klein who wrote Primary Colors calls the "titillation of the trivial" in this week's Time Magazine.  Bush got drunk and did coke in college!  Kerry may have been in a different southeast asian hellhole than he said he was at some point in the past that none of us can accurately remember!  Bush takes naps!  Bill Clinton is a lech!  These things make 24-hr coverage of a lunatic runaway bride look more newsworthy by comparison, but they certainly have absolutely nothing to do with the way our representatives our running the country.

I'll finish this up in a future post.  I need to get out of here to see someone special. 

But Coming Soon!

• Scott comes out of the closet as a gun-loving states' rights adherent.  Could a Fox News segment be that far behind?!?
• Does gay = liberal?  Are gay conservatives oxymorons, or just plain morons?
• Can the Democrats continue to deflect attention away from their complete lack of a political strategy by shouting "Nazi!" in a crowded theater?
• Can the Bible leave welts when used as a weapon?  Bigger welts than the transcript of a Kerry speech?  (free answer: definitely.)

ScumOfTheEarth

Jun 15, 2005 6:23 am US/Eastern, (1010 WINS) (NEW YORK) - A Brooklyn man is among the suspects being sought in connection with last week's bias related attack of a 27-year old.

Dwan Prince was savagely beaten by three men screaming anti-gay slurs, police said. Authorities say Steven Pomie was part of the group that allegedly beat Prince.

The attack took place outside Prince's building on E. 94th St. and Kings Highway in Brownsville. He has been in intensive care at Brookdale hospital since the Wednesday night attack but doctors say Prince is improving.

I'm not sure if this is the actual prick who turned back around to kick Prince directly in the face as neighbors shouted for them to stop brutally destroying an innocent man, but he was among the 3 that did this unspeakable horror. 

I have no words to describe my disgust. 

Happy Pride Month, everybody.  It's still a jungle out there. Be careful.

AnotherStupidQuiz

This one is called "What Is Your World View?" It pissed me off because apparently I checked three things off as agree that were incompatible within the confines of the quiz algorithm.  It then asked me to choose the one that I most agreed with:

1. Mankind is condemned to be free. (there is no outside control)

2. All that exists is matter and energy.

3. There is a spiritual side to being human.

I chose 3., because it's the most important one in terms of how we experience the universe.  But I also agree with both 1. and 2.  I don't see where the contradiction is between the three.  Might there be the slight possibility that an internet quiz can't absorb the full complexity of the universe and divine the true essense of my world view?  How utterly disappointing.

I do like the ranking of how I scored in the other categories, it's probably how I would prioritize them as well.  Although I have a sneaking suspicion that the completely meaningless term "cultural creative" is a watered-down panacea that the majority of respondents get as their top category:

You scored as Cultural Creative.

Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

Cultural Creative
75%

Existentialist
75%

Materialist
75%

Postmodernist
63%

Idealist
56%

Fundamentalist
25%

Modernist
25%

Romanticist
19%

AcrimoniousPolarity

Responding to a post that Scott made over at Bill In Exile, I lamented the constant bickering and political smearing that seems to be the dominant theme of recent political discourse.  He quotes the Miami Herald, which ran a column likening gay conservatives to "black klansmen."  This smacks of the kind of intra-racial nonsense that you find in the phrase "high yellow" in the black community.  Condi Rice gets a bushel full of it online.  How dare she be black, intelligent, successful and not liberal! Diversity only works if everyone agrees on a common enemy, apparently.

I commented:

We should celebrate those gay men and women brave enough to remain principled conservatives, despite their party leadership's misguided ways, instead of demonizing them. It won't make them sympathetic to their liberal brethren or help change the GOP into something resembling it's past glory. In the end, wouldn't you rather have friends on the inside across the aisle, or do we truly wish to reduce this country to an acrimonious polarity of cultural warriors?

Scott was nice enough to address my point, a huge honor for a poor misguided youth like me:

Yes, it would be great if we could all just get along and engage in civil discourse Aatom but I would posit the theory that that is a condition that we have never displayed as a nation. We are adversarial both by nature and by the design of our political system and the days of yore were no better nor different than today. Recall if you will that at one point the "acrimonious polarity of cultural warriors" resulted in an armed conflict that claimed the lives of 600,000 Americans.

I hope I'm correct in assuming that he is referring to the Civil War, a rather bitter resolution of brotherly differences that is notable for the improvements that it made to our country despite the tragic loss of human lives.  So few of the many similar internicene conflicts around the world have followed suit. 

This is a wicked response for me to take on since I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with Scott.  As a proud free market proponent, I understand all too well the beneficial and unavoidable tensions that create the dynamic frisson of political discourse and business practice in this country.  I enthusiastically champion it, in fact.  So isn't it a bit disingenuous of me to whine about political hatchet jobs against gay conservatives in the Miami Herald?  Maybe a little.  But my gut tells me that we may be conflating the idea of 'adversarial' politics by equating the current brand of political moaning and groaning with something like the Civil War.  If it's truly the "same as it ever was" to quote David Byrne, why does Scott toss out the idea that "Theodore Roosevelt is dead and Abraham Lincoln wouldn't recognize nor even like the republican party today"?  This is an admission that at least in some sense the GOP has lost it's way.  I agree.  That was part of my original point. 

Perhaps I am utterly naive.  I choose to believe that gentlemanly conflict is central to the idea of being American.  We were born out of rejection and turmoil, and have been duking it out over the details of our independence ever since.  But there has been a shift recently, a tugging of the discourse away from the bargaining table where things are hammered out with respect and intellectual integrity, and toward the lunatic fringes of both sides of the horribly misnomered "culture war" in this country.  Culture, I can assure you, has no bearing on the rabid frothing that we are forced to witness ad nauseum on 24-hour cable news shows.

At one point there were ideological giants duking it out at the highest levels of public policy.  There still are actually, but they trot out their minions with appropriately fractious talking points on demand for the media jackals.  Are things that terribly different now?  Not really, except that the GOP has been co-opted by the Dobsons and the DNC has been sucking in too much helium and blowing out too much hatred.  My point, if I still have one, is that I tend to demand a somewhat higher level of rhetoric from those I consider peers, like Scott.  Slamming conservative gays for being self-hating faggots (because there are surely none of those on the other side) misses the complexity and incongruity of what it means to be a conservative gay person in this country.  If it were simply self-hatred or Stockholm Syndrome, why did the Log Cabin girls react so violently against Bush this time around?  Could it be that they have a more sophisticated grasp of what it means to be a conservative than either the Bushies or the Liberal Left?  Could they possibly be the ghost in the machine that short-circuits the takeover bid by the religious right?  Won't it seem a shame with 20/20 hindsight in the future if we dismiss the very fly that ruins the poisonous ointment of radical right-wing nonsense in this country?  This is all mere conjecture, I realize, but I feel that the potential alone demands a more nuanced response to the phenomenon than what was given to us by the Miami Herald.  Lazily reducing the idea of conservatism to the putrid brand of so-called social conservatism is not merely fallacious and historically ignorant, but possibly downright dangerous to the future of politics in America as well.

In the end, it is the type of back and forth respectful disagreement that is being displayed right now on websites like mine and Scott's that is the true hallmark of proper political discourse, not the half-assed and empty slander that currently passes for criticism of conservative gays and blacks in this country.