Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 9, 2010

STILL WAITING FOR A COHERENT ARGUMENT.... Last week's federal court ruling striking down California's Prop 8 generated plenty of enraged responses from far-right activists groups, particularly in the religious right. But in general, Republican politicians haven't responded with much of anything -- as much as the midterm strategy is built around turning white voters against The Other, the GOP just doesn't seem anxious to exploit the court ruling on marriage equality.

Maggie Haberman reported over the weekend that this is part of a deliberate strategy -- Republicans don't see this issue as a winning wedge in 2010, so they're biting their tongues.

What about those of us waiting to see a coherent conservative criticism of the ruling? The NYT's Ross Douthat picks up the slack and offers what he considers his best case for opposing marriage equality.

[L]ifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable -- a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations -- that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support. [...]

[I]f we just accept this shift, we're giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve.

I see. So, two consenting adults who are in love and want to legally commit to one another should be allowed to marry, but only if Ross Douthat considers them a "microcosm of civilization" and "an organic connection between human generations"?

I keep thinking that, given enough time, opponents of marriage equality will come up with a reasonable argument or two. That just hasn't happened yet.

Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Wait, you didn't like the one about how straight people will stop getting married, leading to the destruction of the human race?

Huh. Guess there's no pleasing some people.

Posted by: Daniel on August 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Douthat's doing his best to put lipstick on an intellectual pig. But it still boils down to "Tab A and Slot B" -- a guy's thing is made to fit into a girl's thing, and that's why same-sex marriage is icky and wrong.

And that's why Pro 8's supporters (as you pointed out earlier today) fell on their faces in court: they had to prove their argument, and they simply had nothing to offer.

Posted by: jvwalt on August 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

One of the "microcosm of civilization" parts Douthat apparently thinks we should support is the idea that one partner should earn a lot less money than the other.

Oh, and I think some of the children of my lesbian friends would be surprised that there's no "organic connection between generations" in their households.

So I guess Douthat's definition of who should be allowed to marry is something like: men and women, as long as they don't have roughly equal earning prospects, and as long as they don't plan to adopt any children; and lesbians, just as long as they also have unequal earnings prospects and plan to become parents.

Posted by: paul on August 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen: still looking for rationality in all the wrong places.
Douthat has a face built for thumb-sucking.

Posted by: hells littlest angel on August 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

As much as I can enjoy nice rethorical figures, I just don't believe this:

"I keep thinking that, given enough time, opponents of marriage equality will come up with a reasonable argument or two. That just hasn't happened yet."

A reasonable argument would have to be made on the ground of equal rights for all human. Inequality cannot be reasonably be argued for, if the argument is based on equality.

Just not gonna happen without a major logical flaw.

Posted by: Vokoban on August 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

So to provide 'distinctive recognition and support' for heterosexual monogamy he's willing to prohibit the marriage of gay and lesbians, which provides zero threat to heterosexual monogamy, but he won't touch divorce, which inflicts heterosexual marriages with a 40 percent probability. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: eserwe on August 9, 2010 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

What argument would then apply to marriage between siblings, parents/children, etc? I think availability of marriage to couples of varying orientations will make more people happy (directly) and promote monogamy and legal responsibility etc., but don't pretend the argument at the philosophical level is not problematical.

"Simple thoughts are for simple minds."

Posted by: neil b on August 9, 2010 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy

That's most Republican politicians and commentators down the shitter then!

Posted by: blowback on August 9, 2010 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Douthat always closes his comments before anyone has a chance to pile on. But the real problem for his analysis is that "acceptance" of this intellectual shift has already happened -- what he can't counter is that opponents of gay marriage are supposedly trying to stem the tide through means that impose costs only on gays. All the other pieces that go along with it, which he acknowledges, e.g., postmodern serial monogamy, are and will still be firmly in place. Thus, in legalese, the state is treating similary situated individuals differently. If non-lifelong-monogamous-heterosexual marriage is pernicious then that has to be your legal model of marriage for everyone, not just gay men and women. Now, imagine trying to impose that as the law of the land.

Posted by: Barbara on August 9, 2010 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Since they can't go on the stand and simply shout: "It's In The bible!" then they can only come up with fancy flowery drivel like this.

Posted by: Alli on August 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Really, you have to read the full column to truly understand all the nooks and crannies of Douthat's ridiculous reasoning. It's quite amusing.

