Men against war

Sometimes you see the idea that gender and sexuality matter in politics taken too far. On the MyDD site, Chris Bowers writes about Jackson Diehl's collumn in the Washington Post. Diehl likens progressives who oppose the war in Iraq to "flamers." Bowers thinks this is a homophobic slur. Interesting. Here is what thought flaming means: "Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet)" (wikipedia.com). I do see gender and sexual messages all over the political landscape. Just not here.

That does not mean that Diehl has a point. For a more serious critique, read Yglesias on the Talking Points Memo. He reminds us that the problem is not that the democrats have disagreements about the plan to solve the Iraq issue. The real problem is that Bush does not have a plan. His masculine grandstanding has not masked his inability. He doesn't have it where it counts. I am reminded of Doonesburry's early assessment of Bush: All hat and not cattle.