New York City’s mayor has come out against giving voting rights to non-citizen legal immigrants, something that is, incredibly, being discussed at the moment. The mayor explained that “the essence of citizenship is the right to vote, and you should go about becoming a citizen before you get the right to vote.”

No vote for me, in other words.

Bloomberg’s right, of course, but what’s astonishing is that the debate has moved so far that such a statement of the blindingly obvious is, in fact, controversial.

Meanwhile, self-appointed Latino ‘advocacy’ group, ‘La Raza’, finds it ‘alarming’ that 88 passengers on a domestic flight that arrived in Newark on Thursday were detained as illegal immigrants. Needless to say, La Raza was alarmed by the arrests, not the number of the ‘undocumented’.

Harmless fun for a Saturday afternoon. Browse here. Here’s an extract:

”In GROW, readers can learn about the way forward to life fulfilment for all women. I call it the ‘Feminine Way,’ where women – and men – can live their lives based on feminine values of love, compassion, nurturing, relationship building and community.

”By women working in co-operation with their inner selves, each other, the environment, and all of society, I believe we can create a new kind of world based on love, not fear. And it doesn’t have to be too serious. In GROW you’ll find exercises and stories that contain fun and laughter; experiences that will introduce you to new kinds of wonder and magic; and tools that will guide you into living life to its full potential.

Enjoy.

So, how representative of Shia sentiment is al-Sadr’s army of thugs and fanatics? Obviously, the recent fighting may have radicalized some Shiites since this report was written, but here’s an interesting story from a week ago:

”Herded into lines by inexperienced police officers, hundreds of would-be Iraqi voters pushed into a sparsely equipped school at the weekend to cast their ballots for the local council of Tar.

”Deep in the marshlands of the Euphrates, the town of 15,000 people was the first to rise against Saddam Hussein in the abortive intifada of 1991. Now it was holding the first genuine election in its history.

”The poll was the latest in a series which this overwhelmingly Shia province has held in the past six weeks, and the results have been surprising. Seventeen towns have voted, and in almost every case secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties did better than the Islamists.”

Read the whole thing.

You all probably know this one already, but I came across this quote from Orwell yesterday. He was writing about England’s pro-Soviet intelligentsia. Their secret wish, he wrote, was “to destroy the old, egalitarian vision of socialism and usher in a hierarchical society where an intellectual can at last get his hands on the whip.”

Very true, and, alas, not just of historical interest. If you want to understand why so many on the intellectual Left seem so infatuated with authoritarianism, there it is.

Grim news from Mickey D’s. A report in today’s Financial Times includes this depressing news:

“In another sign of the importance McDonald’s now places on health issues, the fast-food giant will next week unveil a strategy for combating obesity and improving physical well-being in the US…The multi-year plan will promote the importance of a balanced lifestyle, with three “pillars” including helping people make better food choices, and promoting public education and physical activity.”

McDonald’s can take their three pillars and shove ‘em. If I want a sermon, I’ll go to church, or listen to NPR. McDonald’s should stick to selling food.

And no, if this is a strategy to head off litigation, it won’t work.

TAP: Do you think that Democrats will be able to attract Bible-believing Christians in a year that gay marriage will be used as a smokescreen to distract attention from those issues?

Carter: I think so. There isn’t a major candidate who has endorsed gay marriage; they are in favor of equal protection through a civil-union arrangement. I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don’t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.

Well, here is a moment of true madness. Mo Mowlam, a former minister in Tony Blair’s government, is now suggesting that the British and American governments should start talks with al Qaeda. She’ll be, rightly, ignored, but her comments are still interesting for what they reveal about the views of certain sections of the European Left. Strip away its skilful use of modern technology, and Al Qaeda is, in essence, a psychotic millenarian sect, nothing more. Its ‘philosophy’ is primitive and malicious junk, a compendium of the ramblings of half-crazed ‘holy men’ and a debased Arab nationalism. Its ‘demands’ are for a world put back a thousand years. To believe that there is anything to ‘talk’ to it about is, quite simply, delusional.

Next time, Ms. Mowlam should aim for something a little more realistic.

‘Talks’ with Charles Manson might be a start.

Relentlessly, depressingly, appallingly, big law’s attack on ‘big food’ draws ever closer. The New York Times has more. Amongst the villains mentioned in the piece are John F. Banzhaf, the thug now disgracing George Washington University law school, and one Richard M. Daynard, a busybody who presides over the presumptuously and pompously named ‘Public Health Advocacy Institute’ of Northeastern University School of Law, a bullyboy collective dedicated to reminding Americans that “as we enter the 21st century, practitioners and policymakers are being confronted with problems where individualistic modes of analysis are simply inadequate.”

When “individualistic modes of analysis” are deemed “inadequate” expect a mention of ‘the children’.

Daynard, needless to say, does not disappoint:

"If I could choose what kind of case to begin with, it would have been that, under state consumer protection acts against somebody who was continuing to market heavily to kids…"

Of course he would.

It seems so.

Vote Res Publica

Civil Rights Commissioners Leave Meeting in Protest

Today, four commissioners of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights walked out of their monthly meeting in protest after Chairperson Mary Frances Berry refused to allow a discussion of the staff director’s unauthorized attempt to reorganize the agency.

The protesting commissioners issued the following statements:

"We were blind-sided by the staff director’s improper action," said Commissioner Peter N. Kirsanow.

"In leaving we missed an important discussion of voting rights and election reform. We meant no disrespect to the topic or the panelists. But, we could not tolerate chairperson Berry’s anti-democratic refusal to allow discussion of this vital policy and personnel matter. This is yet another example of the Commission’s dysfunction, which is well-documented by responsible entities such as the General Accounting Office as recently as October 2003," said Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom.

"In the last three months, in none of our detailed discussions about project plans and proposals, did the staff director ever hint at the need for a staff reduction or in any way suggest he was preparing a reorganization plan to submit to the Office of Personnel Management. His attempt at an unauthorized reorganization goes to the heart of the commission’s ability to fulfill its statutory as well as ethical obligations. It could adversely affect the hardworking career staff of the commission. Moreover, it could jeopardize the timely completion of key projects on topics such as the Evaluation of the Bush Administration’s Civil Rights Record, Education Accountability, and other future commission reports," added Commissioner Russell G. Redenbaugh.