I think he's suggesting that we ought to continue making "traditional" lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage special because, well, basically it's unnatural and weird and hard, and we're already well down the slippery slope toward losing our grip on that. So if we suddenly have a bunch of homosexuals running around practicing lifelong monogamy, well, then, people won't be so impressed by how hard it is to be monogamous for your whole life, and since he's already decided that's so special, well, that would be bad.

So, yeah, "traditional" marriage isn't common or traditional, and yeah, gay monogamy is hard too, but he likes it the old way, so he'll suggest it has superpowers and we ought to keep it. (At the same time he admits it doesn't.)

Yeah, I didn't get it either.

Posted by: biggerbox on August 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Vokoban sez:

"A reasonable argument would have to be made on the ground of equal rights for all human. Inequality cannot be reasonably be argued for, if the argument is based on equality."

No right is absolute and rights are taken away from various groups all the time under the constitution. (The right to own a gun is not extended to violent felons in many states, for example.) A "reasonable argument" doesn't have to be based on equal rights (those already exist under the constitution) but on a compelling state interest before a group can be excluded from that right.

In this case, no one has made an argument that there is a compelling state interest in denying the right to marry. The right to marry has been pretty well established by SCOTUS. The reason that Judge Walker, a Reagan and Bush appointee opposed by liberal democrats and the gay community, is that none of the arguments before him could demonstrate a reason why the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection should be abandoned in the case of gay marriage.

While the opinion of Ross Douthat is appealing to some, it is not a good legal argument as it does not have the gravitas needed to overcome equal protection. It is as simple as that.

In a multicultural diverse society such as ours, a better argument than "that's the way we have always done it" is needed to take away rights..

Posted by: mikeyes on August 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

"I keep thinking that, given enough time, opponents of marriage equality will come up with a reasonable argument or two. "

Why won't you see that reasonable argument? Five words: You can't polish a turd.

Posted by: drkrick on August 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

He's not called "Douche-hat" for nothing.

Posted by: Breezeblock on August 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate

Douthat is such a pseudo-intellectual fool. Has he never even heard of Plato's Symposium, or does he not consider it a source of great ideas of Western civilization?

This isn't surprising, given that he made his bones with a book complaining about he didn't learn anything at Harvard, where it turned out that his beef was that the faculty wasn't a bunch of Harvey Mansfield clones.

Posted by: matt w on August 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, he means specifically Christian and Jewish (like King Solomon!) and not those nasty Muslims. And the ideal is two sexually different individuals submitting their impulses to each other, which doesn't apply to gay marriage, because every member of the same gender is sexually identical. I won't even get into his complaints about the state of heterosexual marriage, which must be addressed not by doing anything about heterosexuals, but by preventing gays from marrying -- because it's symbolic! Or something. Have you ever seen a more egregious case of someone reverse-engineering an "argument" to justify his bigotries?

How did this brainless, pompous puppy ever get to write from the New York Times? Oh, right, conservative affirmative action.

Posted by: matt w on August 9, 2010 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

...we're giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate.

Marriage is one of the great ideas of Western civilization? And it's unique and indispensable? So, a woman leaving an abusive relationship is bad. But a gay man marrying a lesbian out of some "social obligation" is somehow a good thing? And the disenfranchisement and persecution of — and discrimination against — the entire gay/lesbian community is a good thing?

The institution of marriage started out not as a celebration of love but as a religious rite to permanently bind a subservient woman to a domineering man. When it became a legal, social contract with legitimate benefits for its participants, its dependence on the couple being of opposite sex was rendered obsolete.

Meanwhile, I thought the greatest idea of Western civilization was the notion of equal rights for all mankind.

Posted by: chrenson on August 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives tend to drive me crazy because a) they're not very conservative, except b) when they want to argue on behalf of privilege at the expense of equality. Most of us are familiar with the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. We know that markets have done more to free people from ironclad marital bonds, family, society, and ultimately from a geographic and cultural rootedness that social conservatives revere. But - and this is a big one - social conservatives also want the markets to prevail over government policy. So, why do conservatives suddenly revert to a default position they rejected decades ago? The answer is clear: they make ad hoc adjustments for the sake of an imaginary conservative value system they rejected decades ago. Money rules. Not family, not civilization, not heterosexuality. Money. Douthat, call headquarters immediately.

Posted by: walt on August 9, 2010 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Douthat expresses the very worst of the anti-conservatism that an Edmund Burke would have opposed, namely life lived according to vague ideological abstractions rather than the experienced reality of average human beings. Notice how far into the philosophical stratosphere Douthat had to ascend in order to find a justification for using state power to prevent two human beings who love each other from cementing that love in a more permanent relationship.

