An email: " saw your post on the papal futures, which you probably noted simply because, well, it's is interesting that the futures are going to a European.

"There's a reason, I suspect. Even though Latins are half the lay population of the Church, they currently have just a little more Cardinals then Italy alone. 22 to 21, if I remember.

"I'm not sure if someone else mentioned it in the Corner already, but even if they did, it's worth repeating, placing bets on the next pope, as I'm sure you know, is forbidden of Catholics. Apparently it was quite the cottage industry in Italy when the Pope stepped and stopped the practice about 400 years ago."

John Tierney has a slapdash column on it. Steve Sailer's site takes apart the theory that abortion is responsible for half the drop in crime. (Actually, he took it apart when Steven Levitt first floated it, but Levitt has apparently not adjusted his argument since then.)

Sailer has an article coming out in The American Conservative on the theory. Some highlights:

"Levitt's idea outrages Pro-Lifers, who complain that King Herod used similar logic in ordering the slaughter of thousands of babies to try to eliminate the threat posed by the infant Jesus. That doesn't mean it's false. As a social scientist, Levitt has an obligation to follow the data wherever they may lead him. But that doesn't mean it's true, either. . . .

"[T]he acid test of Levitt's theory is this: Did the first New, Improved Generation culled by legalized abortion actually grow up to be more lawful teenagers than the last generation born before legalization? Hardly. Instead, the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history. . . .

"[Levitt] argues that crime fell first in the five states that legalized abortion back in 1970. Okay … but isn't it at least as interesting that crime had previously gone up first in those early legalizing states? And hardly surprising it then burned out there first?"

From a reader:

Good Morning Jonah,

I just read over your piece on affirmative action and it's effects of Asians. I am black and entered UT in the fall of 1994 (two years before the hopwood decision) and graduated in 1999. At that time they didn't have the top 10% rule as they do now, but they still had automatic addmissions. They had a formula using SAT scores and your class rank. The higher your class rank you lower your SAT score could be. So since I was in the top 15% of my high school class I needed an SAT score that was 1100 or above, which I got. I know many of my peers may have seen me as only gaining addmission b/c of affirmative action, but I would have been automatically admitted with my class rank and SATs no matter if I was white, brown, yellow, grey, purple or blue. However, I did get a scholarship that was only for "underepresented minorities" Now my feelings about the scholarship are ambivalent, but I basically got a free education at a top university so I really can't fault myself for taking it. Sorry about the copious amounts of background, but my comment is about the # of black students. Even when I was there when race was a factor in addmissions the black population at UT was around 4%. That is miniscule. UT was practically beating down doors to even get that many black folks. You mention that the Asian population skyrocketed after the hopwood decision (if I had to guess I would say the the Asian population while I was at UT was about 8-12% maybe higher if you include those of Indian and Pakistani descent as Asian). Well I'm not sure this could possibly be related to the black enrollment b/c we numbered so few. So for instance even if every single black student was kicked out and replaced with an Asian student the Asian population of the university could have jumped, at most, 4%. Not exactly "skyrocketing". I'm not sure on the hispanic #s. Perhaps in combination they could account for the jump in Asians. However, after an initial drop in black enrollment after 1996, I think that it got back up to 3-4%. In essence my point as it relates to quotas for black students at UT is this: I think it is wrong. Quotas for any race are just plain wrong. However in this case the #'s of black students are so miniscule that I'm just not sure why it is such a big deal. UT is not some of the elite, top tier universities where they seek to have a black population equal to that of the population in general. UT's black population was only 1/4 that of the nationwide population. So once again why is this such a big deal?

Thanks for you time. I know your very busy.

From Reuters:

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (Reuters) -- In a victory for pranksters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a bunch of computer-generated gibberish masquerading as an academic paper has been accepted at a scientific conference.

Jeremy Stribling said Thursday that he and two fellow MIT graduate students questioned the standards of some academic conferences, so they wrote a computer program to generate research papers complete with "context-free grammar," charts and diagrams.

The trio submitted two of the randomly assembled papers to the World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), scheduled to be held July 10-13 in Orlando, Florida.

To their surprise, one of the papers -- "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy" -- was accepted for presentation.

The prank recalled a 1996 hoax in which New York University physicist Alan Sokal succeeded in getting an entire paper with a mix of truths, falsehoods, non sequiturs and otherwise meaningless mumbo-jumbo published in the quarterly journal Social Text, published by Duke University Press.

