REFUGEE POLICY [John Derbyshire]
I am astonished that this story has generated so little comment. Does the U.S.A. actually need 12,000 illiterate African Muslims at this point in time? There are, of course, all sorts of taboos in play here--the immigration taboo, the Muslim taboo, the race taboo, so perhaps I should not be astonished. But can't we at least talk about this? Presumably Americans, a humane and compassionate people, would like to have some kind of refugee policy: but is this the one we want? If there has been any large public debate about this, I missed it.

I'm out on the street smoking a cigarette and this black dude, wearing a "No War Against Iraq" T-shirt and a bag on his shoulder, comes up to me and asks, "Sir, are you against the war or for the war?" "For the war," I say, at which point he pulls a T-shirt out of his bag that says, "Kick Saddam's Ass!," and tries to sell it to me. I said, "No thanks," and he moved on. Is this a great country or what?

One teacher called a conference with McLaughlin's parents and the principal because she objected to his being open about being gay. During the meeting, the principal concurred that she was opposed to McLaughlin talking at school about being gay.
A different teacher ordered McLaughlin not to discuss his sexual orientation, saying that she found it "sickening," and later called his mother to complain about his homosexuality.
School officials preached their religious views on homosexuality and forced him to read aloud from the Bible in clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This was done as punishment after McLaughlin, who is himself a Christian, disagreed with a teacher for calling him "abnormal" and "unnatural."
In violation of McLaughlin's free speech rights, the school suspended him for two days for telling other students about being made to read the Bible in school. The principal and assistant principal also told McLaughlin that if he told any of his friends why he was suspended, they would recommend that he be expelled.
McLaughlin is not even allowed to participate in typical teenage conversations about crushes. In January he was disciplined for talking between classes with a female friend about a boy they both considered "cute." He was disciplined; his friend was not.

DALLAS (Reuters) - There are a lot worse things in country music than your wife leaving you or your dog dying. There's stations not playing your music because you done gone and said some things against the president.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. James Moran of Virginia, under fire for saying Jews were behind the buildup toward war with Iraq, should not seek re-election next year, six fellow Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Wednesday. They wrote in a letter to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California that Moran's comments were "offensive," "ignorant" and "grossly irresponsible," and that if he does seek another term, they would not back him.

Embattled U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D) quit his House leadership post today for making what he called "insensitive" remarks about Jews pushing the nation into war with Iraq. Moran said he gave up his position as a regional Whip for the House Democrats "as a way to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility" for his controversial comments at a March 3 anti-war forum in Reston, when he said, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." "I will continue to reach out to the Jewish community and others who were offended by my remarks," Moran said in a statement released by his office. "And I will work tirelessly for all of my constituents in Northern Virginia, as I have done throughout my 13 years in Congress. Most importantly, I will strive to learn from my mistakes and listen to the concerns of my constituents." Moran's repeated apologies for the remarks haven't ended the criticism of him, and several Democrats say they're considering challenging Moran in a primary next year if he runs. Katherine K. Hanley, the Board of Supervisors chairman in Fairfax County, said she is exploring a campaign in Virginia's 8th District, as is state Sen. Leslie L. Byrne (Fairfax), a former member of Congress.

The Horse provides the invaluable service in re: James Moran, Government Mule — pointing out that he’s really an “R” kind of Democrat and he always has been. Nevertheless, the inexcusable Sean Hannity and the even less excusable Joe Scarborough (about whom more anon) have been beating the tin drum about Moran and Trent Lott, and how the R’s bravely exiled the former leader to the chairmanship of the Senate Rules Committee — “Sympathy for white supremacists? Sorry, Trent, but you’ll have to have an inferior parking space for a while.” — and why haven’t the D’s done the same with Moran and yadda-di-yadda.

All Democrats would be wise to join these six now and publicly ask Rep. Moran to resign or not to run again. Loyalty and the benefit of the doubt are two way streets. Jim "I support impeachment hearings" Moran, who is not only disloyal but corrupt, opportunistic, and, an extreme liability for the Party, has earned neither from his fellow Democrats.

Lest there be any doubt, Congressman Jim Moran's comments really were way beyond the pale. And frankly I think the response has been too muted...
(Moran told a town meeting in his Northern Virginia district that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this" and later suggested that Jewish leaders could get the war called off.) There's been a debate recently over whether it's somehow anti-Semitic to discuss the fact that the president's foreign policy team is heavily weighted with a number of advisors -- a number of them Jewish -- who are big supporters of the Sharon government in Israel and that these advisors have been decisive in pushing the case for war within the administration. (Let's not forget that two of these advisors are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who are -- in case you didn't know it -- not members of the tribe.) As Mike Kinsley said recently, "It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it." Lawrence Kaplan notwithstanding, it's a real issue. (I'll say more about this whole issue later.) I hope our public debate is flexible and astute enough to see that the one thing is entirely unacceptable and the other is completely appropriate.

Religious leaders and Democrats joined a survivor of the Holocaust in condemning Republican Rep. Arlon Lindner for remarks he made last week questioning whether homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis. ``I can testify to the fact that homosexuals were indeed persecuted based on their sexuality,'' said Hinda Kibort, 81, an Edina woman who was in German-run labor and concentration camps from 1941 to 1945. ``I was there.''
...
Lindner said he doesn't doubt Kibort's own recollections of Nazi actions, but still questions why, he believes, there has been little attention to homosexual persecution until recent years. He said he expects to be in session on April 9, the date of the Washington trip, and won't be going along. ``They talk about my particular views and so forth,'' he said. ``But I guess I still feel like we've got a First Amendment that applies to everybody.'' Kibort described how homosexuals were forced to wear pink triangles, just as Jews were made to wear the star of David. ``His absolute lack of knowledge concerning Nazi barbarity in World War II is appalling,'' she said. Lindner has introduced a separate bill that would repeal the state human rights amendment that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Minnesotans from discrimination in employment, housing, education and other areas. It also would remove sexual orientation as a protected class in hate crimes laws.

Meanwhile, the substance of what Dean had to say today probably surprised those who've spent a lot of time lately watching and listening to him speak in Iowa and New Hampshire or before Democratic interest groups. You might have seen Dean at the recent NARAL event, where he brought the audience to its feet by delivering a full-throated defense of partial-birth abortion while other Democrats stepped politely around the subject. You might have caught his recent speech on union issues in Altoona, Iowa, delivered Oprah-style before members of the Iowa Federation of Labor, where he wowed the crowd with an unapologetic condemnation of free trade deals that lack tough labor and environmental standards. And you might have been present for Dean's knock-out performance at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, where liberal delegates became all weepy and verklempt when the former Vermont governor belted out what has become his signature line: "I am Howard Dean. And I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." At the very least, you've probably heard that Howard Dean is one of the most antiwar candidates in the race.
All of this has placed Dean on the left edge of the Democratic presidential field. But often it's more reliable to listen to Dean's positions than the fiery rhetoric that surrounds them. Once you do that, as today's interview reminds us, it's easy to see understand how Dean was positioning himself as the Clinton-like moderate of the race before his antiwar speeches started to generate so much enthusiasm among activists in the early nominating states.
Did you know, for instance, that Dean favors a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the early-'90s fixation of Ross Perot and the Contract with America? I didn't. In addition to flirting with raising the retirement age for Social Security, Dean also wants to do something along the lines of what Clinton proposed in the late '90s for the program: allowing the government to invest funds from Social Security in private equities.

Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."
Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" ? emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."
And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."
These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was.