Funny. As a one-time conservative, I always thought societies benefitted from stable, monogamous relationships where people gave up their selfish existances and devoted their lives to other people. At the end of the day, said George Will, we are right to judge a society by the qualify of the people it produces, which is why statecraft is inevitably soulcraft.

But I guess when it comes to gays giving of themselves to one another, right wing bigotry and prejudice -- the ick factor -- trumps such timeless and universal conservative principles as those traditionalist thinkers like Edmund Burke advanced as the foundation for stable, unselfish and moral societies.

Posted by: Ted Frier on August 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

[i]What argument would then apply to marriage between siblings, parents/children, etc? [/i]

Tell you what: first come up with an argument that applies to a pair of unrelated consenting adults of the same sex, and THEN we'll worry about the millions of Americans who want to marry their siblings and children.

Posted by: PCash on August 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Douthat's argument looks suspiciously to me like the "marriage is for procreation" argument wrapped in fancier words. Not totally unlike the evolution of creationism to intelligent design. That stupid procreation argument is STILL stupid and being sterile, I STILL get hostile every time some idiot brings it up. To paraphrase the ancient book Douthat and his minions worship, pull your heads out of your own anus before concerning yourself with what inhabits that of gay men.

Posted by: Chopin on August 9, 2010 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I think what Ross is saying about a "microcosm" is that in a heterosexual marriage, there is diversity: all the sexes of the world are represented. In a homosexual marriage, only half of the sexes are represented. It lacks diversity.

So maybe the answer is that in the case of homosexual marriage, we should require the two to be of different races, or different faiths, so that they can successfully be a diverse microcosm.

Posted by: Daryl McCulloughs on August 9, 2010 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

I can't believe that Scalia and co. are going to take this lying down. They've shown in the past that they are prepared to throw precedent overboard. Does anyone have any guesses as to how they'll try to reverse Judge Walker's decision? Will they try to place limits on the Equal Protection clause?

Posted by: davidp on August 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Greenwald does a pretty thorough takedown of Douthat's argument today looking, not so much at its irrational homophobia as at the fact that Douthat clearly doesn't understand how the law or our society works.

Posted by: brent on August 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Sadly, apparently President Obama is still in this camp...

Posted by: PeterL on August 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Just to summarize Greenwald's argument, he points out that Douthat is making an argument that this ruling somehow removing the moral opprobrium that he and his fellow conservatives wish to attach to homosexuality. But that is wrong. Douthat is just as free now as he was before the ruling to think and say anything he likes about homosexual marriage. He is just as free now as he was prior to try to convince others that homosexual marriage is a bad and harmful thing. The only thing that has changed is that he does not have the support of the state in perpetuating that belief. But if he is right, why does he need it?

Posted by: brent on August 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

"Meanwhile, I thought the greatest idea of Western civilization was the notion of equal rights for all mankind."

And here I thought it was fire.

Posted by: jprichva on August 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, cultural conservatives also think the world would be better if we all read the classics of Western civilization, preferably works of philosophy by highly respected Dead White Males.

So, question for you, Ross, have you read Plato's dialogues? Because I have. And what he considers to be a microcosm of all that's best in human civilization might surprise you quite a lot. I suggest you start with The Symposium.

Posted by: T-Rex on August 9, 2010 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Outside of Republican Fantasy Land, "lifelong heterosexual monogamy" doesn't exist. And it sure as hell doesn't exist among the vast, overwhelming majority of the Republican Party or the Christian Wrong, who wouldn't know what monogamy was if it came up and bit them on their butt.

My oldest friend in the world (going back to a picture of him and me at my second birthday party) and his partner, have now officially been together as a monogamous couple for three years longer than all three of my attempts at "lifelong heterosexual monogamy."

Ross Douthat has his head firmly planted up his ass, but then that news can be filed with "sun continues to rise in the east."

Posted by: TCinLA on August 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

PCash, anyone: that's a silly rejoinder based on presumption of triangulating against opponents and about practicalities instead of it being about the philosophical problems of the essential concept of "marriage between any consenting adults." I'm not trying to stop unrelated people from marrying, it's the question on the face of it and it's implications - what is the logical status then of marriage between siblings etc? Regardless of how many want to do so or not, how can you distinguish the cases? Can you?

Posted by: neil b on August 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

If this is the best Douthat can do, then he's even worse at his job than I thought.

Slavery is the default condition of Western (and plenty of non-Western) civilization, too. For all but a fragment of Plato-to-NATO, legally sanctioned trade in human chattel was there everywhere there was heterosexual marriage. "But we've always done it this way!" isn't really a justification, no matter how much a part of your "heritage" it is.