Stribling said he and his colleagues only learned about the Social Text affair after submitting their paper.

"Rooter" features such mind-bending gems as: "the model for our heuristic consists of four independent components: simulated annealing, active networks, flexible modalities, and the study of reinforcement learning" and "We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67, augmented with opportunistically pipelined extensions."

From, well, this guy:

Jonah, Maybe OJ can help find the real killer whale(s).

Sorry. Couldn't resist. On the off chance you post this silliness in the Corner, please use my name. I yearn for fame.

Dave Skorka

I hadn't read that article closely enough. It's actually a classic example of the sort of journalistic narrow-mindedness I learned to hate at feet of the master, my dad.

I think most people have never heard of the false killer whale before. And yet the article says "False killer whales do not closely resemble killer whales. They grow to 20 feet, weigh up to two tons and have a tapering, rounded snout that overhangs their toothed jaw."

This leaves the reader with one important question: Why do they call them false killer whales?"

Were they wrongly accused in the past? Did they attempt identity theft?

This is an important point for young journalists: No reader has ever been offended by learning something interesting. Would it have killed them to offer two sentences as to why they're called false killer whales?

My dad always tells me that "every sentence you write should be either interesting or important." This is usually an unatainable ideal and I'd probably throw in "entertaining" as a third category. But it's a good rule of thumb.

Anyway, then there's another gaffe caught an intrepid reader. I'll post his email:

O.K., so I was reading that “wholphin” story you posted and noted yet another example of that great MSM fact-checking we’re always hearing about. Toward the end of the article, it says:

“Park researchers suspect the wholphin's father is a 15-foot long Atlantic bottlenose dolphin named Mikioi.”

Four sentences later, it says:

“Atlantic bottlenose dolphins reach a maximum size of 12 feet and can weigh up to 700 pounds.”

Call me crazy, but I think the average blogger would have caught that one and made the necessary fact check and correction.

K-Lo At first, I assumed that you were forgetting that I just came back from taping an episdoe Tucker Carlson Unfiltered. But now that I see you were linking to the hoe-down in Hotlanta I recognize you're right!

By the way: It seems to me that Young Republican outfits at various Sourthern schools should think about taking their year-end surpluses and putting them toward sending some delegates to the Hotlanta fundraiser bash.

Where else will you be able to pose with the nearly the entire NR cast while holding up a copy of your college's conservative newspaper? Not at C-PAC. Not at my house.

MANASSAS, VA (April 14, 2005) – Marymount Manhattan College has invited pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton to deliver its commencement address and receive an honorary doctoral degree on May 20, publicly defying New York’s Cardinal Edward Egan and the U.S. bishops who forbade such honors in a statement last June.

Sen. Clinton has consistently supported legalized abortion, speaking at gatherings of abortion-rights advocates and voting against a ban on partial-birth abortion. She also has advocated expanding embryonic stem cell research and has declared contraception “basic health care for women.” During a January 2005 speech to New York State “family planning providers,” in which Clinton was widely reported as softening her stance on abortion, Clinton in fact began by repeating her firm commitment to keeping abortion legal: “I am so pleased to be here two days after the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that struck a blow for freedom and equality for women. Today Roe is in more jeopardy than ever, and I look forward to working with all of you as we fight to defend it in the coming years.”

The Wholpin. Part whale, part dolphin -- all party animal.

I also learned there is such a thing as a "false killer whale." Talk about names that don't help self-esteem.

Jonah:

The odd thing about that business of mainstreaming-by-name is that it ended by making the name-bearer's Jewishness more obvious than ever. I mean, if you hear of someone named "Irving" or "Sheldon," you assume he is Jewish.
(Similarly with a "Clarence," who is black and over 40, to a high degree of
probability.)

I'd like to know more about the social mechanics here. Was it a case of "gentile flight" from names that were being preferred by Jews for their Waspiness? Or were these names always unusual among Wasps, and Jews just picked them for some auspicious or euphonious quality they had, the way Chinese people go for "Amy" (sounds like "pretty" in Chinese)?

The idea of naming a kid "Harvard" is kind of cute. Best to start with low expectations, though: Should Mrs. Derb favor me with further issue, I shall consider "SuffolkCommunityCollege" as a possible forename.

