It was the Dalai Lama.

Babies smiling and crying in the womb.

Despondent CA Democrats may yet be able to count on help from an unexpected quarter.

On September 11th, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the ACLU's complaint that the use of punch card voting in the recall election would discriminate against residents of Los Angeles and other localities.

According to the Los Angeles Times: "[Deputy Attorney General Douglas J. Woods] appeared sufficiently concerned about the prospect that the appeals court would halt the election that he asked the judges to give him sufficient time to appeal such a ruling to the Supreme Court" (emphasis added).

Woods proved he could listen ("Comments by the judges had lawyers for a coalition of minority groups wondering after the argument whether it could have possibly gone any better," says The Recorder. He also proved he could count. Kausefiles noted last week (scroll down to September 5th) :

Hold on to your chad: The ACLU appears to have won the Ninth Circuit lottery in its bid to have the federal appellate court postpone the scheduled October 7 California recall election. The 3-judge panel on the case--Harry Pregerson, Richard Paez, and Sidney Thomas--seems both a) liberal and b) willing to make trouble . Here's an excerpt from a highly informative piece by Jason Hoppin in The Recorder:

Pregerson is the ex-Marine who recently declared that he could not, "in good conscience," go along with the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence on California's Three Strikes law.

He'll be joined by judges Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez, both appointees of President Clinton. Paez's nomination languished for years after conservatives tagged him as too liberal. Thomas, a soft-spoken Montanan, proved he is just as fearless as Pregerson this week when he reversed the death sentences of more than 100 prisoners throughout the West.

"Big, unthinkable tragedies happen. Now, instead of keeping that and developing hatred or sense of revenge, instead of that, think long-term. The negative event, try to transform into a source of inner strength."

Heading to Burlington, Vermont on Sunday to do some research. Nominations for places to see, things to do etc. welcome.

Peter - I hear you and I'm sorry if I was snippy before -- I hadn't had my coffee. That said, do we really want to create a situation where conservatives seem like apologists for anything the private sector does for fear the government might be enticed into doing something stupid? I make the case all of the time that something can be constitutional and still be wrong. Why I can't we say something is shady and a bad business practice without saying it warrants more regulations?

I was talking with a friend of mine today who works in a related industry and he made the point that the issue with Grasso is simple hypocrisy. The NYSE has been "super preachy" about governance, transparency, conflicts of interest etc. And now it turns out Grasso's got to get his own house in order.

Meanwhile, Gregg Easterbrook says the issue isn't hypocrisy, it's corruption .

And while I'm here I may as well let you know your campaign of incessant blegging worked on me and I subscribed to NRD this morning. I'm on a tight budget at the moment so I had to forego my annual fantasy football news service to pick it up, but I trust I won't be disappointed.

Well, you know...

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg,
I have enjoyed your writing, but now I wish to thank you for getting the magazine put on-line. I just subscribed to NR Digital. I have been a subscriber and/or reader of the magazine since 1964 or 65. I did not renew my subscription this year, after being assigned to Germany, precisely because of the problem with the mail. I have faithfully read NRO everyday, but I have missed the exhaustive analyses and other features of the magazine. By putting the magazine on-line you have definitely improved the morale of this military man. I thank you and keep up the good work!

VR
John

I'm getting a lot of these sorts of things in response to yesterday's G-File:

Jonah,

As an Army reservist, I have been trained at some length about the Middle East -- probably a total of 60 hours of classes in all. What I've heard from numerous experts essentially agrees with your column about how superstition and ignorance are rampant in the Arab world.

One particular comment stays with me, this from an American woman who is fluent in Arabic and has spent much of her life in different Arab countries. She told us that a typical American high school graduate has probably learned enough first aid to be considered at least a nurse if not a physician by many Arabs "on the street".

She also told us that the germ theory of disease -- one of the bedrocks of modern medicine, I think it's fair to say -- is widely disbelieved among Arabs. "If God wants me to get sick, I will get sick. " is their idea.

If you refuse to believe in germs, then a magic rock that can ward off bullets is not such a stretch....
[Name withheld]

I was going to mention this angle, but frankly I don't know enough on the subject. This emailer clarifies:

In repsonse to Peter Robinson's question 2 - since NYSE is private, whose business is it what Grasso gets paid, a half-hearted answer: NYSE is not exactly and totally private. It is a corporation that is not publicly traded, but it has been granted extreme protections by the US government, to govern itself, and to attract and keep stocks listed (including the well-known "roach motel" listing clauses that almost completely prevent voluntary DE-listing by a company on the big board). It exists, and is protected by the SEC, to make markets in stocks, to the benefit of companies and stockholders. We may argue about the efficacy of the SEC, and whether we could have efficient markets without government intervening to "make" them, but at least in the moment, Grasso is a quasi-public official, and the way our markets are structured, he's not just a purely private actor, like the CEO of a privately-held company. His large salary for doing arguably nothing (ARGUABLY - Peter does have a point re: saving the Big Board) is evidence of rent-taking by NYSE's near-monopoly status granted by the Feds. We ought to be concerned, for two reasons - one, maybe it's a sign we should end the monopoly - if they are capable of extracting such large rents, maybe it's not efficient. Two, maybe we can't come up with a better way to "make" the markets we want to have, so we ned to squawk about stuff like this to ensure that the folks we've entrusted with making markets know they are being watched and thus can't extract monopoly rents. NYSE's extraction of ANY rent is in some sense a deadweight loss - a theoretically perfect market would have no transaction costs. Of course, we can't get to "theoretically perfect" but Grasso's salary indicates that we could get more efficient than NYSE - or they wouldn't have the cash to drown him in. And stockholders should care. I own companies traded on the Big Board, and my trades are going to line his pockets, instead of my own. Naturally, my views are not necessarily the views of my employer.

[Name withheld]

Peter -- On point number one, I think you make some fine points, though I am unconvinced that Grasso deserved an extra $5 million for doing what he was already paid -- what? -- 25 million to do.

But on point number two I say "Booooooo!" No offense, but I'm not a big fan of the "whose business?" rejoinder. Many colleges, museums, newspapers, rock bands, magazines, think tanks, baseball teams are "private institutions." If that is a bar to public comment or criticism I'd better go back to my dream of writing comic books and sci fi novels because I don't want to write about politics for the rest of my life if culture is off limits. I am not proposing -- I don't think -- that the Feds should arrest or regulate anybody or anything in the Grasso matter. But does that mean I can't comment on it? It seems to me that if conservatives are going to be for limited government we should be for more unlimited criticism. After all we are the ones who say that society and culture can be self-regulating through the application of norms, shame etc. Well, that only works if we are allowed to actually comment negatively on those things we believe the state should not tamper with. I think this is a major fault line between two brands of conservatism -- those who are anti-left and anti-State, or at least that's what I've been arguing for a while.

Congratulations! You have convinced a poor college student (although a non-traditional one) to subscribe. I used to have NRODT, but had let it expire. I have always felt a little guilty about reading NRO and not having to pay for it...I mean, how could something so great be FREE????....but perhaps this is a little way I can contribute. Your website is my favorite, and I have let my friends and family know that. Keep up the great work!

Most Swedes are still in shock from the hideous murder of their country's foreign minister, Anna Lindh, but the government has said, quite rightly, that the Euro referendum will still take place on Sunday. The no camp was well ahead before the attack on Ms. Lindh (who was the most popular advocate of the single European currency in Sweden), but the likely result now is far less clear, although the best guess is still that the Euro will – as it should – be rejected.

Meanwhile, the Guardian has an interesting and subtly written piece today on the situation in Sweden. This extract, in particular, is worth pondering:

“Something remarkable emerged in Sweden's euro debate, the crystallisation of a new set of political dividing lines, in which right-wing and left-wing activists find themselves in alliance against powerful, cross-border, private-public bureaucracies. On one side, the small, the local, the personal, the individual, the accessible, the familiar, the inherited; on the other, the big, the transnational, the impersonal, the mass, the remote, the alien, the acquired.”

Steve - I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to contempt for Hollywood. But Hollywood salaries make so much more sense to me than this Grasso thing. That Adam Sandler makes so much money is almost a pure market function. He is a meat prop. If millions of people wanted to look at a lamp or a dog the owner of said lamp or dog could charge huge sums of money to Hollywood studies to put these objects on display on the big screen. Sandler's talent or lack thereof is meaningless (though I have liked a couple Sandler movies), the market supports what he makes. Sure it's unfair that Sandler makes so much money, but it's not unfair that investors have the opportunity to place their bets on him.

What market mechanism justifies Grasso's bonus? It strikes me this was simply a case of buddies and cronies rewarding somebody with little to no justification. If Grasso were making $300K a year I could see getting a huge bonus. But he was already making $500K a week.

TLC is running a wonderful 2 hour program on the President's view of 9/11: "9/11: The President's Story." V. well done and balanced, but (and?) comes off as way pro-Bush (as it must). The show repeats tonight at 11 eastern. Watch it!

This is so COOL! My husband and I are sitting in our favorite reading chairs, each with our laptop, reading the new National Review. We get to discuss as we go along now, instead of waiting until we are both done with the magazine. “Did you read Derb’s dictionary?” “Yeah, did you read the one for self esteem?” “I was LMAO!” “Read Jay’s article on Bush, it’s good.” “Did you read the Long View—it’s great!” On and on it goes. I am so lucky to be married to a conservative intellectual….and that he started reading NRO in the days when Jonah would answer his every e mail.

The rest of you are just sitting there wondering what I am talking about, unless you sign up!

Do it for “the children”, just think, what if Jonah gets blamed by the “suits” and poor Lucy never gets to college…..

Look: I'm willing to defend income inequality, sweat shops, child labor, tax cuts and the like, if the merits are there. I'd privatize everything but the army and maybe four other things if I had my way. In other words, I'm no softy on these issues. But am I the only one in the corner offended by Dick Grasso's 9/11 bonus? I mean at a time when everyone was talking about sacrifice and loss, when we were touting the resumption of our normal lives as a patriotic counter-strike to the terrorist menace, Dick Grasso get's a five million dollar bonus on top of his enormous salary because the stock market re-opened? I despise financial populism of any kind, but this just strikes me as galling.

Just a few weeks ago I started volunteering at the National Archives and Records Administration's regional location in Laguna Niguel, California. My task has been to work on archiving records from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, which straddles the New Mexico and Arizona border (Laguna Niguel houses the documents for the western region forests). The records I've seen for this particular forest date back to at least 1916 and without a doubt the overwhelming nature of the documents relate to the working use of the lands in the forest. I've seen box upon box of grazing permits for thousands of head of cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Special use permits for homesteads, road building, and facilities for outdoor sportsmen. Right-of-ways for power lines and other energy facilities. Our forests have been leveraged in a myriad of ways for at least a century.
It was interesting to note that right around 1970 the tenor of some of the correspondence changes. Forest supervisors begin sending out memos to staff reminding them to carefully word their external correspondence to reflect their careful stewardship of the land . . .
TAPped is definitely uninformed when it comes to forest policy.

I've gotten a few nice notes from readers about the Democratic Undergound nonsense I linked to. It's very kind of you but, really, you learn to tune such folks out. Just remember though, these are Howard Dean's people. Anyway, here's one nice note:

The link that you posted to the Nazi-Bush comparisons was amusing for about 2 seconds. I read all of the postings and I have to admit that I ran a progression of emotions from amused to angry to terrified.

I also noted that one supposed post-grad student in history said that you are "fairly light academically" and that someone else would be better qualified to ascertain whether the comparison is valid. I wonder if he is nominating himself. If so - maybe he should learn how to spell comparison. Not to be small about it, but he did it in more than one post so it was obviously not a typo.

I could never do what you do. I got angry FOR you reading this tripe and it really made me think that I'd like to kick this guy's behind. Imagine how I'd feel if he'd said those things about me!

I was talking to a Democrat with ties to one of Howard Dean's rivals and he was saying that all of Dean's flip-flops were going to hurt him in time. But which of Dean's rivals is well positioned to make the case for him as a flip-flopper? Joe Lieberman, who's flipped on Social Security and affirmative action? Dick Gephardt, who's had more political personae than Hillary Clinton's had hairstyles? Dennis Kucinich, who discovered he was for Roe after thirty years in politics? John Kerry, that paragon of consistency? This is a flip-flop-rich field, at least compared to the Republican field in 1988, 1996, or 2000, or the Democratic field in 1988 or 1992. (Although the Democrats' 1988 field included a bunch of abortion flippers.)

This Democrat went on to complain about Dean's "adulatory press." He also said that the question of Dean's electability was being temporarily "blunted": "Conservative columnists are now pumping him up, pretending to be afraid of him for I think less than honorable reasons."

He wrote a piece in the Times Magazine on Sunday that I had meant to comment on. His thesis is that the Supreme Court, by issuing the ruling it did in Texas v. Lawrence (the sodomy case), was reigniting the culture wars. I think that this is true, although to the extent it is a bad thing it is a vice secondary to the constitutional nuttiness of the Court's opinion.

But one comment of Rosen's really stuck in my craw. He wrote, "In the Reagan and both Bush administrations, lower court and Supreme Court nominees were selected largely because of their perceived opposition to Roe, which was used as a litmus test of judicial virtue. The result is a polarizing gap between the moderate views of the country as a whole on abortion and the radical opposition it continues to inspire among conservative legal elites."

Never mind that Clinton had a publicly announced litmus test for Roe, as do many of the current Democratic candidates for president. Reagan and Bush I didn't, and any unannounced litmus test they had was rather less effective than the Democratic one, as witness O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter on the one hand and Breyer and Ginsburg on the other.

There is no "radical opposition" to abortion among conservative legal elites. There is opposition to Roe--which is entirely defensible, as Rosen himself concedes that it is "constitutionally questionable." That opposition is rather less implacable than I wish it were--Kenneth Starr and Michael McConnell both seem to have made their peace with Roe. Finally, what about the polarizing gap between the public's moderate views and the substance of Roe?

I've just added NORAD to my NRoDT. Searching NR for keywords is too good to pass up. Also, regarding honey vs vinegar, I'd be glad to provide a bit of honey to entice subscribers. I'll provide a nice dinner to any subscribers to NORAD, provided they meet a few, understandable qualifications. [1] Maybe you can harness reader power to enlarge your base.

Thanks for NR, in all it's forms.

[1] - Qualifications: female, between 25 & 35, living near Seattle, single. :)

Maybe instead of threats like, "If you don't sign up for NR Digital, Derb will come after you. (He doesn't know it, but he will. And assign you many, many hard math problems. Or some other torture.)," a bribe like, "Derb will provide emergency homework bailout help for mathematically incompetent parents whose children need assistance, if you sign up for NR Digital," might work better. I know I'd sign up immediately.

You got me. I can justify the purchase of a NROVDT subscription as a birthday present for myself (9-13-76). All the whining made me cave a couple of days early! Please let all the uptight, backwards thinking publishers that I will continue to maintain my NRODT subscription as well because it's a little difficult to throw an electronic copy of NR on liberal co-workers desk in order to get that sweet sweet look of horror.

From a reader:

Regarding your last two posts: At this moment you are a bore, boring.

G-File is up.

AP News Alert

JERUSALEM (AP) Israel's security Cabinet decides in principle to expel Arafat but puts off immediate action, Israeli TV says.

Re-reading that bore post, I seem to be saying Derb isn't an American. He is now, of course, and we're glad to have him. We'll not all of us, but everyone around here is.

Hmmmmm... I see you are using the British-ified connotation of bore. To be a "frightful bore" about this and that. I don't think Americans really use the word the same way anymore. Either something is, or is not, boring. But you folks tend to use bore as a stand-in for droning on and on and on about something. To be tedious and repetitive. To say the same thing over and over again. I'm not sure if Americans use the phrase the same way anymore. But I could be wrong.

Been thinking about NRODT subscription, then you finally came up with NRD.

I prefer NORAD: NationalReview Online Release, Availability, and Distribution.

Sounds more kicka**.

After looking at my 9/11/01 G-File a reader suggests that I might have been the first to make the you're either with us or against us declaration. President Bush apparently didn't say it until Nov. 6, 2001. . It'd be cool, no doubt, if I was the first. But my guess is that this was all in the air back then and claiming credit for that sentiment would be like claiming credit for being the first to yell, "Bastards!" on 9/11.

On the way to work, I was listening to the radio and caught an “On This Day in History” segment sponsored by The History Channel. It talked about how the twin towers and the Pentagon were attacked by “International Hijackers”.

International Hijackers???

Conspicuously missing (IMO) were the words “terrorists”, “Islamic”, and “extremists”.

Normally I think it would be a profoundly interesting and educational experience to sit next to you on a plane or be stuck in an elevator with you. But when you say stuff like that I am forced to re-think such views.

Rarely in the annals of the world have more people been more excited about an issue that mattered so little.

Many of our friends and loved ones were sitting at their desk or a conference table when McVeigh's bomb went off. They were doing what Americans do best, working when they were suddenly removed from this life.

I am not an architect nor have I seen the plan for the Pentagon memorial so I can't comment on that; I am just a friend of some killed that April while working in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. When I first saw the chairs at the OKC bombing memorial, my first thought was the suddenness of my friends death, at work. The symbolism worked for me.

From a very strong editorial in the Washington Post. Here's the bit on John "F" Kerry:

Tuesday night Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- who at least has the good grace to acknowledge his vote in favor of the Patriot Act -- noted, as he surveyed the debate audience, that there were "people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here."

Ernie Fletcher, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who's running for governor, agreed to vote for school choice for D.C. only on the condition that the program be restricted to low-income students from failing schools. He wants "failing schools" to be defined as schools judged to be failing under the standards of the No Child Left Behind Act--which would reduce the number of schools involved from more than 100 to less than 20. (Which tells you something, by the way, about how much "accountability" NCLB brought to the public schools. This is D.C. we're talking about.)

It's hard to imagine that the voters of Kentucky would punish Fletcher for giving kids in the District a chance. He's worried about the NEA attacking him. But getting a robust school-choice program for D.C. ought to be a higher priority for conservatives than a Fletcher win in the Kentucky governor's race.

From a reader:

"The suits" understand that the marketing bogeyman of "cannibalism" is flawed, and usually the result of the preexisting unit/division reacting defensively to a new idea. A multichannel strategy ultimately increases overall revenue to the firm...the key metric is revenue per individual. For example, several retail chains with a catalogue and physical store channels who added an internet option have seen increased revenue for all three. People tend to buy more when there are more "interfaces" from which to buy.

And other way to put it is, subscribe or the suits will twist my little rigoletto -- as Oscar Madison might say.

Personally, I find it hard not to go back and read what I've written on previous September 11ths. With all modesty, I think they hold up pretty well. In fact, I guess I'm kind of proud of them. Here's last year's G-File and here's the one I wrote from Pendleton, Oregon on that dark day.

Update: These links were kerflunky before. I fixed them.

I appreciate your brief commentary on the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial. Light Benches? They look like diving boards or playground equipment. As an architect, I am stunned by two things. First, that my colleagues' best efforts to memorialize the tragic death of their fellow citizens boils down to one notion: empty furniture. It's insulting, not only to the victims and their families, but to everyone of the thousands of people who will visit the memorial. Second, like the Oklahoma City memorial, I am aghast at the selection committees that refuse to grasp the civic beauty inherent in a well executed memorial. It's a shame. Not that I'm looking for far out symbolism or abstraction, but some more rooted in tradition...some thing more inspiring than benches.

My syndicated column, fyi.

You know our favorite refrain from the New York Times? The one about how crime rates keep falling even though prisons keep filling? Well there's a similar version to that argument for the war on terrorism. Gwynne Dyer of the Toronto Star seems to think were fighting terrorism too much because terrorism is going down.

On this second anniversary of 9/11, we should set aside our partisan bickering, our personal resentments and prejudices, and recognize that our government has done a remarkable job since that tragic day. We have been kept safe, despite the fury of the terrorists at the damage we have, repeatedly, inflicted upon them.

Every day without a terrorist attack on our country or its citizens is a triumph, but the struggle must be renewed each day, one second after midnight. If we insist on setting unrealistic goals, we will defeat ourselves. You cannot fight terrorism with a stopwatch, and you can't fight it on the cheap.

Iraq will never become Iowa - our goal should be a better, if still imperfect, Iraq. Afghanistan will always remain Afghanistan. It is enough if it is a somewhat-improved country, less dangerous to us and less oppressive to its citizens. By such rational measures, we already have achieved notable victories.

DESPAIR is the preferred narcotic of the intellectual classes. The rest of us must stand up for what we know in our hearts and souls to be right and true. Our cause is just. Our efforts in this great, global war have been admirably successful. Our soldiers have kept us safe and made us proud. We owe them unity, not divisiveness.

No power on this earth can defeat us, unless we defeat ourselves.

Susan, if that's the title of your book, I feel I should call your attention to this . Normally I wouldn't dream of posting it because it's so grim. But I think you should be prepared if your kids start yelling "Mom! Stop the car! They're giving away a kitty!"

From a reader:

OK, you money-grubbing capitalist bastards, you can have my $20.

In case the suits were worried about cannibalization, I always MEANT
to subscribe to the paper mag, but never got around to it. This is
new eyeballs and new money.

Best,
[Name withheld]

Kathryn, yes, the poor woman was attacked in one of Stockholm's main department stores. It's a credit to Sweden that, up to this terrible event at least - and despite the murder of PM Olof Palme back in 1986, a senior politician can feel confident enough to go shopping in a downtown store without a security entourage. Knowing the stoicism of the Swedes, this is unlikely to change.

I quite understand why Swedish political editor guy is in favor, however mistakenly, of the Euro. To many center or center-right Swedes, fed up with high taxes and the other destructive paraphernalia of their country's welfare state, the EU (and thus the Euro) are seen as instruments of economic liberalization. To an extent, many British Conservatives felt the same way in the 1970s, and, to an extent, they were right. Unfortunately, the EU has changed since those days. If it's to work - and to endure - reform in Sweden needs to come from Stockholm, not Brussels.

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Why couldn't Reuters say that?

Here's the full Reuters report:

Jazeera Airs Bin Laden Tape, 2 Years After Attacks Wed September 10, 2003 02:22 PM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Arabic television al Jazeera showed on Wednesday what it said was a new videotape showing al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri in an unknown mountainous area.

The airing of the tape came on the eve of the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, which were widely blamed on al Qaeda.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Your fake memo really scared me. I started thinking about how my wife might leave me for a Brazilian troubadour with exciting hair if I didn't have fast access to National Review. Suddenly realizing that I am bald (and only 26), I quickly subscribed to NRDigital. Disaster averted, looks like you've saved another marriage.

Pablo Gersten

I should have added to my screed below: if people subscribed to the magazine -- namely through NR digital-- they might not make such mistakes.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Citing "security precautions," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has asked that Vice President Dick Cheney not attend the city's World Trade Center anniversary ceremony.

"As with last year's ceremony, Thursday's two-year commemoration of the September 11th attacks will need to have essential security precautions," a Bloomberg statement reads. "But because of concerns that the increased security measures required for vice presidential travel would have inconvenienced or delayed family members, I have asked Vice President Cheney to attend a memorial service later in the day honoring fallen Port Authority (of New York and New Jersey) officers and employees, instead of the morning's commemoration at the World Trade Center site."

Speaking to reporters in New York's Herald Square, the mayor called the decision "mutual."

A representative in Cheney's office told CNN that the vice president understands, accepts and respects the mayor's recommendation.

I've traded a couple emails with Paul Cella since yesterday. He seems a decent and sincere and smart guy. Still, I'm not sure it's worth spending much more time on the subject. But, I've gotten a lot of interesting email about all of this. So -- with his permission -- I thought it might be worthwhile to post his initial email to me and offer a public response.

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

I conflated your work for NRO with the regular magazine. My apologies. Also, I emphatically do not mean my critique to be personal. I may come to regret even mentioning you and Mr. Frum by name.

The heart of my disagreement lies in the fact that you assume that things are generally great with Western Civilization; that, in other words, the pessimism of the early NR has been solidly repudiated by events. I see a still-severe decline, mitigated by the lack (until recently) of consolidated external challenge. In other words, I still see the West as profoundly decadent, unsure of its purpose, enervated by irreligion and relativism, enamored with trivia, enfeebled in its moral compass, and complacent about its liberty. Now I am well aware of your disagreement with this view; you have written in rebuke of it several times -- I am just not persuaded.

And this goes to the heart of my concern about NR: that it cannot see the real debilitating problems of the age because it has become such a creature of its age. A good example might be the ho-hum reaction to the march toward gay marriage. That the state would undertake, largely by usurpation, to radically reorder an institution as ancient (far older than the modern state) as marriage is a serious matter: And it has not been examined and criticized at NR with the seriousness it deserves.

Thanks for taking the time to address my essay.

Best,
Paul J. Cella

My response: (And this really is my response and nobody else's): I simply don't get the sense that NR is complacent or otherwise pleased with the state of Western Civilization. I also don't think one could give my own writing a fair reading and say that I'm convinced of the West's health either.

More important, Cella makes an increasingly common mistake: conflating NR and NRO. Because of it's daily nature, NRO is simply more freewheeling than NR, which -- while often fun and funny -- is also of necessity more deliberate.

Cella's critique of National Review's allegedly "ho-hum" position on gay marriage is a case in point. I hear this all of the time and, frankly, I don't know where people get this idea. NR has run quite a high numer of editorials and cover stories on gay marriage, including a cover story demanding a constitutional marriage amendment. Who are these ho hum NR writers and editors? What have they written? I have come out in favor of civil unions of some kind but not gay marriage and I'm certainly not representative of the rest of NR. The only other author identified by name -- David Frum -- is passionately opposed to gay marriage and civil unions. As for NRO, gay marriage has been discussed a lot in the Corner and elsewhere on the site and pretty much everyone has treated the subject very seriously and come out against same-sex marriage.

Moreover, I don't write or contribute to any editorials around here (I can't get into the meetings because of the no shirt, no shoes rule). My biggest problem with Cella's lament -- and of many other conservative NR critics -- is that it's largely atmospheric, impressionistic and often based on myth rather than fact. I can give dozens of examples of NR's non-ho-hum stance to gay marriage. Where are the examples going the other way?

In short, I think too many people read NRO or the Corner and assume every single thing on it represents "official" NR policy, which is nuts (worse: some just parrot the echo chamber of cranky right-wing blogdom -- e.g. the whole NR has gone neocon nonsense). In Cella's case this is particularly unfair because he goes on at such great length about the print magazine when often he's simply plucking convenient -- and unrevealed -- examples from NRO. If people want every item on NRO to be vetted for a party line, that can be arranged. But that would contradict part of what I've always considered to be NRO's mission which is to offer a glimpse of the intellectual diversity of the right as compared to the caricature -- a caricature unfotunately too often fed by conservatives themselves.

Reading NRO does not take an entire work day, thus forcing many of us to open inferior conservative websites. NR Digital would greatly extend the amount of time one could ignore work, yet feel as though they are accomplishing something worthwhile.

I just signed up. Not sure why. I think it was the gaze of the Derb, imploring me to just do it. And then I went into a trance...

Where, Oh where are the Zeroes of Zeta?!?!?!

Must sign up for NROVDT!

Mayor Daley Vs. Jesse Jackson

I can go one better on hiding the newest NR from my husband. I have to hide it from my almost 12 year old son!

I make a concerted effort to avoid sending him to get the mail when a new NR is on its way. My son gets it after me, then my husband. (He's so busy at an unnamed national lab doing things he can't tell me about to defend our country that he gets it last!) After my brother gave us a gift subscription 3 years ago we have been dedicated readers.

Bloom County is back! I always thought it was better than Calvin and Hobbes -- but I don't want to start anything.

I went to high school with the dwarf king of Mordor. He was a good dude.

OK, Kathryn, here’s your female audience!

When I read about the wife that complained of her husband’s NRODT’s sitting idly while he was away on business, I was confused.

You see, at our home, we “fight” for first rights to the mag when it comes in. It starts with my husband looking at the cover of the last issue and lamenting “haven’t we gotten the latest one yet?” The reason that he would ask this was twofold, one, because yes, the mail is slow and two, because it isn’t uncommon for me to hide the latest NRODT from him. If I didn’t, I would resentfully watch him come home from work, grab it and disappear into the “boy’s room” for at least half an hour. Then once the kids were tucked in, I knew it would be a race to see who got it for nighttime reading first. So I started subterfuge. I would “hide” the mag until I got through at least a few of the articles after we had gotten it for a day or two. Then I would put it innocently on the stack of mail coming in the next day. (With apologies to Mr. Kurtz, whom I would hate to think that I carried that subterfuge out in any other areas of my happy marriage!)

We both love our NRO, and now all we’ll have to fight over is who gets the laptop first!

Thanks for going digital! Now I can bring down my issues of NRODT to Bowdoin College, they are in sore need of them there!

I'm on deadline for my syndicated column which I've barely started, so I can't spend too much time on this. But I'm curious to know what exactly Ramesh makes of Cella's argument other than the fact that it is "thoughtful." I agree that it is thoughtful too. And Cella makes some interesting observations. But, I have to say that his essay strikes me as the indulgence of nostalgia as a substitute for detailed criticism.

It seems to me that one of the reasons National Review was so exciting in those days -- and seems all the more so now, in retrospect -- is that the times were so different. Standing athwart history yelling Stop, makes for bracing reading (albeit for a highly literate audience) when one truly believes we are on the road to serfdom. Then, to seek "relevance" in an age when the West appeared to be on the losing side of the twilight struggle amounted to, in effect, a moral and ideological surrender of the first order. Cella seems to bemoan the fact that the times no longer necessitate men and women to continually write the eulogies and last testaments for Western Civilization becauuse it makes for less interesting journalism. This is like regretting the end of a war because there will no longer be a need for Saint Crispin's Day speeches.

Of course, we have our own struggle today in the war on terrorism. And, on that score, I should say that the writing of Victor Davis Hanson, Rich Lowry, John O'Sullivan and others is in line with the tradition of National Review.

Oh, and let me raise one minor issue in my own defense. Cella refers to my "columns" of "semantic fastidiousness" -- whatever that means. I should note that A) I do not write columns for the magazine at all B) Nothing I have written for the magazine has concerned itself with semantics of any kind, fastidiously or otherwise C) I'd be curious to know what columns I've written for NRO fall into that category D) William F. Buckley has carved out quite an important following in part due to his devotion to what could rightly be called semantic fastidiousness. And I do seem to recall he had something to do with the National Review Cella pines for.

Peter Ueberroth dropping out of Calif. recall race

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth has decided to quit the recall race for California governor, state Republican sources told CNN Tuesday.

Ueberroth, a Republican who was reaching out for the support of independents in the 135-candidate contest but was trailing in the most recent polls in fourth place with just 5 percent voter support, plans to withdraw at a 4 p.m. ET news conference, the sources said.

He does not plan to endorese any of the majorcandidates just yet, but wants to discuss with them individually their ideas on creating jobs before making his choice, the sources said.

But Hillary would be most unhappy to see Gore get the nod. Since Al would be a good bet to win, her nightmare scenario of a Bush defeat and no open field in 2008 would be coming to pass. So should Gore begin to make a move, Hillary will likely get into the race to pre-empt him.

Bandow is way off base here, as are so many other national conservatives who have NO CLUE what's going on here on the ground in Alabama. But the really annoying thing is Bandow and others jumping all over Riley for the one line about "Christian ethics," as if that is the sum total of Riley's argument. Fact is, it was a sidelight argument, mainly IN RESPONSE to the state Christian Coalition (financed by one of the plan's big-money opponents) spreading a lot of hooey about it being our Christian duty to OPPOSE the tax reform plan. The Bible isn't a tax manual. Riley, unlike the state Christian Coalition, never said it was. (The National Christian Coalition, on the other hand, said the state group was way off base, and did endorse the Riley plan.) Why it's wrong for Riley to respond to the rent-a-Coalition on the state level, but not wrong for the state group to make the Bible-based claims in the first place, is quite a logical conundrum.

There's a good reason why only one leading, respected conservative past or present office-holder (a former state senator) here in Alabama has come out against the plan: Because this is precisely conservative reform. You can believe some outsider like Bandow, or you can believe me (a true Reagan-Kemp-DuPont supply-sider) and Bill Pryor and Jeremiah Denton and former U.S. Rep. Jack Edwards and current Rep. Spencer Bachus and former Lt. Gov. Steve Windom (who LOST to Riley in the GOP primary but has had the grace to say Riley is right on this plan) and..... on and on and on. Either the conservative are for it publicly, or they are for it but don't have the guts to say so.

That's the truth.

Sorry to be so angry, but I've had enough of the national groups applying a litmus test where the circumstances on the ground don't warrant it.

David Brooks has written the sum total of 1 column for the New York Times and, judging from email and this harsh discussion over at Lucianne.com it sounds like many conservatives on the web aren't willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. I like David Brooks very much and while I think he could use more red meat in his fare from time to time, I think he's certainly A) conservative B) intellectually honest C) extremely talented.

When it was announced that Brooks was going to the New York Times, many conservatives cheered, and rightly so (It is a huge triumph to have anyone right-of-center at the New York Times. We don't need another conservative columnist at the Washington Times or Townhall (two great outlets, don't get me wrong). But we desperately need as many conservative voices as possible in places like the NYT.)

But conservatives also voiced, off the record, a fear that Brooks might "grow" at the Times. Taking nothing away from Brooks and his integrity, I do think that is a legitimate fear. The Times must be a daunting podium to pronounce from since the people controlling the mic and the audience are so overwhelingly liberal in all of their fundamental understandings of the universe. Nevertheless, not only would it be unfair and untrue to dismiss Brooks as a liberal fellow traveller, it would be inadvisable as well. If he gets nothing but undeserved grief from the Right from the get-go, he will feel even less beholden to listen to that consituency.

But more to the point, it's just way, way, way too soon to draw any hard conclusions about the job he's doing over there. Give him a break.

Gallup has a new poll which shows that only 21% of Americans think Bush has "gone too far" on civil liberties and 19% think he hasn't "gone far enough." Most people think Bush has done "about right." I don't normally care much about polls, but this does illuminate a few issues in an entertaining way. All of the bleating, whining, screeching and righteous bloviating from Democratic politicians, civil libertarians, pundits etc has done almost nothing to convince anybody that the Patriot Act is the great threat to human liberty they say it is. In fact, since 21% of Americans would probably say that Bush has "gone too far" on civil liberties if the Patriot Act was never even written, you could say that opponents have been wasting everyone's time.

A reader reminds me the CDF/Rehm line isn't even original. Moreover, it in a sense it puts us in the terrorist role.

Jonah, isn't Diane Rehm's quote a take-off on what Golda Mier said about the Palestinians? She said something to the effect of "we will continue to war with the Palestinians until they love their children more than they hate us."

So Ms. Rehm's statement was not even close to original.

I have 4 kids (all 4 and under), 2 cats, 1 dog, a hermit crab and a fish. The last thing I or my wife need is more stuff that we have to pick up and put away. However, I enjoy reading the print edition in places one wouldn't normally bring a computer. Oh, joy of all joys, I just installed a wireless network at home and have just subscribed to NRO Digital. Now I can avoid the clutter of a magazine, yet still enjoy NR on my portable computer in the only place one can find peace in such a busy household: the john.

My new nominee for most aggressively stupid comment during the war on terror. Yesterday I heard NPR's Diane Rehm fawningly quote a friend of hers at the Children's Defense Fund. She said: In America, "We hate our enemies more than we love our children."

Rehm sounded as if the wisdom of this insight was beyond debate.

Tim Cavanaugh writes that charges of anti-Catholicism are overblown: "The brouhaha over the Bill Pryor nomination was certainly the hokiest of recent efforts to put anti-Catholicism back on the American agenda. National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru set a rare example for candor in his recent Bull on the matter, which more or less urged Republicans to employ better sophistry and more zealous demagoguery than the Democrats. The argument: If Democrats use Pryor's anti-abortion views to disqualify him from serving on a federal appeals court, they are employing a de facto religious test on any Catholic candidate who follows the church's 'teachings.' Republicans can thus profitably condemn the Democrats as bigots. (Ponnuru doesn't specifically mention the reign of King Charles II, but others have.) The charge need not be true; and a Test Act need not even be a necessarily bad thing. The attraction here is the issue's power to put Democrats on the defensive.

"Like most good party-politics stratagems, this one's policy underpinnings are pure hogwash. That a strict and (more importantly) open adherence to Pope Paul VI's anti-contraception encyclical Humanae Vitae would make it unlikely for Pryor to get the support of Democratic opponents is true enough. It's also irrelevant. The last time a political figure's Catholicism became a nationally publicized issue was during the 1960 election; at that time, candidate Kennedy defused the issue not by reconciling voters to his faith but by effectively promising to suppress his religious beliefs should they ever interfere with his duties."

Speaking of bull, Cavanaugh's full of it. My article was certainly not a candid argument for "better sophistry and more zealous demagoguery." Rather, I was saying that Republicans were making an argument that was mostly correct and should refine it so that it was fully correct. Republicans were suggesting that the Democrats were trying to exclude Catholics from the federal judiciary. I said that it would be more precise to say that the Democrats had established a litmus test that would have the effect of excluding Catholics who were faithful to their church's teachings. (I'm not sure why Cavanaugh puts that word in quotes.) I also said that it was entirely fair to ask Democrats to defend that exclusion openly. Perhaps these arguments are "pure hogwash" and "irrelevant," but it would take more than Cavanaugh's assertion to prive that case--especially since he hasn't even characterized the arguments accurately.

Saudi Govt Bans "Jewish" Barbie Dolls

"(Washington) ...September 8, 2003 - SIA News (www.arabianews.org)--

The Saudi government has announced that Barbie dolls are Jewish tools promoting the lewd behavior of the what it calls the perverted Western world, according to a poster distributed to Saudi schools, mosques and hospitals which has been obtained by SIA news.

The poster, titled "The Jewish Doll", is printed and distributed by the powerful Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, otherwise known as the religious police. This is a government agency headed by a Wahhabi cleric with ministerial rank appointed by King Fahd.

The poster includes photos of Barbie dolls that have been confiscated by religious police from local retail outlets, displayed in a special exhibition of goods which are deemed to have violated official religious teachings.

The Permanent Exhibition for Religious Contraventions is located at the headquarters of the religious police in Madina. It displays confiscated goods such as photographs, perfumes, and dolls among other confiscated items.

Saudi spokesman in Washington, Adel Al-Jubeir, refused to comment when SIA news asked him about the poster and the official propagation of religious hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Wahhabi Muslims by government agencies and officials.

The power of the religious police emanates from the support of King Fahd and Interior Minister Prince Naif, who fund it generously...."

I just subscribed for your digital subscription. I let my print run expire because as a die-hard lefty, I couldn't justify the expense, just to read more about the tepid wonders of George Bush. But I salute NR's digital initiative. Hey, it saves trees, and you know we lefties love trees, so you roped me back in...

I'm heading over to AEI to hear Judge Bork talk about his new book, Coercing Virtue."

In that wretched film I learned that 78% of serial killers vote Republican and that Judas' "real" crime might have been that he kissed Jesus.

From a reader:

Jonah -

You've saved my marriage. I loved NRODT, but my lovely bride bristled at the cost, especially since with my hectic lifestyle I would often leave the issues unread for weeks at a time. Plus, she's convinced that most of the good stuff is on NRO, anyway. With NROnly (I hope I coined the phrase), I can slip under the family funding radar. I'll tell her I spent it on wings and beer with the guys.

So my conscience is allayed now that I'm no longer sponging free-ish content (I would spend Frequent Flier miles on the subscription whenever the offer rolled around, but that was usually for half a year, offered once a year). I feel like I'm contributing now. Don't spend the $20 all in one place.

Bill

To Ramesh and has nothing serious to say in his own defense. Though his Mork and Mindy link is not only interesting, it's relevant to a line from my latest column.

Also, I must say the comments section is interesting in that it seems most readers agree that Gillespie lost the battle. They also have some snarky things to say about NRO, but that's to be expected. Oh, and please, this is not an invitation to inundate me with requests to set up our own reader forum doohickey. I know some people want one, it's been discussed ad nauseum at NRO and some day we'll work out the kinks. But having just won the battle for NR-Digital, my biggest concern is NRD's success.

Protestors spell out "no to the WTO" in the nude. That will definitely slow down international capital flows and global trade.

But we haven't lost an American serviceman in Iraq for 7 days. I don't want to jinx anything, but it's worth noting how buried this fact has been when the "One American life per day" storyline was constant not too long ago.

"Let's see a cat do anything like this."

Stan - "NRDGT" -- There's an extra "G" in there, right? So it can't mean National Review on Digital Tree. So, I'm thinking "National Review's Digitally Great Time." Or maybe a phonetic NR-Dig It! A reader suggests NRCRT -- National Review Cathode Ray Tube. How about NROVDT -- National Review On Virtually Dead Tree?

A reader warns that we shouldn't be too hard on Bush lest we face the alternative:

Jonah,

I am a 25 year old medical student (4th year) at Penn, and have followed your writing over the last three years. I greatly appreciate your ability to communicate fundamental (but often unspoken) arguments, and your advice on challenging cliches has helped me make sense of much of the intellectual mush I've been fed over the last several years.

With all this in mind, I am honestly very frightened when I hear key
conservative voices talking about President Bush in this way. I understand that many of his policies are nearly anathema to our viewpoints (steel tarriffs, campaign finance reform, unwillingness to fight for his conservative judicial nominees, the early suggstions for illegal immigrant amnesty). However, I am not sure if we appreciate how truly dangerous the alternatives are. Here in the halls of the nation's first school of medicine (founded by, among others, Benjamin Rush, Washington's physician, and signer of the Declaration of Independence) I hear otherwise rational, logical people become so choked with rage and indignation when they hear the name of GWB. Their positions are so far away from where we are now, it is unbelieveable. Forget the Medicare drug benefit - they would not be satisfied until we have developed full NHS-style socialized medicine (this is the example I am most familiar with). The ideas on defense and law enforcement would leave us more vulnerable than ever to those who would just as gladly kill us as look at us.

I understand that many are disappointed by policies and positions of our President. That's OK - it will happen, regardless of who occupies the office. It just seems that those who talk about the president "losing his base" are displaying the mentality of a toddler who can't play the game he wants to: I'm taking my toys and going home; the rest of you are on your own.

The president is in a position that I do not, and never would, envy. The war he has to lead will last the remainder of our lives (I hope they are long) and I am certain that there are compromises that must be made to reach the final objective. Let's not lose sight of that, and let's not cut the president down over peripheral issues, at the expense of the crux of the matter: Keeping us alive, and preserving our civilization. If he does that, he has certainly not "jumped the shark".

Sincerely,

John Cafardi
Philadelphia

Doing a little catching up on my non-progressing article on Vermont. I found this disturbing email about Vermont's alcohol policies:

You cannot have more than one drink in front of you, and you cannot order more than one at a time. For example, if you went to the bar to order a drink for you and your wife-as she was sitting at a table, or standing talking with some friends away from the bar-sorry, only one drink per person. Alternatively, if you were sitting at a table, receiving waiter service, your next round of drinks couldn't be put down unless you had finished the prior round, or the prior round would have to be picked up before the new drinks could be set on your table....

A study suggests that immigration leads to sprawl. I'm a bit skeptical about how much immigration contributes to the problem ("problem"?) of sprawl. But I haven't looked at the study myself and, besides, it does make the issue a bit more interesting, politically speaking.

I think Mr. Podhoretz should be careful. I distinctly remember a piece he wrote about his youthful excitement over the annual Academy Awards broadcast, and his memorization of all Oscar nominees and winners. In my neighborhood, this might not exactly qualify as a totally macho hobby.

"But Hark! The cry is ‘Astur!’
And Lo! the ranks divide
And the great lord of Luna
Comes on with stately stride."

I wasn’t aware that there was a stereotype that conservatives were effete and womanish. The stereotype I have always heard is the exact opposite, i.e., that conservatives are crude, brutish, loutish, bullying yahoos. I think the stuff you, John Derbyshire, and Rick Brookhiser have been posting recently is a welcome and intelligent rebuke to that stereotype.

Many Americans are asking what kind of a president Howard Dean would make. Based on his 11 years as governor of Vermont, a reasonable person could fairly conclude that he would not make a very good one. This verdict is not based on his views on particular issues. It is based on a review of his autocratic style, his lack of ability to deal with bureaucratic management and his overwhelming commitment to his own political ambitions rather than to any recognizable principle.

Al Qaeda's warning.

Getting lots of sympathetic email on my concerns about Bush. For example:

Jonah, I couldn't agree more with you about the unease you are feeling regarding the president. I too have become jaded by the domestic side of the ledger since the beginning of his term. I find myself questioning the point of having a republican president that governs as a democrat. Carl Rove and Ed Gillespie better realize pretty damn quick that their base is becoming antsy. Does this mean I may vote for DeanKerryLiebermanEdwardsKucinichGrahamClintonClarkSharptonGephardtBraun? Of course not, but there's always that libertarian on my ballot. Bush needs to come back from his vacation recharged and do something powerful to prove his conservative principles. A good start would be a veto threat of that God-awful Mediscam bill making its way through committee. The domestic agenda is a disaster for small government and he risks losing the base in a big way.

Nick Gillespie and I have crossed virtual pens a few times as well. In a debate for TechCentralStation and in my endless spat with libertrarians.

Ramesh smacks Reason editor Nick Gillespie this morning on NRO. It's a bit highly technical in parts. But, it needs to be in order to demonstrate the yawning disconnect between Nick's almost invariably condescending tone and the substance, or lack thereof, of his arguments. It's quite fun.

Email from Dallas:

Jonah,

In response to the point you made with "Biden's Talking Points" on "The Corner" -- I think it's important to point out that Biden, as well as several other Dems and the mainstream media--are all attempting to plant the notion that Bush admitted to a "mistake" by not involving the U.N. from the onset. This, of course, is poppycock, and a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. President Bush wished from the start to have the U.N. involved with humanitarian efforts in Iraq. He simply (and correctly) did not want them making military decisions. He hasn't veered from that same course.

If you haven't seen it, Momma G's website has a fun feature called "what they said"

An email:

And they thought sliced bread was the greatest invention of all time???

Thanks! This is incredible!!!! I had just last week lamented to my wife about not being able to receive it overseas. My solution: Have my father-in-law send me his copy each week. Might have cost NR a few bucks, but at least I could be reading the articles......

Thanks again. I am absolutely giddy....
Kindly,
Rob Halsey
Vienna

I watched "The Life of David Gale" last night on pay-per-view. Why? I blame bad clams, or at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Anyway, if you haven't seen it, don't. It's plodding, predictable and well even more plodding and predictable. I'd read that it was actually an interesting murder-mystery type movie. I was wrong. The fair Jessica and I had figured it out about 20 minutes into the movie and stuck around solely in the hope of being proven wrong. I'm sure the makers of the film thought it was brilliant idea for a movie -- anti-death penalty activist on deathrow, blah blah blah -- but oh my stars and garters, this thing was awful. I just don't know if I should spoil the "surprise" ending or not for people so off-their-meds that they actually might want to see it. But if it turns out that if an anti-death penalty cornerite wants to defend this root-canal of a movie, I will be forced to do so.

I'm now convinced that global warming us caused by the decline in cigarette smoking. Why? Because it would just be so cool if true. And besides, people have started to quite just as temperatures have allegedly started to rise.

That's right baby! We're going digital! (Which I like to pronounce dig-it-all, because, well, it seemed clever at the time. Sign up or die a slow lingering death. It's reall that simple.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) tonight responded to President Bush's address to the nation. "Tonight the president reaffirmed our resolve: if we are to protect American lives, retreat from Iraq is not an option," DeLay said. "Winning the peace in Iraq is essential to winning the war on terror. Since 9/11, we've been at war for the survival of our nation, and like Ronald Reagan and FDR before him, the president has told the world America's policy is nothing short of absolute victory."

I just opened this email in response to my Hitler/Bush column (I can't tell if this guy is serious):

Dear Jonah,
I just finished reading your rather long essay defending Bush against the charge of being another Hitler.I agree he is not another Hitler,Hitler was a helluva lot smarter--but that is beside the point.

What I wanted to ask was:Do you think your socks,after a year under the fridge would taste better than Al Sharpton's? Do you think George Bush's socks would taste better than Hitler's after a year under the fridge?I think they would be equally untasty.This should be proof enough of their similarity,never mind their mutual use of fear to motivate their people to go to war and the rest of those idiotic partisan political arguments. Strip them of their socks and you will see that they were true spiritual brothers.
[Name withheld]

Over at Drudge

Biden has told NBC and CNN (and lord knows who else before the end of the night) that this speech signals that the president has "finally" broken with the neconservatives and sided with Colin Powell and the United Nations.

Do not get in the way of Joe Biden and a camera tonight. The speech has been over for five minutes and he's already given interview to CNN and NBC.

The president didn't get into the details on the Washington Post's piece on the al-Qaeda effort to create an Iraq front. That's too bad. But it's clear after this speech that the Admistration considers Iraq to be the electric bug zapper of what -- according to Christopher Hitchens (see Andrew Stuttaford's post below) -- constitutes the scum of the earth. That's fine by me. Better we kill these fanatical murderers a couple thousand miles from us than in New York, Cleveland or Kansas City.

Personally, I don't mind the number. I would be far, far, far, far happier if it came with $587 billion in cuts. But, hey, that's cold-hearted me.

Great phrase from the president's speech. Be nice if it was coined a while ago. But still, I think it might stick.

I have a big wait-and-see attitude toward the President's comments tonight. But I must say that if it weren't for the war on terrorism, I'd be a bit at a loss these days to say something nice about him given his performance of the last six months. Yes, yes, tax cuts: good. And a few other things: Good. But, I'm really fighting this feeling that when he said earlier this week that whenever someone's "hurting," the "government has to move", he essentially jumped the shark. Maybe I'm just in a down mood about politics generally, but every day it seems more and more like the President is moving the Republican Party to the kissy-huggy liberal center at the behest of Rovian imperatives. I'll tell you, if he goes all Souter when/if there's a Supreme Court vacancy, I don't what I'll do. Ramesh noted a while back that when the Democrats move left, so does the GOP because the Center gets abandoned. It seems to me that's exactly what's happening and it just bums me out.

The suggestion that the drug Ecstasy could be associated with Parkinson’s disease was, understandably, one of the most of the convincing reasons for keeping it illegal. Now it turns out that the research was, to put it mildly, flawed:

As the Guardian reports, “the study [establishing the connection] was based on the fact that laboratory monkeys and baboons had a severe reaction to the drug when it was injected in small doses. But it emerged this weekend that the vials of liquid did not contain ecstasy. Instead, the animals received a dose of methamphetamine, or speed - a drug widely known to affect the body's dopamine system. The tubes had somehow been mislabelled by the supplier.”

Fair enough, mistakes can be made – and one negative finding is not enough to call a drug safe - but can we now expect the drug warriors to publicize the fact that this particular risk has been massively overstated – or would that be expecting too much?

A Style story Aug. 8 by Ann Gerhart about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Kennedys referred to the "grave disarray of the Democrat Party." A slew of readers sent incensed messages pointing out that the correct name is Democratic Party. The Post chose not to run a correction; a mistake, in my view, compounding the initial mistake. The construction used in the story is viewed by some as a pejorative used by some Republicans, and letting it stand gives ammunition to those who say they see bias in the paper.