"The Commission must be reformed, but today we have no confidence that it can reform itself," concluded Commissioner Jennifer C. Braceras.

Greg Easterbrook has a very good "what if?" scenario (with no mention of Uatu, the Watcher narrator of the Marvel Comics "What If?" series). He speculates on the consequences of George Bush launching a war against Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

He could just as easily do one on the nationwide freak-out if John Ashcroft had asked the country for the power to search email, use "sneak-and-peak" warrants on Muslim-Americans etc prior to 9/11. Look how the left and the Democrats -- and I do mean "the Democrats" given their nigh-upon unanimous fear-mongering on the Patriot Act -- reacted to similar requests after 9/11.

A few years ago a French fascist (oh yes, he claims to be a man of the Left, but a fascist is what he is), by the name of Jose Bove trashed a McDonalds somewhere in France. He, it appeared, had the right to tell others what they could, or could not, eat. The French establishment quivered, the Left cheered, and guess what happened?

He lost.

“McDonald's France reported 2003 revenue approaching $3 billion and is the most profitable subsidiary in Europe. It is opening 40 more restaurants in 2004, 10 percent of the chain's new outlets worldwide.”

Ha!

Lots of folks are raising the possibility that the Japanese hostages are faking it. One of them is an anti-war activist, another is an NGO type and the third is a reporter. I really hope that this is a hoax because, duh, I don't want to see innocent folks get burned alive. It would also highlight what tools Al Jazeera are of terrorists and what tools some anti-war activists are in general. If this is a hoax these guys should obviously go to jail for a very long time. But I tend to doubt it is a fabrication. The joke will certainly be on these guys at the end of three days if it is, because there will be a lot of terrorist types who will realize they have a lot to lose if they don't go through with it, which is all the more reason to salute the resolve of the Japanese government.

I was sitting in therapy describing an in-law I like, and quickly heading for a "but."

"He's a loving, caring, selfless man -- but his politics are all about hatred," I said. "He's not educated, and more significant, he's ignorant -- he actually listens to Rush Limbaugh."

Lots of readers make the perfectly legitimate point that al Jazeera is for all intents and purposes complicit in the crime of the Japanese kidnapping and, certainly, if these poor people are burned alive then al Jazeera are accomplices. One wonder if they would send a camera crew to the event.

From a reader:

Jonah:

First time, long time, etc…

Re: Really, really bad. What exactly is bad about it? Yes, it would be terrible for the innocents to suffer a horrible death, but I am convinced that such an act does nothing more than proclaim how utterly uncivilized the evildoers really are. The fact that they are even dangling the threat is evidence enough of the correctness of our policy. These people are complete wackos! It is self-evident that any policy other than extermination/reform is pointless. The terrorists can not be reasoned with. They can not be negotiated with. They can not be mollified.

Thankfully, unlike the Spanish, most Americans are [not] going to be bullied. Not after 9/11.

From an attendee:

Jonah, I wanted to pass on to you how much I thoroughly enjoyed your talk this evening. I have always respected your political persuasiveness, and now have to add to that a spectacular sense of humor. I haven't laughed so much since going to the Comedy Zone. Anyway, thanks again for your time this evening, and don't forget to scratch Cosmo's ears. My Labrador demands it of you (and he, too, is glad winter is over....those Jacobin squirrels are more active now). Come on back anytime.

This is really, really bad:

Iraqi militants are today threatening to burn three foreign hostages to death unless their country quits the US-led coalition.

Two Japanese men and one woman are being held by a previously unknown group which has vowed to kill them if Japanese soldiers do not leave Iraq. Elsewhere, seven South Koreans are being held hostage west of Baghdad by an unknown group, while a British man has been reported missing in the south.

The plight of the Japanese hostages - two aid workers and one journalist was revealed in dramatic video footage shown on al-Jazeera TV. It showed the three surrounded by masked gunmen, who claimed to be from Saraya al-Mujahideen, "the squadrons of holy warriors".

A written statement said: "Three of your sons have fallen in our hands. We offer you two choices: either pull out your forces, or we will burn them alive.

We give you three days starting the day this tape is broadcast."

Nineteen-five was also a great year for Mankind.... That winter, Frank Epperson, then 11 years old, accidentally invented the Popsicle when he left powdered soda pop mix and water outside overnight. It was originally called the "Epperson Icicle" and was patented in 1923.

Science is a beautiful thing.

From one my non-drinking buddies from last night:

I'm inclined to agree with the fellow who emailed you regarding this issue; there are a few students here who would gladly drink if they were legal, but alas, the government has intervened against such law-abiding citizens. The law hasn't convinced such people that drinking is wrong; they just respect the law too much to imbibe alcohol. And recall, the group of people who choose not to drink because of the law are far from representative of college students as a whole -- or even of Davidson College students. And I can personally assure Rod Dreher you're not lying.

I believe Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton will lead our commission to write a bipartisan report that will provide Americans with the clearest picture yet of how this happened. I believe they will lead the commission to produce a report that will contain specific recommendations of what we need to do to make certain that nothing like the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, ever happens again.

As a member of the commission, authorized under federal law as a consequence of the persistence and perseverance of the families of the victims of that terrible day, I sincerely hope our efforts will meet their highest expectations.

Today's appearance of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will test the commission's resilience to the partisan pressures which threaten to collapse the goodwill needed to achieve consensus. Among the most dangerous forces is the tendency in politics to become personal and question motives instead of confronting the substance of the argument made by any individual. If we yield to this tendency, all hope for an honest and constructive report is lost. We will most certainly fail.

One of the big problems with Einstein's General and Special Theories of Relativity has always been our ability to test them. In fact, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, not relativity, because nobody at the time could test such things (1905, by the way, was a good year for Einstein -- he published work on relativity, explained the photoelectric effect using the wave interpretation of light photons, and invented the theory of Brownian motion).

Subsequently, we've been slowly able to test some of the assumptions about relativity. These have included deflections of the positions of stars by the Sun's gravity, aberrations in the orbit of the planet Mercury, and gravatational lensing by extremely heavy objects. In fact, the GPS system wouldn't work without relativity -- all the positions and times would be off.