You know, I'm not one to make cheap jokes about how there are no smart conservatives. There are. But god almighty has it been a long time since someone gave one a column somewhere.

Posted by: Matt on August 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

If we just accept this shift, we're giving up on one of the great ideas of American Southern civilization: the celebration of racial separation as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve.

Posted by: Ross Douthat a few decades back on August 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK
what is the logical status then of marriage between siblings etc? Regardless of how many want to do so or not, how can you distinguish the cases? Can you?

What does that have to do with same-sex marriage? The two issues are completely unrelated. You already have that problem, if problem it is, with "traditional" marriage. Same-sex marriage neither creates nor contributes to that problem, if problem it is.

Posted by: PaulB on August 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Having had time on my hands early this morning I read Douthat's column, and quickly I thought I was reading David Brooks, i.e., lofty fallacious reasoning leading to a predetermined conclusion.

Lifelong monogamy, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is rare indeed, and is more in the category of a Platonic ideal than the experience of the average person.

Gay relationships, married or unmarried, are often open sexually, which realistically recognizes human biological impulses. In healthy relationships of any kind the need for monogamy should be subject to negotiation, and can't be imposed by law or religion. 'Adultery' is a human construct born of a particular worldview, and despite harsh punishments for extra-marital sex in some cultures it is still ubiquitous. That's a clear message, if we choose to be rational about it.

Douthat's flowery commentary seeks to have it both ways: gays should have a right to marry, but lifelong heterosexual monogamy should be given a higher status by a civilized society. He doesn't explain how that is consistent with our constitutional concept of equal protection under the law, or should we, perhaps, abandon this 18th Century Enlightenment idea.

The conservative argument, of course, is, and always has been that there shouldn't be equal protection under the law, that there should be classes of citizenship, e.g., the saved vs. the sinners, and that the rules of civilized society should be determined by them.

It's nice to know that when David Brooks isn't torturing the rules of logic and good writing Ross Douthat will fill in for him.

Posted by: rrk1 on August 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I keep thinking that, given enough time, opponents of marriage equality will come up with a reasonable argument or two.

And, given enough time, a room full of monkeys banging away on typewriters will produce the complete works of Shakespeare. Don't hold your breath waiting for either to occur.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on August 9, 2010 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Is there anything else in the world that the Douchehats think should be kept absolutely unique? Because that's the argument -- keeping heterosexual marriage unique as if that's the only way to honor it: making it a privilege rather than a right.

I choose to honor and preserve heterosexual monogamy AND ALSO give my blessing to homosexual monogamy. Why do I have to pick and choose? How is it that Elton John's or Ellen's marriage to a same-sex partner takes away from my marriage to my oppposite-sex one? Answer: it doesn't. All it diminishes is the Douchehats' juvenile idea that they can control the world. Their fee-fees being hurt that the world can change without his permission.

Posted by: ManOutOfTime on August 9, 2010 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

People who want to defend the sanctity of marriage can do so very easily: ban no-fault divorce. With the institution of no-fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed. So, if you want to defend the sanctity of marriage, prevent heterosexuals from divorcing at the drop of a hat, don't stop gays from marrying.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on August 9, 2010 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB, all: what incest has to do with SSM is this: the logical argument for SSM is, the traditional idea of what constituted a legit marriage is in question. If we consider it discriminatory to restrict to heterosexual, non-related couples then why would broadening only the sexual orientation be legitimized and not relatedness? Why not "any consenting adults", period? If you want to deny marriage to the related, how can you do it then (other than biology, which is iffy) without making the same sort of arguments about "tradition" that were made against SSM? That's the intrinsic logical problem in the philosophy of ethics and government here, take it as such.

I neither advocate for it nor thing it's a practical problem, but it's a logical problem for advocates using freedom and non-discrimination arguments. Can't you see the abstract rights issue involved and not just as a narrow question?

Posted by: neil b on August 9, 2010 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

neil b:

"Cash, anyone: that's a silly rejoinder based on presumption of triangulating against opponents and about practicalities instead of it being about the philosophical problems of the essential concept of "marriage between any consenting adults." I'm not trying to stop unrelated people from marrying, it's the question on the face of it and it's implications - what is the logical status then of marriage between siblings etc? Regardless of how many want to do so or not, how can you distinguish the cases? Can you?"

I think an argument CAN be made that the state has a compelling interest in preventing marriage between siblings or between parents and children. The closer the relationship genetically speaking, the higher the risk of birth defects of significant nature.