A friend of mine has a theory about Jews of a certain generation (my father's) who have names like Irving, Sidney, Martin etc. It was an attempt to "mainstream" Jewish kids into American culture by giving them "anglo" names.

He was the first to point out to me how Asian kids are going through the same thing today. There are lots of whitebread names followed by Fong, Hsu, etc.

But there's something else going on too. I have received emails from several Asians (I assume Chinese) whose last names are obviously Chinese (i.e. like Wong, or Chang) whose first name is "Harvard."

That's branding.

That's a great Muggeridge story, Peter. In the quotability stakes, Mugg was way up there. I especially liked his remark about David Frost: "When I first saw David Frost, I expected that he would soon sink without trace. In the event, he has *risen* without trace."

However, the quip about the Ten Commandments being like an examination paper--"Six only to be attempted"--though often attributed to Mugg, in fact came originally from Bertrand Russell.

The best from a clutch of Asian super-kid stories. This from Noah Millman.

"John---My senior year of high school, I had a girlfriend who was Chinese.
She was terribly smart, a Westinghouse finalist. She was a shoo-in to get into every school she applied to. Well, she decided she wanted to go to Stanford, partly because it had a fabulous neuroscience department (her field of interest), partly because of the weather, and partly because it was on the other side of the country from her parents.

"Well, her parents had a problem with this, because, you see, everyone back in Taiwan knew that the best university in the world was Harvard. How could her daughter shame them by going to a second-rate university, particularly if she actually got *in* to Harvard (which she did)?

"That year, the Westinghouse people took all the finalists on a trip to China for a month. So, while their daughter was away, my then-girlfriend's parents drove up to Cambridge, and pleaded with the Dean of Admissions at Harvard to let their daughter rescind her reject and accept a spot at Harvard. Naturally, the Dean assented. They then called up Stanford and told the admissions office there that, regretfully, their daughter had changed her mind and decided not to attend Stanford after all.

"When their daughter returned from China a month later, it was too late to undo her parents handiwork. So she went to Harvard.

"We're not in touch, so I don't know how she feels about her parents these days. But I rather think when they get old enough to be thinking about what kind of nursing home their daughter will install them in, they should worry that they banked just a little too much on traditional Chinese filial piety."

Great story. This HarvardGirl diary entry of mine from last year is also pertinent.

A reader raises a nice -- if unpleasently so -- point about free speach in academia. How exactly is it under threat when just this week an NYU student asked Justice Scalia if he sodomizes his wife. He asked while his wife was present.

But, yes, the academy is in danger.

My ode to McDonald's from -- good golly! -- five years ago.

Pretty amazing that McDonald's and National Review were founded in the same year -- and they say the fifties were boring!

From a reader:

Assuming that 'grad' students in the US are the same as post-graduate students in the UK, it is ludicrous for them to consider striking.

Graduate students, especially in the sciences, should be treated like
the Apprentices of Sorcerers. They should be paid very little and made
to work long hours at menial laboratory tasks. Such treatment teaches
them humility you see, and makes sure they dont get too cocky about the
great powers they are soon to learn.

A great Tory, to be precise: the incomparable Samuel Johnson. This year marks the 250th anniversary of the publication of his Dictionary.

Reader Debby Witt reminds me of some gems from that work.

I am not yet so lost in lexicography as to forget that words are the daughters of earth, and that things are the sons of heaven. Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things which they denote.

- Dr. Samuel Johnson
(A Dictionary of the English Language,
preface)

Buffoon - A man whose profession is to make sport, by low jests and antick postures; a jackpudding.

Excise - A hateful tax levied upon commodities, and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid.

Lexicographer - A writer of dictionaries, a harmless drudge.

Network - Anything reticulated or decussated at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections.

Oats - A grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.

Patron - One who countenances, supports, or protects. Commonly,
a wretch who supports with insolence and is paid in flattery.*

Pension - Pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country.

Whore - A woman who converses unlawfully with men; a fornica-
tress; an adultress; a strumpet.