The fundamental problem with testing relativity lies in the fact that it deals with extreme situations -- high energy and large mass. These are conditions that are difficult to replicate, as we can't just whip up neutron stars in a test tube. To measure the effects of relativity on Earth, we need extremely precise measuring equipment, again not a trivial feat.

There are a lot of things that to date, we can't explain, which suggests that relativity may not be complete, or that our interpretations of it are not correct. For example, if you're familiar with the whole dark matter/energy debate, some suggest that our inability to explain things is primarily the fault of an incomplete understanding of relativity and gravitation (there are other explanations, too).

So, suffice it to say, there's more testing to do. Which, of course, seems to be a scientist's answer to anything. :)

From a reader:

Jonah,

I am disinclined to accept the cognitive realignment that you eschewed on
your morning reflections. I would propose that the phenomenon to which you
were a witness was not a manifestation of cultural changes duly caused by
the writ of legislative authority. Rather, you experienced a more profound
oddity: College students respecting said authority regardless of whether or
not it aligned with their worldview. If this is not the heart of
conservative values, what is?

I might write about this later when the transcripts are available, but from listening to this constant back-and-forth between the Democrats and Rice on the August 6 PDB it sounds like the Democrats want to assert that it said there was an imminent threat to the American homeland by al Qaeda. Rice, it seems, wants to claim that the PDB only laid out a general, non-specific, but definitely not imminent threat. Of course Bin Laden wanted to attack America, goes Rice's reading of the PDB, but the specific threats were vague and un-"actionable."

Again, I'd need to study this a bit more. But it sounds like the Democrats want a standard for imminence about the threat from pre-9/11 al Qaeda that they were unwilling to grant for post-9/11 Iraq. Do I have this right?

Afterwards, as is often my wont after a speech, I sought merriment and libation with the youth (note to campus conservatives groups: post-oratory drinks with Jonah is part of the standard Goldberg-speaker-package!). The gang from the College Republicans and other like-minded youth repaired to the guest house. While this was a standard chips-and-soda fete, one young man of courage and conviction was willing to search out the medicinal liquids I required. He had only recently had his cast removed from a wrestling injury and he was eager to muster his new locomotive power in the cause of responsible potation. I shall ever be in his debt.

Anyway, while I was imbibing my beverage(s) along with the few young scholars of legal drinking age, a couple of the guys brought an interesting cultural development to my attention. Several of the young squires under the age of 21 informed me that they don’t drink because it is against the law. One very bright fellow in particular assured me that when he’s 21 he will avail himself of legal inebriants, but until that time he did his very best to eschew the demon rum (and scotch and beer etc). He also assured me that he was not alone in this attitudinal forbearance of illegal imbibition.

Now, personally, I find this fascinating and completely beyond the scope of my experience. I’ve met all sorts of college kids (and others) who don’t drink because they don’t want to. I’ve met college kids who don’t drink due to religious considerations, academic priorities, medical or family history, preferences for certain ignitable greenery, whatever. I respect all of those choices.

Until last night, I had never met anybody who said that they don’t drink because the law says they shouldn’t. I’m trying hard not to mock or be condescending because these were good dudes and seemed pretty normal. And, there's really no reason on the merits to mock. Still, I am torn between two conflicting impulses. On the one hand the Bluto Blutarsky in me wanted to smash a beer can on my head and say, Have a beer, don’t cost nuthin.

On the other hand, on paper this is all perfectly reasonable and even, I suppose, admirable. It’s entirely plausible to me that I am in the wrong for having been so flabbergasted. But, I associate college so much with social drinking; I have such an ingrained and generalized contempt for the 21 drinking age; and I’ve simply never met anybody who used this explanation before, let alone heard that this is a fairly widely held attitude among college students. It makes me rethink the power of the law to shape culture in America.

The Iraqis, that’s who.

Usually, condescending leftists and liberals respond to pro-globalization conservatives and libertarians by saying that Third Worlders and the like are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their own interests. If they don’t want to give up their traditional lifestyles, they’ll say, who are we to say they should. It’s a fair argument, though I’m often stunned by their hypocrisy since these are usually the exact same people who advocate purging any hint of traditionalism in our own society. Living in misery and poverty is a cherished tradition in, say, Guatemala but holding a door open for a woman or, heaven forbid, mothers staying home to raise children is a sign of anarchic bigotry in our own culture.

Whatever.

But in the case of Iraq not even this condescending cognitive dissonance applies. The people seeking power through violence in Iraq, much like the government of Saddam Hussein before them, do not represent the popular desires of the majority of Iraqis. At least that’s what we’ve been lead to believe by countless polls and the testimonials of all sorts aid workers, soldiers, diplomats and lefty human rights groups. Moreover, whether most Iraqis agree with Moktada al-Sadr or not is almost beside the point. Any reasonable person, on the left or right, has to agree that civil war and chaos is not in the long term interests of the Iraqi people. The Americans are committed to reconstruction, democratization and prosperity of Iraq. Shooting Americans and each other doesn’t help that process – and it’s wrong, of course. In others words, you can make the case that it’s in America’s interests to bug out of Iraq, it’s virtually impossible to make a reasonable case that it’s in Iraq’s interests for America to bug out.

So, when we talk about how the US should have done this or that, or how the Bush administration has botched or blown one thing or another, let’s also keep in mind that according to literally any rational set of criteria, laid or by the left or the right, the Iraqi people are the ones who are blowing it the most – both the ones shooting in the streets and the ones hiding in their homes. Sure, they’ve got reasons and excuses, including having been brutalized, propagandized and badly educated, but those excuses don’t change the fact that “blaming the victim” in a sense is appropriate. The Iraqis, broadly speaking, are fools for doing what they’re doing right now. And the only way to see it otherwise, it seems to me, is if you do not subscribe to the view that Iraqis are rational people.

When Leonard Schiff was Chair of the Physics Department in 1960, three years after Sputnik, he suggested that it should be possible to make two new tests of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by observations on gyroscopes in a satellite in orbit around the Earth....

Schiff calculated that, according to General Relativity, a gyroscope in a 650 km polar orbit, should experience two distinct relativistic precession effects: (1) in the orbital plane a geodetic precession of 6.6 arcsec/yr; (2) at right angles to the orbital plane a frame-dragging precession of 0.042 arcsec/yr due to the Earth's rotation. GP-B aims at measuring each of these effects in each of four independent gyroscopes to an accuracy of 0.0002 arcsec/yr per gyroscope. This minute number (0.0002 arcsec) corresponds to the width of a human hair seen at a distance of 15 miles.

"In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex..."

John Ashcroft has done a good job in fighting the war on terror. That's where his focus should be. The war on Eros is for later. Or never.

"When I came to the Senate, we had a lot of members of the Wednesday Club" --a weekly gathering of Republican moderates. "You had Lowell Weicker, you had Bob Stafford, you had Bob Packwood, you had Mark Hatfield, you had Lincoln Chafee, you had John Danforth, you had Jim Jeffords, you had John Heinz. Now there are only a few of us (emphasis added).

Specter is respected by other Senators . . . but not well-liked; he is seen as calculating and self-serving. "They can't say I'm dumb or crooked," he once said, "so what do they say? That I'm calculating or ambitious? I've always thought those were good qualities, to think about what you want to do and to seek achievement."

Kathryn: I do know people who would put women who procure abortions in jail if it were possible, although they are a small minority of the anti-abortion movement. (The Republican platform specifically rules out this policy, by the way.) My own view is that if unborn human beings can be given the effective protection of the law by a regime as light as delicensure for doctors who commit abortions and fines for unlicensed persons who commit them, that would be fine. I'm a little rusty on this, but if I recall correctly the nineteenth-century American practice was to let the procuring women free since their giving evidence was key to prosecuting the abortionists.

On another point: Kristof's comment about the relation of abstinence education and abortion is pretty facile--he makes the standard liberal point--considering that we've had more abstinence ed and less abortion over the last decade.

In the Belgian foreign minister's view the British film "totally ignores the historical, intellectual and cultural context..."

Well, when the sophisticated M. Michel discovers the appropriate "historical, intellectual and cultural context" for understanding genocide, torture, mutilation and atrocity, perhaps he will let the rest of us know.

Prestopundit and a few others have told me that Hayek dedicated "The Road to Serfdom" to "Socialists of All Parties." I did know that, but I could swear that Hayek either dedicated one of his last books or had a line in a late-in-life interview where he said "lovers of liberty in all parties." The folks at the Hayek Center certainly know more about F.A.H. than I do, but I still think it's a fairly Hayekian thing to say. I'll keep noodling.

Hey, *I've* read "Prime Obsession" twice (well, really, each page of the technical bits once, then once again so I could be sure I understood them), and all of Derb's other books, too. He's your (our?) Main Ren Man. I wonder if he has read War And Peace in Chinese?!?! I wonder when his next book will arrive? Will it be on Chinese Opera? Raising children in L.I.? The End Of Days? I can hardly wait!

The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that “Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.”

[I]t seems safe to conclude that the death penalty is not in itself a violation of the right to life. The real issue for Catholics is to determine the circumstances under which that penalty ought to be applied. It is appropriate, I contend, when it is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment and when it does not have disproportionate evil effects. I say “necessary” because I am of the opinion that killing should be avoided if the purposes of punishment can be obtained by bloodless means.

There’s a curious quote from New York attorney-general Eliot Spitzer in a report in Tuesday’s Financial Times on the indictment of a former Bank of America broker on forty counts of fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records. The FT notes that the defendant could face up to thirty years in prison.

Spitzer’s comment? “This is state time…State prison has a certain edge to it that is not always present in the federal system. These prisons are not country clubs.”

”A certain edge”? What can he mean?

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

I keep hearing the Sadr rebellion being called a Shiite uprising. It's not, it's an uprising by a bunch of militants who happen to be Shiite. From the Christian Science Monitor:

As the days go by, a full-fledged Shiite uprising in Sadr's support is looking less likely. Most Shiites, about 60 percent of Iraq's population, insist that they should become the arbiters of political power. But they see fighting for it now - with the US still battling Sunni insurgents - as premature.

That leaves the problem squarely on the shoulders of the US at a time when it was hoping to hand over more responsibility for security to Iraqi soldiers and police.

Instead, US soldiers are fighting on multiple fronts across Iraq - possibly luring the US into a deeper involvement.

Iraq's major Shiite political parties, like the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are reluctant to stand up to Sadr's militants, afraid they could lose standing for siding too closely with the US.

Steve -

Q:How do Straussians tell when their wives are mad at them?

A: By the significant silences.

Okay, okay, you could probably replace "Straussians" with "men" but I'm new to this game.

My apologies to the folks who didn't get the earlier reference. As the long-running joke goes around here, whenever there's good economic news, Paul Krugman kicks his cat (Hence the Krugman Cat Index) . Today's news was so good, I was implying, that his cat would simply liquify from the impact of the kick and he would have to pick him up using a turkey baster.

I know people say most jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them, but this may be an exception.

The risk of oral cancer that comes with American forms of chewing tobacco seems to associated with the presence of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). For two decades now, Swedish snus has been required to have very low TSNA content, perhaps a twentieth of the level found in an American brand like Copenhagen. This probably explains why a long-term study of 135,000 Swedish men (published in the American Journal of Public Health back in 1994) found no increase in cancer risk. It looks as if the folks at the Massachussetts Tobacco Control Program need to do a little more homework.

The EU ban will be litigated before the EU Court of Justice starting in June, but overall the hitherto hostile attitude of health authorities towards chewing tobacco, Swedish or American, is yet another reminder that the anti-tobacco crusade is not about health, or money (except for the trial lawyers and their accomplices in state and federal government), but control.

From a reader:

Better than Indiana Jones was Cary Grant in Gunga Din, striding alone up to the front of a temple full of thuggees (while singing "Oh the Roast Beef of Olde England") and announcing "You're all under arrest.".

So far I've received lots of email from longtime Atlantic subscribers, liberal and conservative. Everybody agrees with me. This one captures the sentiment nicely and is very nice to boot:

Jonah,

Thanks so much for your comments about The Atlantic.
As a subscriber for ten+ years, I wholeheartedly agree
with your assessment of both Michael Kelly's
remarkable impact on the magazine as well as their
current path. (Which, as you quickly point out, is
not horribly biased by any means, but still feels
disappointing if for no other reason than the high
standard the magazine briefly attained).

For what it's worth, I'm a fiercly liberal reader of
The Corner and your writing in particular. What I
find among some Corner writers (Ramesh, you, Kurtz) is
exactly what I look for in The Atlantic. Namely,
logical, intelligent debate that helps challenge my
own thinking and broaded my perspective. I really
don't need to read many more ideologues who confirm my
own world view. And I certainly I don't need more
polemicists to tell me why I am an idiot (or a child
molester, thanks Derb!).

What I seek, and what I think our country needs, is
more conversation. I need to read both liberal and
conservative viewpoints in order to make sure I don't
live in a bubble, in order to make sure I'm thinking
clearly about an argument and, in order to make sure I
make informed choices.

At its best, this is exactly what the Atlantic has
provided. It's a voice that presented political and
cultural issues from a number of perspectives. A
voice that transcended the idiotic left/right
framework we seem unable to escape. It's a voice I
dearly hope they retain.

And when we get a Democrat in the White House we will all qualify for free mental health coverage. From a reader:

Jonah, I have a small interview with the late Michael Kelly's wife regarding Things Worth Fighting For hanging on the front of my refrigerator. Its a quarter of a page interview that I ripped out of US News that includes a small black & white photo of Mr. Kelly and his family. My wife thinks I'm crazy. But the torn page acted as a reminder for me to order the book once it became available. Plus, I just liked the layout of the piece and the small photo of Kelly it contained. I had never once picked up a copy of the Atlantic Monthly until Michael Kelly took it over. I must admit, I've only picked up one or two copies since his death. I completely agree that a traditionally liberal magazine can still be a great magazine. I'm what some would consider a "right-wing Conservative," but The New Republic is one of my top three favorite magazines. Anyway, I have finally found a term to best describe my life-long hobby, "magazine nerd." Currently, I subscribe to The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Newsweek, and US News. (sorry my National Review subscription has since ran out) Although I subscribe to the above four mentioned, I still find myself hitting the local Barnes & Noble on weekends to pick up a copy of National Review, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, or hidden underneath whatever my kid's are buying a copy of The Nation. I'm not sure how to describe it, but I'm definitely addicted to magazines. I realize most of these articles will eventually end up online. But there's just something about coming home from a boring day at work and finding a brand new copy of a magazine in your mail drop. I even enjoy simple things like the cover and style of the magazine. Although it annoys my wife, I cant bear to throw them out with the trash. I keep my magazines stored in the basement placed gently in those giant plastic containers you buy from Target. Each plastic container has its own name. For example, I currently have containers labeled, Clinton & Monica, Bush vs Gore, 9-11, Iraq, and I just started Kerry vs Bush. I was always under the impression that I was the only "magazine nerd" out there. Glad to see there is at least one more.

big fan
-Brian

From a reader:

Weren't thuggees the bad guys in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"? If so, then what's needed is either for us to airlift Harrison Ford into the area, or for Bush to get on TV with a giant sword and bellow a paraphrase of what is undoubtedly the greatest line in cinema history: "Moqtada al-Sadr, prepare to meet Kali... IN HELL!!!" Man, used to be we knew how to deal with bad guys, you know? Frickin' Mola Ram and his child slavery.

Steve - The Straussian site looks interesting. I particularly like the title at the bottom for their web guru: "Straussian Webmaster."

Do Straussian webmasters write in particularly esoteric HTML code?

If so this could shed so much light on the whole konzept of meta-tags! Maybe if I scanned The History of Political Philosophy into my computer, posted it on the web and then opted to "view source" I could figure out what Strauss was really saying about Pliny the Elder!

It is very hard to debate someone who persists in making comments such as the following: "I think (Ramesh disagrees) that if marriage really is a key social institution, defining it in the Constitution is no more anomalous than the many property guarantees, and the guarantee of democratic government, already in the document. (Ramesh must be one of the few Constitutional observers not to see property and other economic guarantees in the Constitution)."

I have never said that it would be "anomalous," or in any way improper, to define marriage in the Constitution. I have never said word one about the existence of economic guarantees in the Constitution (unless Gallagher is counting one column last year on the abuse of eminent-domain powers). The rest of her attempted refutation of me is similarly off-point. I'm open to the idea that my arguments are incorrect. But that has to be demonstrated through attention to the arguments I've actually made, not ones of Gallagher's imagining.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

Your comments on Spain seem to reflect the view that al Qaeda is a
coherent, disciplined organization which is actively pursuing a set of
goals. Whether or not this was true in the 90's, I think one of the
major underreported successes of the War on Terror is that this is
demonstrably not the case anymore. Spain is a perfect example. While
that particular bunch of thugs has "al Qaeda" affiliations, they are
clearly acting solely out of a desire to change Spain and not the
world. It seems al Qaeda has been splintered into separate terrorist
factions that only really care about their own perceived injustices, be
they Spanish, Filipino, Indonesian, Palestinian, Saudi, or where ever.
al Qaeda simply isn't a large coordinated movement aimed at changing
the world, it is a catch-all phrase for a particular method of action
with some vaguely similar roots in radical Islam.

Brian

From a reader:

Just a thought -

Has anyone noted the fact that expansion teams, be they NFL, NBA, or MLB are
generally given a pass in their first three to five years to become
"competitive" before they are determined to be hopeless and the object of
just ridicule.

Why is the timeframe for formerly fascist regimes liberated by Republican
Presidents to become fully functioning democracies so much shorter?

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg:

Living in Illinois, I was among those few souls lucky enough to hear Larouche ads this election go-around. In those radio ads, he referred to Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft as (to my best recollection) "followers of Carl Schmitt, a disciple of Leo Strauss, who was influential in the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany". Reading your essay revealed the irony in all of this, although I couldn't help remarking to a friend that it was refreshing in a strange way to hear a politician who assumed that the public at large knew or cared who Leo Strauss was . . .

An officer currently stationed in Baghdad writes:

Jonah,

I've been reading the news reports about the uprisings here in Baghdad and
the killings in Fallujah. The reports are true, but what is frustrating is
the reporting about the U.S. military's reaction to these despicable acts.
In Fallujah, I suppose we could have sent armor into the city supported by
ground troops to get the bodies back and break up the resulting
"demonstration", but when we met opposition from the locals should we have
overwhelmed them with superior firepower? That would have played very well
on the nightly news shows - "U.S. troops massacre local populace killing
hundreds to liberate 4 bodies" or some such nonsense. Everyone here on the
ground was disgusted and ready to go up and open the big can of whoop-ass,
but the problem is that even in Fallujah there are people sympathetic to us
and who deserve freedom. These cretins hide among them and there is nothing
to distinguish the good guys from the bad. The tactical response currently
occurring will hopefully cause more of the cretins to scurry around in the
open so we can kill them and move forward to the 30 June deadline.

Another aspect that needs to be kept in mind is that the locals expect more
from the U.S. The power generation capability is back at least to pre-war
levels and the fuel distribution networks and rail networks are closely
monitored, but being "as good as Saddam" is not what is expected. I think
after the initial euphoria, things settled down and the reaction now is more
along the lines of "What have you done for me lately?". I hope that once
the security situation is stabilized more businesses will locate here and
capital will flow in. The establishment of a judiciary to enforce property
rights will also be a leap forward. At that point I hope we can turn the
previous question back on them and ask "What have you done for yourself
lately?". We need to stop people from asking government to solve their
problems ... but I guess we're facing that same thing in the U.S. so I can't
complain too much about that.

Sorry about rambling, but it has been a long night and I desperately need
sleep. Hope everything is going well with you and your family....

Clinton's final National Security report doesn't mention al Qaeda at all and only mentions Bin Laden four times. This needn't be that damning if the report is sufficiently tough on terrorism. But it doesn't sound like it. And it certainly doesn't sound like Clarke's assurances that terrorism and al Qaeda were an urgent priority. From The Washington Times :

The document boasted of "a dozen terrorist fugitives" who had been captured abroad and handed over to the United States "to answer for their crimes." Those perpetrators included the men responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center, which the intelligence community largely thought by late 2000 to be the work of operatives with links to al Qaeda. Listed among those brought to justice was a man who killed two persons outside CIA headquarters in 1993, and "an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago."

A new collection of Michael Kelly's writing, Things Worth Fighting For has just been released. I bring this up for two reasons. 1) Kelly was a truly great American writing machine and he deserves to be remembered for that as well as for being a profoundly decent guy. And 2) Because another part of his legacy was the revivification of The Atlantic into a truly excellent magazine. One way he did this was by throwing the doors open to new, iconoclastic and often conservative writers. It seems to me that legacy is starting to slide. The Atlantic is still a great magazine, but it seems to be inching further and further into official Liberal Magazine Land. One can be a liberal magazine and still be a great magazine, The New Republic has proved that more than a few times. But what made the Kelly and post Kelly era Atlantic particularly special was its effort not to be predictably on one side of the political ledger. The first three articles in the current issue are by Jonathan Chait, Ryan Lizza and Joshua Green. They're not particularly partisan pieces, and they're all good. But they contribute to the continued Slateification of the magazine, by which I mean that "post-partisan smart" is defined as a certain kind of enlightened liberalism which enlightened liberals see as simply correct, not liberal. Yes, I know Mark Steyn and PJ O'Rourke write for The Atlantic and lots of other conservatives, including from NR-land, still appear in there -- though it seems less and less. But Steyn writes about theater and music. P.J. is sui generis. And nobody's replaced David Brooks' voice over there.

Still, there's no better sign of the Atlantic's Slateification than their annual "State of the Union issue" issue which assigns the task of determining the objective truth about All Things to the New America Foundation, particularly Michael Lind. There are a lot of smart guys over there, Lind (grumble, grumble) included. I don't want to get started on that place, but suffice it to say they fit perfectly within the "post-partisan smart" = "Brookings with bite" framework.

Anyway, I bring this up becausse I like the magazine and I like what Kelly did with it and because, well, I'm a magazine nerd.

“When he refers to himself as a devout Catholic and supports legislation and programs that are contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father and the bishops, he is not a devout Catholic,” said Bishop Smith. “He cannot compromise what it means to be a Catholic. I speak, as your bishop, for the devout Catholics of the Diocese of Trenton. (Gov.) Jim McGreevey does not.”

Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan both post this excerpt from a blog called Healing Iraq:

A coup d'etat is taking place in Iraq a the moment. Al-Shu'la, Al-Hurria, Thawra (Sadr city), and Kadhimiya (all Shi'ite neighbourhoods in Baghdad) have been declared liberated from occupation. Looting has already started at some places downtown, a friend of mine just returned from Sadun street and he says Al-Mahdi militiamen are breaking stores and clinics open and also at Tahrir square just across the river from the Green Zone. News from other cities in the south indicate that Sadr followers (tens of thousands of them) have taken over IP stations and governorate buildings in Kufa, Nassiriya, Ammara, Kut, and Basrah. Al-Jazeera says that policemen in these cities have sided with the Shia insurgents, which doesn't come as a surprise to me since a large portion of the police forces in these areas were recruited from Shi'ite militias and we have talked about that ages ago. And it looks like this move has been planned a long time ago.

No one knows what is happening in the capital right now. Power has been cut off in my neighbourhood since the afternoon, and I can only hear helicopters, massive explosions, and continuous shooting nearby. The streets are empty, someone told us half an hour ago that Al-Mahdi are trying to take over our neighbourhood and are being met by resistance from Sunni hardliners. Doors are locked, and AK-47's are being loaded and put close by in case they are needed. The phone keeps ringing frantically. Baghdadis are horrified and everyone seems to have made up their mind to stay home tomorrow until the situation is clear.

Where is Shitstani? And why is he keeping silent about this?

I have to admit that until now I have never longed for the days of Saddam, but now I'm not so sure. If we need a person like Saddam to keep those rabid dogs at bay then be it. Put Saddam back in power and after he fills a couple hundred more mass graves with those criminals they can start wailing and crying again for liberation. What a laugh we will have then. Then they can shove their filthy Hawza and marji'iya up somewhere else. I am so dissapointed in Iraqis and I hate myself for thinking this way. We are not worth your trouble, take back your billions of dollars and give us Saddam again. We truly 'deserve' leaders like Saddam.

This makes for riveting reading and Glenn and Andrew are both right for posting it. But just to be clear this is not a coup d'etat and it is not, as Andrew suggests, a civil war. It is an attempt at a coup d'etat. A coup d'etat by definition is the successful sudden overthrow of a government. A civil war is something more than an uprising. It seems to me it is simply way too soon to say it's either. The government in Iraq is still the Coalitional Authority under Paul Bremer. I don't think anyone thinks he's been overthrown or is about to be. I don't know that much about all of this but I bet you I'm right when I say this is all a big deal, but not that big. And, it may prove to be good news or bad. If Sadr's forces are smashed and arrested, that could result in a worse climate or a better one. It's just too soon to tell.

A reader emails me objecting to my latest web piece, which is my response to Maggie Gallagher about the Hatch amendment on same-sex marriage. I won't try to respond to the reader's Gallagherite argument in favor of what he calls a "strong" amendment, as I think I have already made my case as well as I can. I'll just address his objection to my comment, in regard to one of Gallagher's nine arguments, that it is "perhaps the most boneheaded" one she makes. The reader asks, "how does name-calling help this process?"

First of all, I don't think I've indulged in name-calling. The adjective was addressed to an argument, not a person. Even very smart people can make dumb arguments. Second, it was a highly qualified remark. An argument wouldn't have to be very boneheaded to be the most boneheaded in a set of arguments, let alone to be "perhaps" the most boneheaded one.

In any case, Gallagher is an adult; she is no stranger to polemics; she knows I take her seriously; and I hope she will take my directness in challenging her ideas, and my refusal to use kid gloves, as a sign of respect.

Good stuff. An excerpt:

In Fallujah, reports indicate that four American private security men, all former military men who had accepted dangerous work in Iraq, were ambushed when they tried to drive down a street in that city. Unlike most of Iraq, Fallujah remains defiant of the U.S. occupation and efforts to build a free and democratic society there, and it has been the focus of many violent U.S. incursions searching for resistance cells and Saddam loyalists. The four Americans were reportedly shot, doused with gasoline and set afire before the mob engaged in its repellent horseplay with their bodies.

Lynching is deliberate. It is opportunistic rather than purely spontaneous, and it has a clear intent: to insult, to challenge and to frighten the enemy, and to excite and enlist allies. The mutilation and public display of bodies follows a distinct pattern. The victims are members of a despised Other, who are held in such contempt that they are considered less than human. Respectful treatment of the dead is the norm in all societies, and a tenet of all religions. Publicly flouting such basic dignities is a communal expression of hatred designed to insult and frighten. Display of the mutilated remains must be as public as possible. In Fallujah they were strung high from a bridge. In Mogadishu, where there were no central squares or bridges, the bodies were dragged through the streets for hours. The crowd, no matter how enraged, welcomes the camera--Paul Watson, a white Canadian journalist, moved unharmed with his through the angry mobs in Mogadishu on Oct. 4, 1993. The idea is to spread the image. Cameras guarantee the insult will be heard, seen and felt. The insult and fear are spread across continents.

The other message at a lynching isn't as obvious. It is also an appeal. It is a demonstration of potency designed to sway and embolden those who are sympathetic but fearful. It says, Look what we can get away with! Look what we can do! The sheer horror asserts the determination of the rebel faction, and underlines the seriousness of the choice it demands from its own community. It draws a line in the sand; it is a particularly graphic way of saying, You are either for us or against us. With the potential for further such atrocities afoot, critics of the rebels are frightened into silence and acquiescence.

It is a mistake to conclude that those committing such acts represent a majority of the community. Just the opposite is true. Lynching is most often an effort to frighten and sway a more sensible, decent mainstream. In Marion it was the Ku Klux Klan, in Mogadishu it was Aidid loyalists, in Fallujah it is either diehard Saddamites or Islamo-fascists.

I hope everyone can make it (except you, the guy in the purple sweater with one eyebrow).

A wonderful speech on what's happening to academia by John Kekes

From an article in today's Financial Times on the Pulitzer prize:

"In Pulitzer Alley [the corridor at the New York Times headquarters where the newspaper honors its Pulitzer prize-winners], one gold-framed plaque has been taken down for what the New York Times calls "restoration". It honours Walter Duranty, a 1932 winner. But after a series of complaints, the citation will be amended to note questions about his failure to cover the famine in the Soviet Union that year."

Restoration? The restoration the Times should be interested in is the restoration of its good name. Asking the Pulitzer Committee to withdraw Duranty's prize would be a start.

Since so many people keep asking, I figured I'd let folks know how the book is coming. The answer: it's going okay. Not great. Not terribly.

As a guess, I've written somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000 words of which -- again guessing -- I'd say 30,000 - 40,000 are anywhere between acceptable to great.

The good news is that the historical research-intensive stuff should be coming to a close soon. If I never have to read another book about fascism -- other than mine! -- I'll be happy. As I move into the contemporary stuff I will be able to draw on themes I'm more well-versed in from my normal day-work. That doesn't mean there won't be a withering field of blegs coming your way in the months to come as I don't have a full-time researcher/intern to do my bidding.

Still, I'm feeling sufficiently upbeat that I'm actually going to write an actual G-File tomorrow as opposed to the syndicated column (which I'll also be writing). Thanks again to everyone for their patience and support. I really do think it will be worth it.

When the drawdowns started in the US Army after the Cold War, changing your racial status became a gambit for promotion, usually going for "Hispanic" or "Other". Evidentally enough officers did this that they stopped allowing you to do it via the clerk at your local personnel office; instead, a request to change racial status would be forwarded to Personnel Command, which would then contact the officer's command, which would verify the information via command channels (translated: "Try this buddy, and we'll put you on your own general's s**t list").

Marines seal-off Fallujah

The late Sir Peter Ustinov was a wonderfully gifted man, but, when it came to his political and moral judgments, like so many gifted men, he stunk. Stephen Pollard has more:

“Not that it was only Communists [Ustinov] defended. He opposed the military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan and criticised moves against Osama bin Laden: "You can't fight terrorism without becoming a terrorist yourself." Is that right, Sir Peter? What a shame he won't be around to point that out to al-Qaeda's next victims.

“He opposed - as if I needed to tell you - the Iraq war and thus would rather Saddam Hussein were still in power. Not just Saddam: he considered it quite wrong that Slobodan Milosevic should have been removed from power and put on trial. He should have been left alone to murder at will. Intervention against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo "was a mistake because it was not done through the UN".

“There were some people he did want to convict, though: businessmen. "The formation of the committee for the World Criminal Court is very important because there are corporations more powerful than many governments." Stalin: OK; business: criminal; al-Qaeda and the US: moral equals. Murdering Chinese dissidents: good; removing tyrants: bad. That was the world view of Sir Peter Ustinov, "humanitarian".”

That’s nicely – and devastatingly – put. What’s more, I suspect that the examples that Stephen gives (it’s well worth reading the whole piece) will come as news to many. Can you imagine that the same would have been true (or that the obituaries would have been so kind) if Ustinov’s beloved monsters had been on the ‘Right’?

”Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed arrives 20 minutes late for our meeting in a small navy hatchback, his substantial frame shoehorned into the front passenger seat. With two frowning assistants trailing behind, the white-robed imam heads into Burger King, an unlikely choice of venue for the leader of Al-Muhajiroun, a party dedicated to the overthrow of Western society.

"Do you not want to get some fries?" asks the bearded and bespectacled cleric who teaches Islamic law. I mutter about the evils of junk food. He sighs and nods in agreement.

"That's why I'm fat!" he declares…

…in custody battles? Bob Geldof thinks so, and he thinks it’s wrong.

He’s right.

All junk food’s fault, apparently. Of course.

The data looks counter-intuitive (over to you, Iain Murray), and comments such as these don’t inspire confidence:

”America has eight million people with no job, 40 million individuals with no health insurance, 35 million living below the poverty line, and a population that exists mainly on junk food.”

Trouble coming?

”The Islamist threat in Morocco is clearly far greater than anyone has so far been willing to acknowledge. It is no longer possible to ignore or cover up the kind of extremist fury which drove a young fanatic to stab seven tourists and then himself on the beach at Agadir last summer. 'This kind of assault is not isolated any more,' says M'Hamed Hamrouch. 'It is part of an Islamist culture of hate. Moroccans know what the dangers are, they have seen what has happened in Algeria with the growth of Islamism. But for sentimental reasons, or because they do not feel that they are like Algerians, they do not think that it can happen here.'

“The Algerian journalist Hassane Zerrouky is even more explicit, writing in Le Matin: 'Morocco now is just like Algeria was in the early Nineties. It begins in the social sphere, with people like Nadia Yassine influencing women and the Islamist students in the universities. Then the Islamists begin to ban everything by force they don't like, from cabaret shows to cinemas to women in swimming pools. This is how they get a grip on the culture.'

“Middle-class Moroccans argue that their culture is rich enough to withstand what they see as an alien culture exported from Algeria and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.”

Read the whole thing.

Well, this is a small, but encouraging sign. Trevor Phillips, the head of the UK’s often rather Orwellian “Commission for Racial Equality”, seems, at last, to be acknowledging that multiculturalism has its limits.

The Guardian notes that In a newspaper interview [he]… said that 'multiculturalism suggests separateness' and added that the UK should strive towards a more homogeneous culture with 'common values ... the common currency of the English language, honouring the culture of these islands, like Shakespeare and Dickens'.

That’s a statement of the obvious, of course, but it’s nice to hear him say it. The responses to these comments quoted by the Guardian (including those of Lord Taylor, a ‘Conservative’ peer who has long since established his credentials for cretinism) are largely predictable, and largely depressing, although the philosopher Roger Scruton, as so often, gets it right:

”Multiculturalism is a recipe for disintegration and instead we should have a common culture that also embraces differences.”

America please note.

April 12 issue - A federal investigation into the bank accounts of the Saudi Embassy in Washington has identified more than $27 million in "suspicious" transactions—including hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Muslim charities, and to clerics and Saudi students who are being scrutinized for possible links to terrorist activity, according to government documents obtained by NEWSWEEK. The probe also has uncovered large wire transfers overseas by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The transactions recently prompted the Saudi Embassy's longtime bank, the Riggs Bank of Washington, D.C., to drop the Saudis as a client after embassy officials were "unable to provide an explanation that was satisfying," says a source familiar with the discussions….

….Among the payments that have drawn scrutiny, documents show, were $19,200 in checks between December 2000 and January 2003 from the Saudi Embassy to an Islamic cleric, Gulshair Muhammad al-Shukrijumah. The Florida-based imam has been on the FBI's radar screen for some time: he once testified on behalf of convicted terrorist Clement Hampton-El. The imam's son, Adnan G. al-Shukrijumah, also known as "Jafar the Pilot," is a suspected Qaeda operative who is the subject of a worldwide FBI manhunt. A Saudi spokesman said Gulshair al-Shukrijumah was a Saudi-funded "missionary" whose payments were terminated last year. Another area of FBI inquiry involves $70,000 in wire transfers on July 10, 2001, to two Saudis in Massachusetts. One of the Saudis wrote a $20,000 check that same day to a third Saudi who had listed the same address as Aafia Siddiqui, a microbiologist who is believed to have been a U.S. operative for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. A Saudi spokesman said the wire transfers had no connection to Siddiqui and were used to pay educational and medical expenses for Saudi families in the United States. But bureau officials say the matter remains under active investigation; a government document shows the bulk of the funds were wired to an account in Saudi Arabia….

….The documents obtained by NEWSWEEK are "suspicious activity reports," or SARS, filed by bank auditors to alert Treasury to possible improprieties. Many may simply reflect longstanding Saudi practices, such as big movements of cash. "It's not fair to apply American standards to this. They're not General Motors," said Nancy Dutton, a lawyer for the Saudi Embassy. But investigators say the embassy accounts show a large commingling of funds with Islamic charities that have been the prime target of U.S. probes….

….Other SARS may prove personally embarrassing to Bandar, the dean of the diplomatic corps in Washington who has had close ties to the White House. One involves $17.4 million in wire transfers last year from the Saudi Defense Min-istry account to a man in Saudi Arabia identified as the coordinator of "home improvements/ construction" for Prince Bandar. The funds were to build a new palace for the prince. Ali Ah—med, a prominent Saudi dissident, noted that Bandar already owns at least seven palaces and mansions around the world. "This is corruption beyond the pale," he said. But Saudi Embassy lawyer Dutton said that government and private accounts are frequently intertwined by Saudi royals. "Just because it went through a government account doesn't mean it's not his personal money," she said.