en

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

If you read this post before 7:23 CET on the 23rd, please note that I made some tweaks and clarifications. It's sooo much better now.

Here are two stories to follow in tandem... (The first brought to my attention by PragueBlog, which has a funky new template.)

Andrew Sullivan offers this baffling comment regarding the affair of the Labour backbencher found, according to the Daily Telegraph, to be in the pay of Saddam Hussein: "[T]he full implications of this story for the anti-war movement are epic." The intellectual sloppiness in that statement is pretty astounding. Is he saying that this guy's actions discredit anybody that opposed the war? Sounds like it. Or is he just talking about the anti-war segment of the British Labour Party led by Galloway? Cuz that's not quite what it says.

The problem isn't that Sullivan overstates the case here; the problem is that there is no case. The undeniably traitorous actions of an individual MP, one that most non-Brits (and probably many Brits?) have never even heard of, have absolutely no implications for the anti-war movement, let alone "epic" ones. And just so you know where I'm coming from, although I was and remain skeptical of a unilateral invasion of Iraq, I've never had much sympathy for the anti-war movement -- and loads and loads of contempt for it. But this Galloway affair should not change anybody's opinion (except for your opinion about Mr. Galloway, if you had one previously).

Meanwhile, Sullivan gets justifiably outraged at the anti-homosexual rantings of Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. We'll see how the Republican Party deals with this nutcase, or whether they consider him a nutcase at all. Indeed, the full implications of this story for the Republican movement really are epic -- he's the #3 in the Party heirarchy, after all.

P.S. You should read all of Santorum's comments, given to an AP reporter. They're amazing. Here's one bit, funny in a very un-funny sort of way:

SEN. SANTORUM: 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.