A European Tolerance Gap

Excuse me, Arnold, for invading your terrain, but I stumbled upon this story about a recent diplomatic row between Estonia and the Netherlands. Jeroen Bult, a freelance journalist who lives in Estonia, has written this commentary explaining what it’s about:

It all started on June 6, when a personal letter written by Hans Glaubitz, Queen Beatrix' ambassador to Estonia, turned up in the Dutch press. In the letter, the ambassador complained about widespread racism and homophobia in Estonian society — Glaubitz' (male) partner, black Cuban model and dancer Raúl García Lao has repeatedly fallen prey to verbal attacks.

"We had to ascertain that living in this lily-white society is extremely uncomfortable for Raul …. It is not very pleasant to be called 'nigger' by drunken skinheads regularly and to be gaped at by everyone as if one has just got out of a UFO," the ambassador wrote.

Obviously, Glaubitz was pretty pissed off when he wrote this letter. Bult has a point when he writes that Glaubitz could have chosen language with more “nuance.”

Yet Bult seems too willing to make excuses for anti-gay bigotry. Bult writes:

For many Estonians, including politicians, homosexuality is still a major taboo. Some of them will undoubtedly even interpret the presence of a gay-ambassador as an "insult."

They can interpret as they wish, but their interpretations should not give them license to harass or threaten a diplomat or his same-sex husband.

Bult needs to be reminded that Estonia freely chose to enter the EU, whose member nations have adopted a code that requires tolerance for people of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc.

The fact that the excerpts from Glaubitz’s letter did not contain “concrete evidence,” writes Bult, “will create the impression that the ambassador has intentionally exaggerated the whole affair.” Unless Bult is a mind reader, he appears to be using this phrase as a roundabout way to say, “I think he exaggerated the whole affair.”

Maybe Glaubitz did. I don’t know, and neither does Bult. But instead of simply urging Glaubitz to provide more details about the extent of the discriminatory behavior, Bult impugns Glaubitz’s integrity.

Is this the same Bult who claims to value “nuance”?

One Way to Avoid a Long Prison Sentence

This morning, the New York Times is reporting:

Enron's founder and chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, died (this morning) of a heart attack at his vacation home in Colorado, according to Kelly L. Kimberly, a spokeswoman for Mr. Lay.

... In May, Mr. Lay was found guilty on six counts of fraud and conspiracy and four counts of bank fraud. The former chief executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, was convicted of 18 counts of fraud and conspiracy and one count of insider trading.

This sentence from the article is wonderfully syrupy, vintage-Times prose:

... [Enron's] sudden collapse at the end of 2001 and revelation as little more than a house of cards left Enron, with its crooked E logo, the premier public symbol of corporate ignominy.

Maybe the Anarchists Are Right

The government here collapsed six days ago.

I haven't noticed any difference.

Guillen's Sensitivity Training

I've never been a huge fan of what passes as "sensitivity training." For starters, I believe it's pretty tough to fundamentally change the attitudes of most adults who are over the age of 30 or 35. I've also suspected that many of those who go through this kind of training are just going through the motions and doing this because they think it will take the heat off of them.

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen appears to have validated this suspicion. After calling Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti a "fucking fag," Guillen was ordered by Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to undergo sensitivity training.

After a two-hour session with a counselor, these are some of Guillen's observations:

"I'm glad I did it. I'm glad it's over with and a lot of people will be real excited to hear that Ozzie finally got punished and did what he was supposed to do."

"There are a lot of things you cannot say about anybody, even when you want to say them." (emphasis added)

Yes, I suppose it's better that someone doesn't use offensive terms even if he wants to use them. But how much money did Major League Baseball spend on "sensitivity training" just to convey that message to Guillen?

Dems Should Be Pissed by Lieberman's "Plan B"

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) wants to have it both ways.

On the one hand, Lieberman is pleased to use the state's Democratic Party as his organizational vehicle to secure re-election. On the other hand, should he lose the party's primary to challenger Ned Lamont, Lieberman vowed this week to run as an independent in November.

I'd actually gain a new level of respect for Lieberman if he pulled out of the Democratic party primary and simply announced he would run as an independent. But it is the height of arrogance to essentially say, "I'll try to get renominated through a process I am fully prepared to ignore if it doesn't conclude the way I want it to."

I don't know how if the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has already provided Lieberman with funds, but, if so, the DSCC should immediately cease providing him with such funds and, moreover, should request that Lieberman refund any previously received DSCC monies. I think that's a reasonable request given that Lieberman is showing no respect for the party's nominating process.

On a related note, the Associated Press is reporting:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, said Tuesday that she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for reelection if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

The Winner of the Axis Championship, 2006

Italy.

Hell of a match. Anyone who thinks a scoreless duel can't be interesting should be required to sit through the first 118 minutes of this one.

Now if my old favorites can come through in the other semi. Allez les bleus!

France, Germany, Italy, and Po____

It's déjà vu for me. My first World Cup was 1982, when I spent part of the summer living with a French family and fell in love with the brilliant, beautiful French team led by Michel Platini. That year, the final four was France, Germany, Italy, and Poland. This year, it's France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Poland didn't put up much of a fight (I read one commentator who said that once they had knocked out the Soviet Union in the second phase to reach the semifinals--recall that this was around the time Gen. Jaruzelski was installed to try to put down Solidarity--the Poles didn't seem to have much left to play for). Portugal is also the dark horse this time around, though I think they've got a better shot at reaching the final now than the Poles did then. (The other difference was that in 1982, it was specifically West Germany that reached the last four; but it was in fact the same state, namely the Federal Republic of Germany, which has now absorbed the former German Democratic Republic, so don't get all technical on me.)

The big difference is that France isn't playing Germany in the semis this time. Last time, it was an epic battle, featuring one of the most brutal fouls I have ever seen--a clear red card, only the referee somehow managed not to see it (the fact that Patrick Battiston was carried off the field unconscious and missing several teeth should have tipped him off). After the French players stopped chasing Germans around the field seeking revenge and got back to playing soccer, they scored twice in extra time. This, in soccer terms, is an insurmountable lead. But the Germans surmounted it, sending the match to penalties. I believe this might have been the first-ever World Cup match to be decided in this fashion; previously, drawn matches had been replayed, but TV schedules made this an unaffordable luxury. In 1982, even the shoot-out went to extra time, as the teams were tied through five rounds. Finally, Germany won on the sixth kick. I was devastated, as was most of France.

Those were the days. I hope we get something half as good this time around.

Update: More déjà vu. In the quarterfinal, Argentina outplayed Germany in a scoreless first half. Then they scored in the first few minutes of the second half, went into a defensive shell, and ceded the initiative to the Germans, who scored with about ten minutes to go. Germany won on penalties, knocking out a much more attractive (to a neutral observer) opponent.

Tonight, at halftime, Italy has started down the Argentine path: they outplayed Germany in a scoreless first half. If they should score early in the second half--well, no one knows defensive shells like the catenaccio Italians. Well I remember the 1990 semifinal, when Italy went up 1-0 against Argentina, and Argentina was down to 10 men. Rather than going for the kill, Italy protected the lead. Sure enough, late in regular time, Argentina scored off a free kick, held on with 10 men through the half-hour of extra time, and took out a superior team by penalties.