Also, marriage between a legal adult and a minor below a certain age, is not a good idea because the minor is presumed to be unable to offer informed consent. The minor usually lacks the judgment to choose a marriage partner well. (Granted, age and presumptive good judgment are no guarantee of wisdom in choosing a marriage partner.)

The state therefore has an interest in preventing marriages to minors.

Polygamy and polyandry are murkier situations, but the state may be able to make an argument against, based on a greater likelihood of people living in such arrangements being more likely to require welfare, at least with polygamy. Utah's polygamous "marriages" offer ample evidence of this. Also, if one man is "marrying" lots of women, this increases the likelihood of other men being left without partners, thus frustrating them and leading to greater societal instability.

But the real bottom line here is that, no one arguing for equality of freedom of marriage is arguing that incestuous, polygamous, or polyandrous marriages be permitted.

Even more bottom line: there really is no good argument against allowing gays/lesbians to marry. The fact that some people go "Eeeuuuwwww" at the thought is NOT a sufficient reason. Nor is the argument compelling, that monogamous marriages between two people of the opposite sex is "the way we always have done it". First, history offers multitudes of examples of other arrangements, and secondly, if we as humans did things the way we "always did", we'd still be living in caves. No thank you.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on August 9, 2010 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

There's a map floating around the intertubes showing the states that allow gay marriage compared to the states that allow first cousins to marry. Needless to say, there are more in the latter category. and most of them are in the South.

Posted by: Athena on August 9, 2010 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

did marriage really not exist until "western civilization" invented it up? news to me... i'd be a lot more sympathetic to the defense of marriage crowd if they weren't committing adultery and/or getting divorced all the time...

ross dross-hat is the one who, back in college, famously found some sexual offers from "chunky reese witherspoon" repulsive....just another repressed moral-scold

Posted by: dj spellchecka on August 9, 2010 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

The US has two choices: remove all references to marriage within our nation's laws (making it a strictly religious or personal/lifestyle thing), or allow same sex couples to marry. Personally I'd prefer the former, but either way.

I'm not a lawyer, but "equal treatment under the law" seems to mean the current situation has got to change.

Posted by: flubber on August 9, 2010 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

neil b: Yes, since the biological evidence is rather weak, it's entirely possible that there is no "rational basis" for prohibiting sibling marriage, and it's purely based on custom and the "ick" factor. I'm open to having that examined if anyone wants to bring it to court.

So what's your point? Advocates for marriage equality aren't allowed to petition for anything to change unless they agree with the outcome of all possible slippery-slope arguments? How is it not an equally compelling (or non-compelling) argument against allowing interracial marriage? Why is "the way things are right now" such a privileged position?

Posted by: Redshift on August 9, 2010 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe that Scalia and co. are going to take this lying down. They've shown in the past that they are prepared to throw precedent overboard. Does anyone have any guesses as to how they'll try to reverse Judge Walker's decision? Will they try to place limits on the Equal Protection clause?

Scalia and Thomas will say it is not a constitutional right as they wrote in the sodomy case. Roberts and Alito likely also. My guess, which is the conventional view, is 4 to 4 with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Posted by: gocart mozart on August 9, 2010 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

I'm late to this symposium but agree with what matt w, @10:43 and T-Rex, @12:12 said: hasn't Douthat read Plato? It was from that stalwart pillar of the Western civilisation that I learnt - at the tender age of 16 -- that a marriage consists of one man, one woman and a bum-boy.

Posted by: exlibra on August 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"I see. So, two consenting adults who are in love and want to legally commit to one another should be allowed to marry, but only if Ross Douthat considers them a "microcosm of civilization" and "an organic connection between human generations"?"
Answer: YES--that is his argument

"I keep thinking that, given enough time, opponents of marriage equality will come up with a reasonable argument or two. That just hasn't happened yet."
Observation: You haven't actually addressed his argument, but dismissed it out of hand. I look forward to your rational response.

Kudos to mickeyes, chopin and matt--good points.

Posted by: Cas Adler-Ivanbrook on August 9, 2010 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

THE BEST PRESS THAT BECK, RUSH AND DOUGHAT CAN HOPE FOR IS COMMENTARY THAT SUGGEST THAT THEY REALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. I READ MR D'S FIRST THREE LINES THIS MORNING IN JUDITH MILLER'S NY TIMES AND QUIT. INCOHERENCE IS NOT MY GAME.

JIM

Posted by: JIM weaver on August 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly