Lost in Translation is, quite simply, a masterpiece, so it’s sad to see that its Oscar hopes may be scuppered by the 'activists' over at Asian Mediawatch, who claim that it ‘mocks the Japanese people.’ This is so dumb that it’s difficult to know where to begin. The movie is a comedy, and like many comedies it satirizes, mocks and emphasizes the absurd, and when that film is set in Japan and, at least partly, is about the failure of different cultures to understand each other, it’s no surprise that here and there, ‘Japaneseness’ (yes, yes, I know that’s not a word) is at the receiving end of a few jokes (as are blonde starlets, middle-aged white guys and numerous others). That anyone could find that humor somehow racist is yet another reminder that we live in a culture of complaint and victimhood run amok.

Message to ‘Asian Mediawatch’: Get a life, guys.

[W]e defend Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” which portrays Jesus as a human who slowly learns he’s divine, and Kevin Smith’s “Dogma,” a raw comedy about an abortion-clinic worker who is a lineal descendant of Jesus. Anyway, I defended these films in TIME, and I took at face value the testimony of Scorsese, who once contemplated entering the priesthood, and Smith, who describes himself as a devout Catholic, that their films were acts of faith.

The latest film of faith, by the movie industry’s other Church-going Catholic, Mel Gibson, has received a frostier, more fulminating response.

One man convicted of child molestation has directed films for Disney and New Line. Gibson’s criminal rap sheet is clean; he is guilty only of standing by his deluded old man and expressing opinions that are less popular in Hollywood than they are in the rest of the country. For some of the industry’s moguls to deny him employment because they don’t like what he said, or because he made a controversial film, would send a creepy message to the public: that a liberal is someone who will defend to the death your right to agree with him.

BURBANK, Calif. – February 27, 2004– In an interview with "Access Hollywood," actor Kevin Costner says that people "shouldn't be attacking" Mel Gibson for his film "The Passion of the Christ." The interview airs on "Access Hollywood," Friday, February 27, 2004 (check local listings for time and station).

Costner says that Gibson doesn't deserve all the criticism that he is receiving for his film "The Passion of the Christ," which depicts Jesus' last hours. "We shouldn't be attacking a filmmaker like Mel Gibson who, number one, is an honorable filmmaker...and probably questioned himself more than anybody even knows. So, like leave him alone."

The Iraqi Governing Council repealed decree 137 today (the controversial decree bringing in Sharia law passed in December. A group of women came in to lobby against decree 137. They presented their case to the Governing Council as to why Sharia discriminates against women.

The council vote to repeal decree 137 was passed by 15 in favor and 10 against (the full council of 25 was there). The women who had lobbied against decree 137 ululated and shouted for joy at the end of the vote.

In protest at their behavior, the following 8 IGC members walked out:

Ibrahim al-Ja'fari (Dawa Party, Shi’a Islamist)
'Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim (Scriri, Shi’a Islamist funded by Iran)
Muhammad Bahr al-'Ulum (Shi’a Islamist)
'Abd al-Karim Mahmud al-Muhammadawi (Shi’a, Hizbullah, aka Abu Hatem the Lord of the Marshes)
Ahmed Chalabi (INC)
'Izz al-Din Salim (Shi’a, Islamic Dawa of Basra
Ahmad Shya'a al-Barak al-Bu Sultan (Shi’a, Iraqi Lawyers union)
Salam al-Khafaji (Shi’a woman, ex-Ba’athist, replaced the late Aqila al-Hashemi)

Bremer then called off the meeting as there was no longer a quorum. To ease the tensions he invited the IGC to his residence for this evening’s meal.

The 17 IGC members who had stayed in the room after the vote was taken went to Bremer’s.

At present, the 8 named above who walked out in protest at the repeal of decree 137 are at Ahmed Chalabi’s residence and are boycotting dinner with Bremer.

After the rally, Edwards went behind closed doors at the home of John O'Quinn, one of the state's most prominent trial lawyers, for the fund-raising portion of his Texas swing....O'Quinn is among the nation's top Democratic donors. His law firm was one of five sharing $3.3 billion in fees for representing the state in the tobacco litigation that produced a $17.3-billion settlement for Texas.

Trial lawyers, including many in Texas, have been the most dependable source of campaign cash for Edwards' bid for the Democratic nomination, providing almost $4 million of the $14 million he has raised. Fred Baron of Dallas, also one of Texas' most prominent trial lawyers, is Edwards' national finance chairman.

I would disagree with you re: Mel will never be Mad Max again...A Mad Max 4 has been "in the works" for a while, and Gibson has the perfect vehicle in the Max character to express spiritual (and not even necessarily Christian) suffering and redemption. Max's character was driven "mad" by the brutal murder of his family, and he now roams a post-apocalyptic wasteland living an amoral life of survival. This could be a perfect opportunity to bring a moral conclusion to this tale...along with healthy doses of high performance V-8s.

The afternoon of a workweek is a poor measure of interest in any movie outside of "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings." Had the reporter of that story joined me at the 7:00 PM showing of The Passion in Springfield, VA, she would have seen a rarity: the manager decided to open up a second theater because the first one was packed full.

All attendees, including elderly people, had to climb the steep steps of a broken escalator to simply reach the box office window. The elderly folks I saw may have been out of breath but they remained determined to confirm Ralph Winter and Mark Joseph's prediction in NRO on Tuesday.

Remarks delivered 2/26/03 by Mrs. Sharon Rocha, Mother of Laci Peterson

RE: Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, “Laci and Conner’s Law”

Hello. I am Sharon Rocha. I am the mother of Laci Peterson and the grandmother of Conner Peterson. I want to thank the House of Representatives for bringing Laci and Connor’s law to a vote today, and for giving me this opportunity to speak about an issue that’s very important to me and my family.

As you know, Laci and Conner were cruelly murdered. In this difficult time, my family is grateful that under California law, the murders of Laci and Conner can both be prosecuted. But for the families of many other murder victims across the country, there can be no such comfort. Federal law does not recognize that these crimes have two victims.

When I became aware that Congresswoman Melissa Hart was working on a bill to correct this problem, I contacted her to express my support. I asked her to name it “Laci and Conner’s Law” in memory of my daughter and grandson. I am grateful to Congresswoman Hart, the House leadership, and the many congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, who have agreed to support this common-sense legislation. I thank President Bush for his willingness to sign it into law.

The House of Representatives has shown their support for this law by approving it twice thus far, but the senate has consistently failed to act. I call on every senator to vote for this bill, so that the law will do justice for families of murder victims-families like mine. It is time for the Senate to stand up for innocent victims like Conner.

In the summer of 2003, I wrote Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle a letter urging him to support the bill. Shortly after that, Senator Daschle said publicly that the Senate should consider this issue quickly. Since then, members of his party have been holding up a vote. I ask Senator Daschle, as their leader, to urge them to enact Laci and Conner’s Law as soon as possible.

I am dismayed that my own senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are standing in the way. Senator Feinstein has a bill that says that crimes like the murder of Laci and Conner have only one victim. But Laci knew that Conner was her son, and I know it too. Two people, Laci and Conner, would be here with us today if they had not been murdered. There were two victims in this crime, not one. I call upon Senators Feinstein and Boxer to recognize that reality, and support Laci and Conner’s law.

I fear that some senators have opposed Laci and Conner’s law because of misunderstandings. Laci and Conner’s Law has nothing to do with abortion. So I also call on Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards, and every other senator who has refused to support it to reconsider. I call on them to look at how the laws in California and many other states have worked, and to vote yes.

I believe the vast majority of Americans are in agreement that when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered a double homicide has been committed. It is time for those who make the law to listen to us.

Before politicians say that Conner was not really a victim of a crime, they need to think long and hard about whether they really want to say that. If Laci and Conner’s law is not enacted this year, I will keep fighting for it. I will not hesitate to explain this issue to their voters. To vote against Laci and Conner’s Law, or to obstruct it, is indefensible.

As several readers have reminded me, the reason I had to look up whether "Mau-Mau" is racist came in the aftermath of a spat I had with Julianne Malveaux in December of 2002 on CNN. To be diplomatic, there was always "friction" between myself and Ms. Malveaux and myself -- she had a habit of inssinuating that I am racist (like every other conservative). One Sunday, during the brouhaha over Trent Lott and after Ms. Malveaux had already insisted Lott was a "Klansman" Jonathan Karl asked me what I thought about Senator McConnell's defense of Lott. The transcript of what followed is below thought it doesn't really capture the tension (or my rage):

GOLDBERG: Well, you know, first of all, I do think you're right, that McConnell has gotten himself into a position of basically arguing that this is a high-tech lynching of an uppity segregationist.

(LAUGHTER)

And I think it's an indefensible position.

MALVEAUX: Jonah...

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: Jonah, why would you even use the term, "lynching," in this context?

GOLDBERG: I don't think you understood the sarcasm of the context.

GEORGE: It was a joke.

MALVEAUX: Well, this is something I just don't joke about, I guess.

GOLDBERG: Yes, you can call people Klansman, but I can't -- whatever, that's silly, Julianne.

Regardless, I think...

MALVEAUX: It's not silly, Jonah, it's principled. It's not silly. There is nothing silly about this at all. And it's not silly to use words like "lynching" and to use words that hark back to 1948. There is nothing silly about this.

GOLDBERG: Julianne, you're not going to get me into some corner where I'm going to get mau-maued on this. That's just silly.

MALVEAUX: Mau-maued?

GOLDBERG: Yes.

GEORGE: When Jonah used that phrase...

MALVEAUX: You're using racial language yourself here. You are two steps away from Trent Lott.

GOLDBERG: Oh, that's absurd.

ROBERT GEORGE: Julianne, that's unacceptable. I'm sorry, that's just unacceptable. The phrase that Jonah just used there, the high-tech lynching, you may remember, was used by Clarence Thomas when he was talking about being assaulted...

MALVEAUX: Why are you...

GEORGE: ... on a personal level. And what Jonah was making the point was that the McConnell was almost doing that.

Harold Meyerson's column is always refreshing because it distills so perfectly what "progressives" say to each other when they don't have the benefit of anybody in the room who thinks differently than them. Today's is particularly revealing. But I'll focus on just one point.

He says that the FMA would create a permanent "secondary caste" within the constitution: "Not untouchables, certainly; we're beyond that. Just unmarriageables. " He continues: That's a tricky distinction, though, and it's one that Bush and all but the most benighted opponents of gay marriage have to make all the time."

Um, how is this is a tricky distinction? Who's saying that gays should be denied schooling and forced to clean our sewers like untouchables are? Not even the most "benighted" opponents of gay marriage are saying anything like that. Mr. Meyerson, this may be a "tricky" distinction for you, but it isn't for most people.

Moreover, I'll point out that there's already a "secondary caste" enshrined in the constitution: Young people. The constitution sets all sorts of rules based on age, including barring young people from voting and serving in public office -- again not something anyone advocates for gays. Indeed, young people, variously defined, are barred by various laws from getting married, serving in the military, driving cars, etc. The age barrier is inherently arbitrary too (arbitrariness being another Meyerson bugaboo). After all, I've met fifteen-year-olds far more qualified to vote or marry than many thirty year olds. But we all see the social utility of this arbitrariness and so it stands. Meyerson & Co. no longer see the utility of the "arbitrary" man-woman definition of marriage. Fine, but that doesn't suddenly make everyone who still sees that utility a bigot.

And that's the point: whether you think it's good policy or not, opponents of gay marriage do not buy the assumptions of people like Meyerson. He may see a whole class of people dispatched to second class status, but that's because "progressives" instintually like to see such distinctions even when they're not there. Only minds which could seriously worry about the "digital divide," for example, could come up with this untouchables analogy. Again, regardless of whether it is good policy, an amendment would permit single men -- gay or straight -- to marry single women -- gay or straight -- and vice versa. That may be wrong, but let's not get hysterical about it.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Maybe that mafia suggestion from yesterday wasn't so far off:

From an article on Rosie O'Donnell's decision to wed her long-time girlfriend:

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

I'm not on Passion patrol here. I didn't mind that negative New York Times review so much. I thought it was wrongheaded in a few respects, but also was a matter of registering some subjective reactions that differed from my own. But there's another class of negative review, and Gregg Easterbrook gives an example of it today.

He says that Gibson's decision to emphasize gore is a way to maximize profits, not just a different artistic choice than Easterbrook would prefer. It was a "cynical" choice, he says, but he provides no evidence for this claim. He writes that the movie departs from Christian orthodoxy on the question of the universal responsibility of sinful human beings for Christ's suffering and death. It "seems to urge its audience to turn away from the universal spiritual message of Jesus and toward base political anger." More cynicism, says Easterbrook. He provides no evidence for this claim either, and there is some fairly strong counter-evidence: notably, the opening scene in which Satan talks to Jesus about his taking on the burden of all the sins of mankind, and Gibson's pounding of the first nail. More to the point, who is this "base political anger" supposed to be against? If Easterbrook wants to accuse the movie of being anti-Semitic, he should just come out and say so. Enough other people have.

The Washington Times headline:

Hastert eases on 9/11 panel's deadline

While pretty much everyone else has something similar to The Boston Globe's headline:

Hastert firm on Sept. 11 inquiry
Says he'll prevent deadline extension

Now the Brits too seem to be looking at a ban on smoking in bars and workplaces. The random ‘statistic’ pulled out of an ashtray to justify such a loutish, intrusive policy? The one thousand lives allegedly lost to ‘passive smoking’ in the UK each year.

Why be so modest? Back in December, 2002, Nurse Bloomberg claimed that his smoking ban in New York City would save one thousand lives annually in the Big Apple alone.

Both ‘statistics’ can be wrong, but they can’t both be right. So which is it?

Noam Scheiber has an interesting take (as does Nick Confessore, to whom he links). His argument is that the social Right never just takes half a loaf, so it will be constantly pressing Bush to do more than is prudent. He also says that Bush had to be dragged by the social Right to endorse the amendment--witness the complaints from its activists about the delay--which shows the White House knows this is a loser but is tied down by its base.

Maybe the underlying point, that this is a political loser, is correct. But I'm not convinced by these arguments for three reasons. 1) While it is true that social-conservative activists often take an all-or-nothing approach, it's not always true. Social conservatives have been willing to fight on partial-birth abortion rather than demanding immediate action on a Human Life Amendment, for example--although it took a while to get them on board for that strategy. 2) Maybe the president's public delay in coming out for the amendment stemmed from an perception that he is better off looking as though he were reluctant to amend the Constitution and forced to do so by events (Mass., S.F., etc.) have forced him. (I believe this perception to be accurate, and also believe the president does feel forced by events.) 3) It's not clear to me that the demands for the president to discuss the issue more constitute bad advice, for reasons I've already discussed.

Mark, yes, that David Brooks piece made strange reading indeed. Most striking of all, perhaps, was his penultimate sentence:

“But if we close our borders to new immigration, you can kiss goodbye the new energy, new tastes and new strivers who want to lunge into the future.”

Talk about creating a straw man. I doubt if many ‘restrictionists’ (if we must use that term) are talking about closing the border altogether: far from it. What they are asking for is more effective policing, a more carefully considered look at what contribution a potential immigrant can make to the prosperity of Americans (as opposed, say, to the ability of Wal-Mart to hire workers on the cheap) and, finally, a narrower definition of those entitled to immigrate on ‘family’ grounds. Sadly, the President does not seem prepared to listen.

here in DC and the first thing you need to know about it is that it's a very good movie. Forget the politics and the controversy: You cannot take your eyes off the screen, except for those the scenes that are so graphic you can't bear to watch them.

In many ways, it reminded me of Schindler's List, a hard-to-watch-yet-impossible-not-to-watch telling of the depravity we are capable of inflicting upon each other. Is it disturbing? Yes. Is it horrifying? Yes. But do you doubt that it is fundamentally true? Not for a moment.

And yes, Mel Gibson's "Passion" does stir up anger against those responsible for the Crucifixion: After the movie, I wanted to kick the crap out of a Roman. The Roman soldiers are the hate-inspiring baddies in this movie, not the leaders of the Jewish political cabal who seek Jesus' death. Gibson portrays them as clearly shocked by what, in their theological view, is blasphemy.

I don't know what the reviewers who see even a hint of anti-Semitism are looking at. While the Jewish leaders certainly aren't heroes, several members of their ranks step forward to defend Christ and denounce the way he is treated. The battle over Jesus isn't Jew vs. Christian in this movie. It's Jew vs. Jew, with both factions doing what they believe is right.

In fact, Gibson uses a moment in the Crucifixion to all but declare Caiaphas and his allies "Not Guilty!" for the death of Christ. It's not subtle in the least, and the fact that most reviews I've read skip this moment indicates to me they're doing their part to keep the unfounded controversy alive.

Let me be perfectly clear: There is no way to honestly say this movie is either anti-Semitic or promotes anti-Semitism. That is simply not true, and people who have seen the film and make that claim are being dishonest or ignorant.

A Gibson-basher on CNN today said that the portrayal of the Jewish mob calling for Jesus' execution as "ignorant, ugly, angry" is problematic. But he leaves out the scene where Jesus' political enemies pass out money to buy themselves a mob. The mob Gibson gives us looks like the kind of people of any faith who would participate in such a mob. And he leaves out the other "mob," the Jewish supporters of Jesus who follow him to Calvary. At what point does this Rabbi's selectivity turn into dishonesty?

I absolutely recommend the movie as a movie. Not as an evangelism tool or a theological argument, but as a powerfully-told film of a story so powerful it has defined the central tenets of Western thought. If it were up for Best Picture Sunday night, I would give it my vote. It's a better movie than "Return Of The King." Having said that, I'd rather see ROTK twenty more times than see "The Passion" once again. I'm glad I've seen it, but I can hardly say it was an enjoyable experience.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the FMA (and I have to say that I am not in favor), Ramesh is absolutely correct to say that the political fallout of the debate--and whether the president is successful in getting FMA enacted--will depend on who is portrayed as the aggressor and who the extremist. Yes, the President has been pushed into taking this step by the dodgy decision of an activist court, but that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility of articulating his own (‘defensive’) position in a way that (a) holds together intellectually; (b) doesn’t appall the large (I suspect) majority in this country that would rather not be talking about this topic at all; and (c) can demonstrate that he regards a constitutional amendment (rarely a conservative idea) as essential in this case. In effect, that means that he has to show why extending secular marriage rights (and rites) to the tiny minority of homosexuals (themselves a tiny minority of the population) who are likely to want it is such a threat to heterosexual marriage that its prohibition should be enshrined in the Constitution. Stanley may not agree, but I suspect that will be an interesting challenge, to put it mildly.

CARLSON: Well, then, let me ask you this question. Cheryl [Jacques, Human Rights Campaign], I want to ask you a question that I've asked

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I beg your pardon. I want to -- I want to ask you a question. And I want you to answer it. No one ever answers this question. And perhaps you will.

The standards that the Massachusetts Supreme Court set was intimacy. People are intimate, share intimacy, they deserve to be married. Why draw the line at two people, say? Why shouldn't a group of three men, for instance, by that standard, be able to be married? It's an honest question. I'd like an honest answer, please.

JACQUES: Here's an honest answer. Tucker, I'm raising two sons. I want them to be in love with a committed partner. I want them to have a family. I want grandchildren. I want them to take care of each other. I want them to share each other's health insurance. I want, when one of them dies, the other one to be able to receive Social Security survivor benefits, because they'll pay into it, as I do.

CARLSON: OK, but you haven't answered the question yet.

JACQUES: I just answered it.

CARLSON: No, no, why not three?

JACQUES: I want two committed parents, like every family.

CARLSON: But why deny the right of [three] people

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because I don't approve of that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Why don't you approve of it?

BEGALA: Who is asking for it?

HAYWORTH: Well, I'll tell you who is asking for it.

JACQUES: The American Pediatrics Association, all the leading groups say two committed parents.

CARLSON: But give me a reason. I don't understand.

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: That's what makes for a healthy family and a loving family and that's what I want. HAYWORTH: Paul asked, who is asking for this? And the sad fact is, right now, polygamists are petitioning the courts in Utah.

JACQUES: That's not what this is about.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYWORTH: No, it's precisely what this is about.

CARLSON: Why isn't that what it is about?

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because that's a different show with different advocates. This is about two loving, committed people.

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg

I agree with your column entirely.

My comment has to do with our fellow conservative friends at the Wall Street
Journal Editorial department who, surprisingly, participate in this cheap & completely false analogy of the Berlin Wall - but not in reference to the Israeli security barrier but in reference to any wall placed on the U.S. Mexican border (WSJ 2/6/04, Op-Ed "Immigrants & Optimists" was one of at
least two such references).

Now, I'm a big fan of the WSJ opinion page as I'll guess you likely are, too. I will say my views on U.S. immigration are much more closely aligned with NRO's - whom the Journal editors loosely & repeatedly (and haphazardly I might add) refer to as so-called "restrictionists". But immigration policy per se' is not my point.

I've never suggested building a huge wall all along our long southern border
but simply find irritating the Journal Editors' repeated reference that any such wall would be like a "Berlin Wall".

Mr. Goldberg they won't listen to me. Perhaps you could send them a copy of your column here personally signed and gently explaining that for this immigration wall to have ANY valid reference to the Berlin Wall it would have to be for the express intent of keeping Texans and Californians IN not
keeping foreigners OUT. The editors are smart conservative folks - what are
they thinking?

Thanks for listening,

Rod - I've generally thought that Abe Foxman & Co. have behaved inadvisedly and sometimes irresponsibly. By making such a fuss about the Passion stirring anti-Semitism they probably encouraged some fools to act "brave" by blaming Jews when they probably wouldn't have otherwise. But that doesn't mean Foxman and Co. were completely wrong on the merits. I've always thought this movie would stir up anti-Semitism too. Particularly in foreign countries where this sort of thing sits a lot closer to the surface than it does in America. But then again, my column stirs up anti-Semitism almost everyday -- because anti-Semites want to be stirred up -- and it's not like I want that censored either.

I don't know any more about the events in Denver than what you posted, but it seems to me that if the movie was to blame, saying so is not really so outrageous. I would hope Jewish groups don't blow it out of proportion because that would again only encourage would-be rebels to prove their "bravery" in the face of "religious political correctness" (and that may be your point).

But I think fans of the movie are going to have to make peace with the fact that while it may be brilliant, moving, uplifting and wonderful for the majority of people who see it, it will have an undersirable effect for some irreducible minority of people too. Just as violent movies are carthartic for the vast majority of people but one in 10,000 people in the audience take away an altogether different lesson and commit terrible acts. Conservatives, let alone Christian conservatives, more than anybody should be willing to admit that even the best things in this life have downsides.

From a reader:

Jonah: Imagine the hit that the Feds will take when mafia capos start marrying each other to take advantage of spousal immunity! "Do you, Tony Soprano, take this man, Paulie Walnuts, as your lawfully wedded wife?"

I live in the same county as Slaughterville. You'll be happy to know that the S-ville town board respectfully considered PETA's request and suggested instead that the town keep the name Slaughterville (in honor of the founder) and that PETA help them with the stray animal problem. S-ville, being in a rural area, gets a lot of pets dumped in their town by outsiders.

PETA has agreed and will donate $5,000 to help spay-neuter pets for low-income folks. (The $20,000 in veggie burgers was being donated by a manufacturer, which is why the discrepancy in the amounts of help.) The details of the program are being worked out now.

From a reader:

You ask:

"The polls say that roughly 50% of the country supports an FMA, does that mean that 50% of Americans are members of the religious right?"

No, it just means that 50% are ignorant of the actual issues involved and thus able to be manipulated by the religious right nuttie gay-haters who are the ones behind this attack on us.

Which you obviously should understand. Who are you trying to kid, anyway?

Viggo Mortensen reveals that wherever he goes people think cowboys, i.e. Americans, are a**holes. Seems to me that says more about his social circles then it does about cowboys:

In a lot of places in the United States and certainly even more places around the world, the image of the cowboy has become, for some people, a negative one. The word cowboy implies a strong, stubborn individual whose individualism depends on pulling down other people's individualism. The cowboys I met and liked and learned from are not that way.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

I have (unfortunately) some familiarity with common law marriage. While I can not speak to every state's unique laws, as a general principle, the specified period of cohabitation is not the only thing that can establish a common law marriage. Re-locating a houshold together, joint bank accounts, and joint property ownership are just a few. You may find that when you and your college roomate moved out of the dorm into that new bachlor pad, and chipped in for the big screen TV it was more of a commitment than you thought.

No, this probably wouldn't hold up in court, but it is amusing to think about...

From a reader:

Jonah,
I've wondered the same as SAOTWTBDAWHNGMITFP guy. Also wondered about
states with common law statutes. Not a lawyer, but isn't it true that if
two people live together for the statutory period, the law considers them
married. Am I correct?

If the state then considers them married can one party then sue the other
for alimony should the living arrangement cease. Maybe this is a question
for Levin. Just curious.

Lots of email along these lines:

Jonah, What your other writer said is true, Hinduism does indeed include a monotheistic concept. The other "gods" are manifestations (avatars, I think they are called) of God's nature. Many Hindus probably don't understand the distinction themselves, just as many Christians don't understand the Trinity. Anyway, my Hindu friends always speak of "God" in the singular as in "Oh, I think God will forgive us," when I cook their veggie burgers on the same grill lately used for beef patties (though I still clean it first in deference to their beliefs).

Jonah, As your humble Separated-and-on-the-Way-to-Being-Divorced-and-Wishes-He-Never-Got-Married-in-the-First-Place Guy, I've been watching this whole gay marriage thing with a bit of amusement. If two guys get married and divorce, which one gets screwed in court? If two women marry then divorce, does each get 50% of the other's assets? Who gets stuck paying for the other's health insurance and alimony after the love is gone? I say to them, "Be careful what you wish for."

You could write a book about what I don't know about this subject, but I think this is kind of interesting:

Jonah you are absolutely correct that most Hindus and Buddhists will have no objections to the 10 commandments anywhere. However you are dead wrong about the monotheism part. A more in depth reading of Hindu philosophy than what is bandied about by the proseltisers will allow you to see that Monotheism is the hallmark of Hinduism. Local traditions of giving different names and functions to different manifestations of one God and allowing people to worship any manifestattion that they most feel comfortable with and identify is what contributes to the poly/pan theistic picture of Hinduism.To really understand the nature of Hinduism I wish you would read a very easily readable translation of the Upanishads by Juan Mascaro or Eknath Easwaran. Maybe Ramesh could lend you a copy.

casts Bush's endorsement of FMA as an implicit admission that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The logic here escapes me. Bush said that the Defense of Marriage Act protected no state against its own courts, so that even if it stood it was incomplete. He also said that while he would defend it, the courts might strike it down. The most obvious way to understand it is that the president believes that the statute is constitutional but that judges might rule the other way, whether because they are sincerely mistaken or lawless. The assumption that they can be mistaken or lawless is the backdrop for the whole proposal, after all. (Noah seems unaware of the strong argument for the bill's constitutionality, no doubt because he's never read the complete full faith and credit clause.)

Noah also writes, "The state laws, and the question of whether or not state courts will uphold them, are none of Bush's business, because he opposes Washington meddling in local affairs." This idea seems to be coming up a lot: that it is in principle never federal business what state courts do. (More to the point, that the whole people can never use the amendment process to deal with state courts.) Now there must be at least a limiting case here. A state judiciary can't just be allowed to "interpret" the laws so as to abolish the governor's office and the legislature and have the chief justice of the state supreme court govern alone as king. Presumably at that point everyone would agree that federal action might be warranted.

The bigger flaw in the piece is that the whole argument for an FMA has been that state governments are not capable of defending the existing marriage laws from a co-ordinated state and federal litigative campaign. You can disagree with that, or argue against it, but you shouldn't be able to get away with ignoring the whole context of the amendment debate. But I suppose that dealing with actual arguments would interrupt the flow of Noah's bile.

During the Roy Moore brouhaha Moore's liberal opponents (he had plenty of conservative ones too, including here at NRO) said that the mere sight of the 10 Commandments was offensive and oppressive to many people. I assumed they were referring to atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and folks simply looking to be ticked off, since Muslims, Jews and Christians alike really don't have problems with the 10 Commandments -- and my guess is neither do most Hindus and Buddhists either, except for the Monotheism part. Defenders of Moore often said "who does it hurt?" And the answer was usually very absract and/or hard to follow because the monument obviously didn't actually hurt anybody except in a symbolic sense.

Fast forward. Now with same-sex marriage, Barney Frank and others insist that gay marriages don't hurt anybody, don't inflict damage on anybody else's marriage etc. I think as a general proposition this is more right than wrong. Lesbians and homosexuals have been "nesting" all around me for years and my marriage, and my parents' and friends' marriages are withstanding the psychic impact quite nicely, thank you. And I'm sure this goes for most everybody else as well.

However, there are lots and lots of people who take just as much -- indeed probably considerably more -- offense to the image of same-sex couples getting married or "married" (I can't remember if the quotation marks are required any more). They consider it a direct affront to their beliefs, to the kind of nation they've always believed they lived in etc.

Now, I understand from all the email I've gotten from gays that many of them consider the FMA oppressive to them, if only symbolically. Fair enough. But I do wish that oppressed and "oppressed" minorities could understand that under our system of law and in our culture majorities can feel oppressed too. In fact, in our society it's much easier to take a pound of flesh out of the majority than it is from the minority. Think affirmative action or, more relevant to this discussion, the denial of their religious symbols in the public square and doing what they perceive as violence to institutions like marriage. I agree that sometimes these grievances are "merely" symbolic. But I fail to see how symbolically slighting the majority is any more or less legitimate than similarly slighting the minority.

When Andrew Sullivan et al. claim that this is a fight with only one side eligible for feeling oppressed or aggrieved they perpetuate the feelings of grievance and oppression felt by millions of Americans and they coarsen an argument that certainly doesn't need any more coarsening.

OxBlog's working on one.

From a reader:

Jonah,

I can't think of another country that has been hounded to give up land won in a defensive war, like the '67 war. The U.S. still has a number of territories conquered in WWII, if I remember right, France has some of WWII Germany, etc.

I have never heard anyone point out that Israel was attacked from the West Bank in multiple wars, conquered it and has every right to keep all of it. If they give any of it back, it is purely up to Israel how much and when since they took it in a defensive war. Just my two cents.

In the smash Broadway musical "The Producers," Roger de Bris says, "Of course that whole second act has to be rewritten. They're losing the war? Excuse me. It's too downbeat."

That seems to be the Democratic Party's analysis of why President Bush announced support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the Gang of 500 casts the President's decision in purely political terms -- rather than a response to the tens of millions of real Americans who are fundamentally freaked out by what is going on in (Nancy Pelosi's) San Francisco and (John Kerry's) Massachusetts.

While we wait for Vice President Cheney to finally agree to that long-standing, highly pending interview request from The Note, we gotta say that the notion that this election is going to be decided on gay marriage -- rather than the economy and who can keep America safe -- seems loopy to us.

Let's hope that Kerry does for the Democratic Party what he did for Yale's Liberal Party. Somehow I suspect Doug Brinkley's book has a different version of events. I trust this guy's:

If I had to paint a portrait of a typical YPU guy, I would simply take a picture of John Kerry to save time -- not today's Senator Kerry, but a young John Kerry when he was still a student at Yale College. Kerry was the quintessential, stereotypical "YPU man." The News' article about Kerry's life at Yale, published on Feb. 14, 2003, provides a lot of insight into his early personality ("Kerry '66: 'He was going to be president'"). Apparently, one of the first things he told his freshman year roommates was that he was going to be president one day. He clearly had nothing better to think about, such as de-bunking his bed or freshman English. Okay, fine, we all did some pretty silly stuff when we arrived at Yale. Kerry's problem was that he apparently never got better during his years at Yale.

Just like many members of the YPU, Kerry was an amazing speaker. In fact he was probably the best. And it seems that at Yale, he was generally disliked.

The Yale Liberal Party, of which I am a member and John Kerry used to be chairman, passes on many unpleasant stories about him. According to Liberal Party lore, Kerry was among the worst chairs in its history. Jorge Dominguez, currently a professor at Harvard and a member of Kerry's Liberal Party Executive Board, reports that under Kerry's leadership the party went on YPU probation. Probation means that the party's leader could not get enough of the party's members to sign a YPU attendance roster. Although getting people to sign in turns out to be a surprisingly arduous job, very few chairmen fail to do it in the end. Not getting enough signatures suggest one of two things: either the chairman faced some unfortunate circumstances or he has some personality problems. According to Dominguez, Kerry's leadership caused his probation.

In order to get back at Kerry, members of the Liberal Party formed the Dixwell Society. By now, the group is largely defunct, although it still officially meets during Liberal Party reunions and its story gets retold for everyone wishing to hear. The society's major point was to include every former chairmen except one who most people disliked. You can guess who. In addition, the News' article reports that due to its conflict with Kerry part of the Liberal Party split off to form the Party of the Left.

There's more.

CNN has him saying the following: "If the amendment provides for partnership and civil union, which I believe is the appropriate way to extend rights, that would be a good amendment. I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position." What are we to make of this? The transcript doesn't make it clear what question he was answering, but he appears to be talking about the FMA. Could Kerry be open to an FMA that allows for legislated civil unions? I'm not sure. He may be saying that he would support an amendment only if it affirmatively established civil unions. Also, elsewhere in the transcript he indicates opposition to the FMA on states' rights grounds. But this leaves open the possibility that if FMA allows state legislatures to create civil unions, his objection would diminish, possibly to the point of support.

Clearly, opponents of FMA have decided that one of their strongest talking points is that it would prevent states from having civil unions, or other civil-rights protections for gays. I'm sure most of these opponents sincerely believe the FMA would do this. But they don't seem eager to debate the idea of an amendment that only bans same-sex marriage and judicial overreach. If I were sponsoring the amendment, I would do everything that can be done to clarify its language, so that there is no confusion about the amendment's scope.

In response to my column , several readers have said something to the effect of "I agree with you on the 'why' on the wall, but what about the 'where'? Isn't the charge that this is a land grab a serious one? Won't this give Israel a black eye in the world community?" Etc.

Because it's my syndicated column, I didn't have room to address this. I'm sure I'll have time later. But for now I'd make two quick points.

First, Israel's black-eye is permanent from the perspective of the "world community." It's existence is a black eye (See George Will's column
today). So tailoring its foreign policy to look good to the UN is a truly pointless endeavor. After all, it followed the UN's advice in its withdrawal from Lebanon and look at the trouble that got them.

Second, building the wall on the so-called "green line" would in effect reward terrorism by essentially agreeing to the 1967 borders without a negotiation. Israel would surely make that retreat as a reward for peace, but it can't as a reward for violence.

Yossi Klein Halevi made this point very well in the November 10 New Republic (not on web):

The main objection to the fence, which is scheduled for completion in 2005, is that it doesn't adhere to the pre-1967 green line but deviates "deep" into the West Bank. In fact, at most points, the fence either winds close to the green line or extends several miles over it without compromising Palestinian territorial contiguity--hardly the massive land grab warned against by opponents. So far, 108 miles of fence have been completed in the northwestern part of the West Bank, and about 1.5 percent of the West Bank has been incorporated into the Israeli side. If the fence is eventually extended to include Ariel--a town of 18,000 residents, which the Camp David negotiations included within the eventual borders of Israel--it will protrude, finger-shaped, about 15 miles into the territories. Yet even then the fence will encompass only a few percentage points of the West Bank. (The highest figure I've encountered is 10 percent.) And, note Israeli officials, the fence can be moved or even dismantled.

Still, that apologetic argument misses the point, which is that the fence must violate the green line. Building the fence on the 1967 border would play into the Palestinian strategy by creating the outlines of a de facto Palestinian state in all of the West Bank, without requiring the Palestinians to cease terrorism or genuinely recognize Israel. Building over the green line, by contrast, reminds Palestinians that every time they've rejected compromise--whether in 1937, 1947, or 2000--the potential map of Palestine shrinks. That message is the exact opposite of the left-wing trajectory of increased concessions under fire--from Camp David to Taba to Geneva. The fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them. Indeed, the fence is a reminder that the 1967 border isn't sacrosanct. Legally, the West Bank is extraterritorial: The international community didn't recognize Jordan's annexation, and, because Palestine isn't being restored but invented, its borders are negotiable.

The only justification for withdrawal to the green line is pragmatism. Most Israelis would accept an approximate withdrawal to the 1967 borders in exchange for genuine Palestinian acceptance of Jewish sovereignty on this land. Reinstating the green line, then, would be a reward for peace, not war. But what we've learned in the decade since Oslo began is that "land for peace" was never an option. At best, Israel was being offered land for a cease-fire. And that is hardly justification for returning to the precarious 1967 lines.

SELF: Judge, a question for you: As it is presently worded, would the Federal Marriage Amendment preclude civil unions?

JUDGE BORK: No.

SELF: No?

JUDGE BORK: No.

Sydney H. Schanberg writes in the Village Voice:

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

Ramesh - You make an outstanding point and one I haven't thought through that much. Being less enamored with notions of "national unity" than most, the first half of your hypothesis doesn't frighten me that much. As for the increased reliance on the state to hold things together, I've got to think about that. It seems to me that was certainly what Al Gore had in mind in that conversation with Ward Connerly when Gore explained that the government needs to be the permanent barrier to racism -- or some such.

Also, I would also say that lots of other trends exacerbate the unravelling of "fellow-feeling" as you put it (sounds dirty). Technology and the marketplace probably have probably done a lot more damage to the fellow-feelingness of communities than immigration. This is not to contradict your point, which I have to think about more, but merely to place it in its proper context.

There are reports that OBL was near Queta. Then that he had moved 240 kilometers north to the Toba Kakar mountains, on the border with Afghanistan, south of Waziristan. He was in nearby Angoor Adda, another report said, where there was a shootout with AQ guys last October and some of them were captured. Just across the border in Afghanistan is the Barmal district, which is heavily Talibanized and a natural escape route.

Meanwhile, Tenet was in Pakistan, Rummy in Afghanistan. Musharraf, whom the bad guys have been intent on killing lately, had given the tribal chiefs until Feb 20 to hand over the foreigners they were protecting, and many of them did. Others asked their guests to leave. And now Pakistan is enforcing the deadline. Over the border, our special forces are said to be deployed forward. They are the hunters, the Pakistanis are the beaters. The idea is to dislodge the quarry and get them moving and vulnerable. Last month the Pakis undertook a similar operation nearby. My guess is we were watching to see what escape routes were being used, and this time we'll have people waiting.

So if it goes down, it will happen quickly, like the SECDEF said the other day.

So you're a Republican congressman who wants to get rid of parts of the Patriot Act. The Justice Department has said that your bill would eliminate needed anti-terrorism tools, and that it would not just repeal Patriot but eliminate pre-Patriot law-enforcement tools. Worse, this critique is true. (See here for more.) So what do you do?

If you're Butch Otter, Republican representative from Idaho, you don't bother trying to refute the charges. You just brazen through. You tell your colleagues, in a letter, that your bill "would not impede terrorist investigations and would not amend pre-Patriot Act law." I guess if you underline a falsehood, that makes it true?

I imagine that what your correspondent is getting at is the need for the political branches to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain questions under Article III, Sections 1 and 2. I agree with that view myself, and have argued for it over the years as a better response than constitutional amendments to seriously bad (as in extra-constitutional) Supreme Court decisions. But there are two reasons for thinking that same-sex marriage is not the question to make this fight on.

First, the legitimacy of this move--jurisdiction stripping, especially in areas where the courts have already ruled and where other provisions of the Constitution are supposedly at issue--is quite controversial. It can readily be portrayed as a threat to every civil liberty and constitutional protection we have. I don't think we should surrender to this mistaken analysis, but I do think we should pick our battles: Choose issues where people are overwhelmingly on the other side from the courts, establish the legitimacy of jurisdiction-stripping during battles over that issue, and then move on to more controversial matters. The Pledge of Allegiance might be one such issue, flag-burning another. I don't think same-sex marriage qualifies.

The second reason touches on a controversy that is central to the FMA debate. The federal government does not even arguably have the power to strip state courts of jurisdiction without a constitutional amendment. If you believe that it's necessary to block 50 state judiciaries from imposing same-sex marriage and calling it "federalism," the FMA (or something very like it) is the only way to go.

When suave politeness, tempering bigot zeal,

Corrected "I believe" to "One does feel."

From Rod Paige:

U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige today issued the following apology for his remarks about the NEA.

"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms. I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live. But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."

According to Adbusters's "research" I'm one of the top 50 "neoconservatives" in America and one of the top 25 Jewish neoconservatives! Wahoo! And, looking at this list I do believe I am #1 in both categories among people under 40! Man, I do deserve a raise!

Michael Totten ponders whether this is anti-Semitic. I'm more inclined to say it's self-promoting nonsense. As I've suggested plenty of times before (here, and here and here, and here.) In fact, I can think of dozens of people more influential and more Jewish with whom I agree with on foreign policy entirely. But they don't make the list, so maybe Totten's not wrong.

I'm getting lots of email from people saying I should address Andrew Sullivan's cri de coeur in response to Bush's speech (which I haven't read yet). Unfortunately, I'm crashing on a deadline. But I thought the following email might offer some interesting insight. I wouldn't phrase it this way ("hysterical screed" and all that), but, well, read it yourself. I'm sure there will be lots of time for me to collect my own thoughts about all of this:

Dear Jonah,

If you haven't already, you should take a look at Andrew's hysterical screed about the President's support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Lots of what Andrew says is sheer nonsense. How can this be a war on my and my partner's civil rights when, even if the amendment succeeds, it would leave the two of us exactly where we are right now? And if the various Democrats who say they oppose gay marriage are sincere, they should support the amendment too, because it's quite clear that we're going to have same-sex marriage by way of judicial imposition unless the Constitution is amended to stop it.

On the other hand, someone like you (and who is more like you than you?) should offer words of reassurance to gay people like me who are Republicans and generally support -- indeed, admire -- the President, but can't help feeling he's just announced that we're not fully welcome to our place at the table. It's not that I think support for gay marriage is a no-brainer. Andrew's just deluded in thinking that way. But he's right that the FMA singles out one group of Americans for permanent exclusion from an important civil institution, as if we were the lepers of the American polity.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 24, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran. The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech -- including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers -- in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders.

The United States supports the Iranian people's aspirations to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights, and determine their own destiny. ###

David Goodhart has an interesting piece on the challenge ethnic diversity poses to welfare state socialism (Nod to Andrew Sullivan). Goodhart (what an awesome name for a liberal) writes:

It was the Conservative politician David Willetts who drew my attention to the "progressive dilemma". Speaking at a roundtable on welfare reform, he said: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests."

I made a very similar argumen back in 2001:

... One of the reasons this has been politically feasible in Europe is that Europeans are a bunch of boneheads when it comes to economics. But another reason — according to my theory — is that race hasn't been much of an issue. Politically, it's a lot easier to support a safety net when the safety net only helps people just like you. In fact, I bet you anything one of the reasons why "welfare reform" is gaining ground in Europe is because Europe is filling up with Asian and African immigrants and all of a sudden the "enlightened" Euro weenies don't see the benefit in writing checks to poor brown and yellow people when they were just delighted to keep white folks on the dole for generations.

Meanwhile, let's face it, one of the main reasons European-style welfare never caught on in the United States is that it seemed to go disproportionately to black folks. Actually, "seemed" is diplomatic cover for the fact that welfare did disproportionately go to black folks — and still does. In fact in the 1960s the National Welfare Rights Organization, worked on the explicit assumption that welfare was a form of reparations for slavery. George Wiley, the head of NWRO, used the mantra "Welfare is a Right, not a Privilege."

In a sense skin color served as a dye-marker for the failures of the well-intentioned but disastrous policies of New Deal and Great Society liberalism. We spent trillions on the poor, who were disproportionately black, and there was very little to show for it. I'm not even sure people would have noticed if it weren't for the fact that it was apparent that the black underclass was actually getting worse because of, rather than in spite of, the erosion of the family and work ethics caused by welfare.

It now appears that the same process is taking place in European nations as they deal with the consequences of immigration.

Everything you’ve heard about the violence in The Passion of the Christ is true. It’s jarring, almost sickening. Yet I didn’t find it gratuitous, given the film’s initiating premise, though the scourging of Jesus went on well past the point of diminishing artistic returns, however "realistic" it may have been. In any case, there is nothing in The Passion of the Christ that will startle viewers familiar with Western religious art. The difference—and it’s a big one—is that this is a film, not a mural. Photographs pack a punch quite different from even the most gruesome paintings. To say that The Passion of the Christ suggests a Caravaggist Crucifixion come to life, while true enough, understates its impact. Of course it’s only a movie, and we’ve all read about the special effects, but Gibson and his collaborators create an illusion of reality so enveloping that it’s possible to forget yourself.

Not that many of the people who came to the Brill Building yesterday were likely to have forgotten themselves. They were New York media types, not the viewers I had in mind when I told Janet Maslin the other day that "most of the people who see The Passion of the Christ will regard it as a film about something that actually happened. That's something that a lot of the people writing about it are apt to misunderstand." We live, after all, in an age when ostensibly serious art critics for major newspapers and magazines can get away with turning up their noses at the Metropolitan Museum’s El Greco retrospective because of its subject matter. I doubt that many of their cinematic counterparts will find it possible, much less easy, to write about The Passion of the Christ as a movie qua movie.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush Tuesday will endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, the White House said. "The president will announce his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Bush was to make the announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room at 10:45 a.m. EST.

From President Bush last night:

On national security, Americans have the clearest possible choice. Our opponents say they approve of bold action in the world, but only if no other government disagrees. I'm all for united action, and so are the 34 coalition partners we have in Iraq right now. But America must never out-source America's national security decisions to the leaders of other governments.

From me yesterday.

Today, I'm going to post several items on how I should be exempt from Federal taxes. Maybe he'll say that too!

From a reader from Manitoba:

Mr. Goldberg, Your note about the Chris Matthews puff piece brought to mind the following interchange from This Is Spinal Tap:

Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

Interesting email from a reader:

Jonah, Like you, I hope my daughter (3 months old) doesn't end up like any of the women on "Sex and the City," but I think you're just trying to score a cheap point you state that "I know feminists are still in the "it's liberating to be a slut" phase". Sure, some feminists may think like that, but the vast majority of women that I know view feminism as simply the right to make their own choices and be treated equally. "Sex and the City" is no more representative of feminism than, say, "The Man Show" is representative of modern masculinity. Both are good for a laugh now and then, both occasionally hit upon some bitter truths about gender and society.

I don't know whether my daughter will choose to classify herself as a feminist when she grows up, but the fact is that she will benefit from the battles fought by them, just as the women on NR's staff are themselves beneficiaries of feminism, whether they recognize this or not.

Me: I said this email was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with it. Yes, of course women -- and society -- today enjoy numerous benefits from past "feminist" victories. And, no I wouldn't want to roll all of them back. But I think this reader misses a crucial distinction when he compares "Sex and the City" to the "Man Show." Nobody writes serious defenses about the "Man Show." Nobody discusses the "Man Show" as a lighthouse illuminating the cultural landscape for young professional men. High-brow magazines don't mention the "Man Show" except generally to condemn the coarsening of the culture or whatnot. Meanwhile, "Sex and the City" represents a whole tide of sexual nonsense championed by self-proclaimed feminists on op-ed pages and elsewhere. I see "Sex and the City" as being part of much larger cultural trend which includes everything from the Vagina Monologues to all the feminists who once went batty at even the faintest whiff of sexual harassment who suddenly celebrated Monica Lewinsky as if she was the Joan of Arc of sexual liberation. Remember those idiot-harridans, for example, in the New York Observer who thought the real scandal was that the President didn't wear a condom when he was mentoring his intern senseless?

In the undeserving puff-piece category. USA Today runs a love letter to Chris Matthews despite the fact his show's and his network's ratings are in the basement. Peter Johnson writes "This rough-and-tumble political chatfest is increasingly must-see TV for a small (443,000) but driven number of viewers whose thirst for politics extends far beyond what's in the newspapers and on the evening news." Considering that Matthew's ratings were better years ago -- when Matthews was better -- shouldn't that be "decreasingly must-see TV"?

Several readers have sent me email explaining that the reader email I posted earlier on outsourcing has some math problems. For example:

"Jonah,

You might want to think through the figures in your post on outsourcing. The reader said that his company outsourced 12 IT positions to India. The remaining 3,000 benefited from 'aggressive cost cutting'. Well, if the point that outsourcing those 12 positions was aggressive, then think again. Those positions represent only 0.4% of the companies payroll. Hardly significant.

Richard from Greensboro, NC writes:

Dear Couch-rider,

Excellent point on the deficit (It's the spending, Stupid) but there is an additional one wanting to be made.

A president has limited political capital. President Bush is choosing to spend his capital on tax cuts and prosecuting the War on Terrorism. He may have entered office to fight growth in government spending, but since 9-11 his emphasis has properly been on the war.

It seems to me that it is up to the Congress to exercise self-restraint; it is not for the president to lose focus on the war in order to rein them in.

Also, there is an institutional disadvantage to Republican administrations when it comes to cutting spending. No matter how much a GOP administration plans to spend on any social program, Democrats will complain it isn't enough, a plaint that will resonate in the media.

I'm also perhaps Pollyannaish enough to believe that we may, in fact, help move the state perspective on marriage by virtue of our inclusion towards a much broader, much more capacious view. I'm thinking even of the fact of monogamy, which is both one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma. Could it be that the inclusion of lesbian and gay same-sex marriage may, in fact, sort of de-center the notion of monogamy and allow the prospect that marriage need not be an exclusive sexual relationship among people? I think it's possible....I would never five years ago have defined myself as an advocate of marriage. In fact, the very institution smacked of precisely that which I lived my life in opposition to. But because it has cohered as perhaps the litmus test of civil rights now, because it carries real social benefits, and because I think it perhaps furthers the uncoupling of the state and the church in this country, which I thought was promised in our Constitution, then I'm all for it.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

My gut reaction to the news that the self-righteous narcissist, Ralph Nader, will be running for president as an "Independent" is to demand that he cease and desist despoiling a perfectly respectable political position. He's not an independent. He's a far-left, paranoid Democrat who delights only in hurting his own party.

I don't disagree with the substance of Sullivan's criticism about Nader. But as to trying to claim some ideological of philosophical content for the word "independent," I still don't buy it. Contrary to what Sullivan, Lee Harris and others seem to think, there really is nothing substantive to being an independent. I've met -- and certainly received email from -- lots of self-described "indepenents" who hold positions which could be called everything from Naderite to Buchananite to ultra-libertarian etc.

If you want to call yourself a moderate or a centrist, that's cool. But to suggest that only independents are in the "sensible center" is simply not true. Independent is a vanity label which includes everybody who considers himself or herself outside the authority of philisophical or political labels, and is therefore, largely meaningless when it comes to substantive first principles.

Was particularly stupid last night, which is really saying something. To be honest, I didn't mind him criticizing Pat Robertson's divine punditry, though I thought he was amazingly un-clever about it. But the cheap shots at Mel Gibson were so monumentally lame and argument free I'm almost embarrassed for Rooney. I don't mind criticizing Gibson, even though most of the criticism's strike me as falling pretty far short of the mark. Again, I haven't seen the movie yet. But calling him nuts over and over again is sophomoric.

And yes, I really want his job.

From John Podhoretz's column:

Here's the sort of rhetoric Kerry and Co. used to gather anti-war forces in a mimeographed flyer:

"The National Guard Uses Your Tax Dollar:

"To support the military-industrial complex

"To honor war criminals - Westmoreland, Laird, Nixon, etc.

"To applaud campus murders by National Guard units

"To encourage armed attacks on minority communities"

From a reader:

I happen to work at a company that layed off a dozen technical support workers and replaced them with an Indian service.

It was most unfortunate that these people lost their jobs, and my heart went out to them. At the same time, however, aggressive cost-cutting helped stabilize our business during a shaky period. Stockholders saw we were serious about increasing profit margins, and bought accordingly. Our stock has risen 60% in the past eight months.

The remaining three thousand employees of the company have benefited greatly. We still have jobs, the company has a very viable future, and most of us are going to have more discretionary income from raises and rising stock prices. Occasionally sacrifices need to be made for the good of the team. As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. And as to the people out of work, they have been provided with employment services and job training. It’s not a great situation, but their prospects are better here in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. In the big picture ‘outsourcing’ isn’t necessarily a dirty word. Any CEO that ignores it is in peril of losing their business, period, which would mean a helluva lot more people out of work.

To be honest I never hated the show, though I will work very hard to see to it my daughter doesn't end up like any of those women. But I am so delighted the show's finally over. Occasionally the "Sex in the City" was well-written enough to be worth watching, but never was it so well-written to be worth talking about endlessly. I know feminists are still in the "it's liberating to be a slut" phase, but you'd think someone on the left would be offended by the fact that, once again, feminist heroes were defined as women who wanted to act like craven men -- not gentlemen.

Ramesh and I are/were planning on writing a piece together on the whole effort by some conservatives to defend Bush's spending binge by crafting some new ideology variously called, "big government conservatism," "strong government conservatism," and, of course, "compassionate conservatism." We've both been too busy to get it done, but maybe Jonathan Chait's new cover story in The New Republic will get us motivated.

Regardless, here's one point I would like to make now though and it's aimed at folks like Dan Casse and Andrew Sullivan on the right as well as folks like Chait:

It's not the deficit stupid!

For good reasons and bad, the argument about government over-spending has become an argument about the deficit. I care a lot about the former, I don't care very much about the latter.

The deficit is a symptom, like a fever or the sniffles. The disease is big government. The anti-deficit mantra is often based on actuarial assumptions and the extrapolation of the lessons of personal finance to political economy. This isn't to say that a big deficit is a good thing just as a bad cough isn't a good thing. The question is what's causing it. When I read Andrew Sullivan's drum-banging about the deficit I sometimes get the sense he'd have no problem with all of this spending and government bloat if, at the end of the day, the budget was balanced. The conservative case against bloated government is not an accounting argument, it's a philosophical argument. I would be against socialized medicine even if socialized medicine was fiscally feasible. I'm not sure when it happened, but for some reason the debate has changed since Ronald Reagan. Reaganites, last time I checked, didn't care very much about deficits -- so long as the economy was growing -- they cared about intrusive government which sapped individual initiative, calcified the mechanisms of the marketplace and inexorably eroded personal liberty and communal autonomy, among other things.

Chait may be making a valid observational point when he writes "And so, in a relatively short span of time, the conservative view of the deficit has gone from myopic denial to borderline hysteria." But for some of us, the "hysteria" about the deficit is epiphenomenal to our substantive concern about a metastasizing federal government.

I guess the Democrats don't mind when a Democratic (former) President really has a policy of outsourcing. A
Scottish firm will be building the cabinets at the Clinton Library. Are there really no American cabinet-makers worthy of the job!? Where's the outrage!? I mean John Edwards comes from the furniture capital of the nation. What happens when a cabinet factory shuts down? What happens to that crying little girl he always talks about but can never name goes hungry!? Won't somebody please think about the children!

For the record, my outrage is entirely fake, but my amusement at the hypocrisy is entirely real. From the Scotsman:

A SMALL Lothians cabinet-making firm is set to crack the United States after winning a £500,000 contract to fit out Bill Clinton’s presidential library.

Netherfield Visuals has been awarded the contract to build 85 glass museum showcases to display the archive of the former president’s two terms in the White House in a purpose-built centre in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The William J Clinton Centre will include a museum, educational research facilities and library which will house the largest collection in US presidential history.

Netherfield, which started in a back garden using an old shipping container as a workshop, is hopeful its association with the prestigious contract will allow it to fill a niche in the US.....

I received my book on Tuesday. After reading more than half I must tell you this was the best $25.00 I've spent. Although I knew our College and University system was in decline, never did I expect what your book told. With children entering College in the next few years this guide will prove invaluable. My only criticism would be that there was a second volume with the next 125 schools reviewed. I intend to tell all my friends with children approaching college age to purchase the guide. Thanks for the great work.