It will shock few of you to discover I am no expert on diplomatic history. But I have a question maybe someone who knows about such things can answer: Where is it written that diplomats always and everywhere must be soft-spoken, arms-are-for-hugging types? I understand that the gravity of institutional, professional, psychological and ideological forces all pull in that direction. Diplomats are talkers and therefore doplomats are heavily invested in the value of talk. Nonetheless, is it really the case that arm-twisters, table-pounders, butt-kickers and straight-talkers have never been effective in the diplomacy trade? Are they really never called for? It seems to me I remember some foreign diplomats who've gotten too much out of America by such methods. But I could be wrong. To read the liberal assault on Bolton is to get the impression that it is axiomatic that such people can never be good diplomats. Surely there are some good counter examples. James Baker didn't seem like the kind of guy who ate lady fingers without dropping a single crumb.

Even if China-shop bulls have been successful in the past, it wouldn't necessarily constitute a case for Bolton one way or the other of course. You'd have to ask if this specific situation requires a Bolton type. But, it seems to me, you could certainly make that case considering how the UN has hardly excelled under the current regime of "no, after you, I insist" types.

The Washington Post has nuggety-nugaty story about the nugatory nature of academic nabobs. The George Mason University faculty senate voted against the Patriot Act yesteday with much high-minded nonsense. Which is to say 30 professors voted against it. Here's one nugget:

James T. Bennett, faculty senate chairman and an economics professor, said all but one of more than 30 members who attended the meeting voted for the resolution.

"The Patriot Act runs against the grain of the typical academic," Bennett said. "The whole idea of the academy is to look at all different points of view. This is the kind of thing that takes place in a dictatorship."

Me: Which "point of view" is being oppressed. You can still take out a copy of the "Hermeneutics of Herpes: Sexually Transmitted Dissidence in Haight Ashbury 1965-1974."

The only point of view the government is interested in is the point of view which says, "Hey, maybe that dirty bomb would go better under that playground."

Another nugget:

David L. Kuebrich, an associate professor of English who is secretary of the faculty senate, said he thinks the danger in the Patriot Act "is that we will curtail speech or research that would be quite critical of foreign policy at a time when we really need a broad review and to be open to dissenting voices."

Me: Ahh the arrogant solipsism of the literary genius overlooked! But tell me professor, If the government hasn't picked off Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky or Al Franken why, exactly, would they crush their jackboot down upon the craniums of the adventurous GMU scholar eager to speak truth to power about the sexual rhetoric implicit in the cruise missile?

Get over yourselves people.

Ed Driscoll has a big take-out on Brian Anderson's new book over at TCS.

I should note that the book is lavishly blurbed by yours truly. Actually, it's blurbed by yours truly and the blurb is lavishly displayed on the front cover of the book (the full quote is on the back).

This should serve as noification to publishers who do not send me free (good) books: My name moves product!

Last week I spent three days at a conference of various leaders of the budding VLWC, and it was, well, interesting. As happens at any such gathering, the networking was the greatest benefit. Met lots of good people. The sessions were too touchy-feely for me. I'm not a liberal who likes to talk about "feelings".

At one session, one participant told me "we can achieve world peace if we just visualize it". What the f**k? I jumped down the guy's throat--"When people were shooting it out in my front lawn in El Salvador, they didn't give a flying f**k about what you were visualizing. Neither do the warlords in Somalia, or in Darfur, or the insurgents in Iraq, or terrorists all over the world."

Man, talk about idiots reinforcing the worst stereotypes about our side.

Jeez. Fantasizing about eliminating the Defense Department isn't being part of the Reality Based Community. If that's the sort of thing you like to do, and are offended by my bluntness, then deal with it. Being a part of the reality based community means we must operate in--you guessed it--reality.

So there were the crazies, some of them in leadership positions of fairly prominent organizations. F**king obnoxious, and clearly a reason why our side can seem out of touch.

But there was another wierd dynamic at play--this one generational. There were leaders, all of them older, of extremely prominent liberal interest groups. We're talking labor, environmental, economic justice, things like that. And some of them were genuinely awesome.

But there was a large contingent of them that were obsessed with one thing--their pet issue. It was about them, them, them. Why wasn't their issue being addressed? Did they have to stay in some meeting if their issue wasn't being discussed? Etc.

Wow! Their self-centerdness and lack of interest in working together (unless it revolved around their issue) was breathtaking.

On the other hand, most of the younger activists at this retreat ran community-style groups. They weren't focused on any single issue, but on using the collective force of their communities to bear pressure on various issues.

So at one point we had a session on organizing, and used the Wal-Mart campaign as a case study. While the older folks kvetched that their "issues" weren't being discussed, the younger folk seemed eager to find ways they could use their organizations to help execute various components of the campaign...

That lack of single-issue obsession allows these groups to form ad-hoc coalitions to tackle any number of issues. It's quite inspiring, actually. A new generation of activists seem to be rejecting the myopic single-issue focus of the previous generation--a short-sightedness that has, in large part (IMHO), led to the ineffectiveness of our single-issue groups. The environmental, labor, women's, lawyer, and ethnic/racial groups have been woefully ineffective in beating back attacks from the Right Wing machine...

There is still a clear role for the single-issue groups, but in the future, it may be more of a think tank model--providing the ammunition and research necessary for the ground troops to wage multi-disciplinary campaigns. DFA [Democracy for America] and MoveOn can mobilize its shock troops at a moment's notice, ready to wage a campaign in defense of ANWR, in defense of overtime pay, or a defense of a woman's right to choose. The single-issue groups can't hope to compete with that in the future. And they won't have to.

We are in a transition right now. Our model is changing. And it will be for the better. We are on our way to practicing the politics of "we", rather than the politics of "me" and "mine". And as we create an infrastructure that lends itself to easy coalition building, unencumbered by turf and big ego battles, we'll be much closer to a true Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

BEERSHEBA, Israel (Reuters) - Palestinian suicide bombers killed at least 16 people in simultaneous attacks on two Israeli buses on Tuesday, breaking a long lull in suchviolence and threatening to disrupt an Israeli plan to pull out of Gaza.

The bombings by the militant Islamic group Hamas in the southern city of Beersheba were the first in Israel since March and the deadliest since last October. They showed thatHamas was not a spent force, even after repeated Israeli assassinations of its leaders and the building of a West Bank barrier.

From a reader:

You probably already know this, but apparently most fans of the movie don’t: The Warriors retells the story of Xenophon’s Anabasis, wherein the Persian Cyrus, while trying to take the Persian throne, was killed and his Greek troops, led by Xenophon, were left stranded in enemy territory and had to fight their way back home. That’s why the movie works—it’s pretty faithful to the spirit of the original.

Getting a lot of emails like this:

Hi, Jonah.

I received my Ph.D in chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1998. I'm not sure what the situation is there now, but there were always "humanities" grad. students pining for a grad student union of some sort. Most of us in the hardcore sciences wanted nothing to do with this. We got paid little, worked ridiculously long hours, but we expected this going in. Our time and money was precious and the idea of staging a protest "walk out" was absurd. Our motivation for getting away from the small stipend/long hours life was to...are you sitting down?...work harder to graduate sooner and find a real job. Doesn't take 8-10 years of an English Lit. dissertation to figure that out. Well, for most graduate students anyway.

(please don't print my name if you post this...thanks)

They're making a videogame out of "The Warriors."

I just got a press release announcing that The Atlantic will move from Boston to Washington over the next year. That is all. You may now resume your normal activities.

Update: Woops. Original post said the Atlantic was moving to New York. It's DC.

I think this should wrap-up what should have never gotten so unwrapped. From a reader:

I wish could find the picture. But, I believe it was in the Jerusalem Post that there was a picture of JPII being greeted by an Israeli official, perhaps Barak. The caption read something to the effect, "Pope John Paul II is greeting by Prime Minister Erud Barak. The pope is the one in the yarmulke. "

Many, many readers wish to clarify:

Please pass this on to your reader who doesn't know why Catholic clergy wear the zucchetto: They wear the zucchetto because, in the olden days, monks were tonsured (shaved a circle of hair off the tops of their heads) and the zucchetto was worn to help them stay warm in the pre-central-heating days.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Here at the University of Michigan, the graduate students have been
unionized since the mid 1970s--whereas the Columbia and Yale grads are just
getting around to it.

Earlier this month, the Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) staged a
one-day walkout in their contract negotiations with the University. They
wanted their roughly $14,000 stipend (which comes with a tuition waiver)
increased to a "living wage" of $22,000 per school year. Not to mention
that they wanted to be able to list any individual of their choosing as a
beneficiary of their health care plan. They also demanded that the
University include in health coverage payment for transgendered students'
care--psychological therapy, hormone therapy, and sex-change operations.

Luckily, after a dismal showing of student support in liberal Ann Arbor,
the graduate students' union ended up at the knees of the University,
settling for a 2.5% wage increase per year, and a watering down of the
English-speaking requirement for foreign GSIs.

The point is, though, that for as liberal as Yale and Columbia might be,
it's always moreso here at Michigan.

One regular reader says that grad students should unionize because they are abused. I responded, so are rookie cops and fraternity pledges. He came back: yes, but unlike grad students, they have futures. Another reader offers this:

Dear Jonah,

The Yale grad students unionizing has been going on since I went to grad school there from 1989-1991. I had one good friend who was very involved in GESO (the grad student union being set up as a sort of parallel but independant student government) and a girlfriend who was very involved in the student senate. Believe me I heard ALL the arguments back then. I saw only one argument that had any merit whatsoever. While the grad student stipend was supposed to pay your tuition and a small salary in return for 20 hours a week of research or teaching, in practice most professors, especially in the sciences expected AT LEAST 40 hours a week of research work. It meant you pretty much had to pick a disertation topic that was part of a professor's research and become his personal researcher to be able to get a tuition waiver, a small salary, and still be able to finish your disertation in anything like a timely manner. Of course Yale didn't help by requiring all grad students to pay 4 full years of tuition wether they were taking classes or not, meaning that even after they started their disertation, students needed a professor to fund them for at least two years. That said, they all had a pretty cushy life and didn't realize it. I had already worked for three years before grad school and was simply amazed to see how easy grad school life was in general. My feeling was always they needed another cause, and decided they would be a great cause.

Ramesh - Just curious did the three GOP strategists say whether they thought the actual charges against Delay were legit? Surely, even in the GOP caucus the issue of whether or not Delay did anything wrong has to play some role in their thinking about whether he should stay.

Here there was sharp disagreement. X predicts that DeLay will be “gone” by December—and says that it will be a real blow to conservatives, since DeLay has been a strong advocate of theirs within the House leadership. He thinks leaving soon would be the best outcome for DeLay personally, but that he won’t do it.

Z notes that DeLay isn’t helpful in some Republican congressmen’s districts: “Whenever you can’t take your leader home to the hometown barbecue and meet the family and the neighbors, you’ve got a problem. . . . That’s your leader. It happened to Newt. He wasn’t welcome in some towns. . . . He can survive. You can put him on a life-support mechanism for a long period of time. . . . If I were the Democrats, I would want him to survive.” Even if Republicans conclude that it is time for him to go, they won’t necessarily have the stomach to shove him aside: “He’s going to put the desk up against the door and pull out the guns and say I’m not leaving. You’ll have to physically remove him.” And getting rid of DeLay, Z adds, will leave the party in a bind: “They have no one with his skill set: raising the money, making sure the members get reelected, doing the tough stuff.”

Y is for hanging tough with DeLay: “People need to understand something: If the Democrats and the New York Times get Tom DeLay that’s not the end of a process, that’s the beginning of a process. [It will only] validate their charges [against the entire Republican majority].” He adds, “I don’t think he’s going to go down.”

Two of the three strategists favored the congressional intervention in the Schiavo case on the merits, but two of the three were concerned that it had done long-term damage to the Republican party. Y said that Republicans had been successful in making the Democrats look like the party of intolerance, since it treats its pro-lifers worse than Republicans treat their pro-choicers. He worried that this case would leave a contrary impression.

X, on the other hand, thought that the public had in large part reacted against having to watch a terrible story that they didn’t want to think about night after night on television, and blamed the Republicans for their having to go through it. The underlying impulse not to dwell on this topic, he thought, would keep it from having a lasting negative impact. He noted that the controversy over Clinton’s impeachment lasted longer and brought Republicans’ poll numbers lower—again, in large part, because people resented the Republicans for making this a long-running news story—but the controversy did not seem to hurt Republicans in the next election and may have helped them.

So, Shannen, you are "doubtful" that a campaign to impeach lawless judges would work and think it "distinctly unlikely to succeed," but you think it wrong to deny the practicality of such a campaign. I don't think these positions are going to get along well with each other. I think you are led into this cul-de-sac because you have too limited a set of alternatives. You make it sound as though the alternative to ending filibusters and impeaching judges is doing nothing to challenge judicial imperialism.

But ending the filibuster is only a means to the end of confirming judges (who are committed to the proper enterprise of judging). If you can get just as many or more such judges confirmed by breaking a Supreme Court filibuster--which has been the basic claim I have defended against you and others--then ending the filibuster through a formal rules change doesn't do anything more (and may do less) than that course of action. Your bringing up the filibuster issue begs the question.

And what about the alternative of trying to get good judges confirmed, making the conservative case about judicial power, and removing issues from the courts' jurisdiction? A majority of the House has gone on record for limiting jurisdiction. It won't do the same for impeachment.

But this guy doesn't. From a reader:

I think I'll sleep a bit better tonight knowing that al-Qaeda's master poisoner thinks that the best way to kill large numbers of Britons is to target the toothbrushes.

Isn't it possible that this plan was designed to occur simultaneously with 9/11 but nobody in Britain has bought a toothbrush since then?

But just as deserving of execution! From the Sun:

COP killer Kamel Bourgass was yesterday unmasked as Osama Bin Laden’s master poisoner — with a mission to murder as many Britons as possible.

Fanatical Bourgass, who stabbed detective constable Stephen Oake to death as police closed in on an al-Qaeda cell, spearheaded a terrifying plot to terrorise London.

The gang planned to smear lethal RICIN poison on door handles of cars and shops in the bustling Holloway Road, North London.

They even intended to open TOOTHBRUSH packs in shops, daub them with ricin and re-seal them.

And the alarming campaign also involved a CYANIDE attack on the Tube, targeting passengers with a pump-style garden spray gun.

Note: Ignore their strange habit of ALL CAPPING some WORDS. Also, ignore those page 3 girls. Tsk. Tsk.

Those of us who grew up reading National Review in the darkest days of the Cold War remember with fondness how consoling it was to be reassured, every two weeks, that there were some folks out there who understood the true dimensions of the conflict, and how important it was that the good guys win — not just deal, or trade, or coexist, but win. In this regard, NR’s history is bound up with the biography of its most famous subscriber: the late Ronald Reagan, whose summons to moral clarity ended up toppling an Evil Empire. Tear Down This Wall: The Reagan Revolution — A National Review History (Continuum, 197 pp., $12.95) is an anti-Communist nostalgist’s dream, a moving anthology of some of the best NR pieces about Reagan (and some by him), as well as his most important speeches. To read this book — which contains an amazing amount of material in its brief length — is not just to revel in a past that ended well, but to be strengthened for the struggles America will face in days to come.

From a reader:

I’m in the same age range as you, and that’s not quite the reason for Snuffy’s outing. As was explained to me by someone who worked for the station – because I admit I was in fits enough about it to complain to my mother, who called and asked – Snuffy was supposedly encouraging kids to have imaginary friends. Enough parents complained that they outed Snuffy.

I will use this email to clarify several issues for readers in the dark. From a reader:

It isn't a yarmulke. It's a zuchetto.

Maybe we Catholics thought you Jews looked pretty cool in them--that's the best reason I found so far.

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you and I am getting the same feeling when I answered a rhetorical question and was told it's a rhetorical question.

There's something else snide in here, like I barely got the thing about Big Bird and the snuffalufagus and completely missed the joke about the coins stamped with the 410 BC.

I don't get it...

A. I know it's not a yarmulke. The joke was simply that The New Republic is famous for having an unofficial Jewish orientation in the same way some thing NR has an unofficial Catholic orientation. I should also add, "A yarmulke by any other name..."

B. The Snuffy/Big Bird thing. The reason it was "dated" was that Snuffy is no longer Big Bird's secret friend. Everybody knows about him. When I was a kid -- hence the standard timeframe for my juvenalia -- Big Bird could never get the other Sesame Streeters to believe Snuffy existed because Snuffy would disappear when strangers approached. My understanding that they cancelled this schtick when someone got worried that kids would take away the lesson that adults wouldn't believe them if they said child molesters or some such were harrassing them. This was not a concern for the producers of the Flintstones apparently, even though Mr. Kazoo certainly gives off far more of a molester vibe than a giant woolly mammoth-like creature who walks and talks at 2 miles per hour and has no opposable thumbs (opposable thumbs strike me as essential tools for most perverts).

3. The joke about the coins stamped 410 B.C. is simple. How would the people making the coins know it was 410 years until Christ's arrival?

Update Perhaps it's the Great Gazoo not Kazoo. Google is unhelpful on this. But I really don't want to have the issue settled. Let's keep it a delightful mystery.

Subject: News Flash re Bolton
I have it from a close source that Bolton once dismissed a subordinate with a raised open palmed hand and uttterd the word, `whatever’ in a snarky, Valley Girl sorta way.

Let’s hope the Times or the Post doesn't run this above the fold--the nomination will be toast.

From Live Science:

Scientists with the Mammoth Creation Project hope to find a frozen woolly mammoth specimen with sperm DNA. The sperm DNA would then be injected into a female elephant; by repeating the procedure with offspring, a creature 88 percent mammoth could be produced within fifty years.

"This is possible with modern technology we already have," said Akira Iritani, who is chairman of the genetic engineering department at Kinki University in Japan and a member of the Mammoth Creation Project. However, the DNA in mammoth remains found to date has been unusable, damaged by time and climate changes. "From a geologist's point of view, the preservation of viable sperm is very unlikely, and this is so far confirmed by the poor condition of cells in the mammoth carcasses," said Andrei Sher, Russian paleontologist and mammoth expert.

One question: Will the creature be invisible to everyone except Big Bird? ("Dude, that's so dated and inside" -- the Couch).

Elegant, artful, unproductive.

From a regular liberal reader of mine:

Imagine John Kerry had won the election. (I can hear you shudder from here). Now imagine that authorities caught a terrorist (think al Qaeda or maybe an extreme Left Wing environmental group) responsible for multiple deadly bombings here in the US… and that prosecutors cut a deal with him that avoided the death penalty.

Do you think there would be at least one post on the Corner wondering, maybe with a little outrage, why he avoided the death penalty? Kerry’s “soft” on terrorism… he’s too French to apply the death penalty… etc. Maybe it would be a time to reflect on the risks of extremist ideology on the safety and security of our nation.

I haven’t seen anything on Rudolph on the Corner, or Fox News all day. This is, in my understanding, the 3rd deadliest terrorist in American history. Every little wanna-be terrorist moron Muslim we arrest (Think the Buffalo six) gets a ton of attention, even if they’re eventually released because they were really not much of a risk at all. This guy successfully bombs over and over… and… silence.

It’s almost like some folks think his heart was in the right place.

I’m sure there’s a better explanation… I just can’t think of it.

Me: He should think harder.

I get this sort of email all of the time. I don't think it's illegitimate to read the "significant silences" on blogs. What someone chooses not to write about can say a great deal about a writer. But this simply strikes me as nonsense. I haven't written about Rudolph because I haven't followed the story much. I suspect it's the same for a lot of folks around here. From what I have read, it sounds like the plea deal was an issue of prosecutorial discretion. Personally, I'd have no problem with Rudolph getting the chair. I doubt anyone at NR -- who supports the death penalty -- would disagree. (It was, recall, Ashcroft who decided to seek the death penalty in the first place and no one complained about that).

But there's a lot of apples-and-oranges thinking here. Rudolph is certainly newsworthy -- and if you google his name at NRO, you'll find it's come up a lot. But he's hardly representative of a news story nearly as huge, complex and interesting as al Qaeda and the war on terrorism. It'd be nice if folks didn't automatically leap to the conclusion that the lack of comment on something is an explicit endorsement of the most execrable position possible. Alas, it happens every day and it says more about the people leaping to conclusion than it does about those of us who are leapt upon.

I'm not going to get into a big thing about posting email re yesterday's column. Many folks think I was too hard or unfair to James Dobson, many don't. I'm sure we'll have opportunities to debate that again. On the underlying point, I've gotten a lot of email too. But we're covered on this topic in the Corner generally anyway. Still, this guy clearly worked hard on this email and it's got some interesting stuff, I figured it's worth posting:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

Your points in your article are well taken. You point out but another facet of the problems arising from unbridled judicial activism. As if the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and those of the lower court judges in California and New York weren't enough, in view of the recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons, the issues of the Court's role, a judges authority, and also the relevancy of Mark Levin's book on the Supreme Court, Men in Black, all become painfully obvious. However, the legal basis, or really the legal philosophy underlying criticism of what really amounts to new levels of judicial activism (and the theoretical foundation of much of Justice Scalia's dissent in Roper), had previously been clearly set forth by law Prof. Brian Z. Tamanaha (St. John's University School of Law, NYC) in his recent book On The Rule of Law - History, Politics, Theory (Cambridge University Press). This is a somewhat overlooked important source document for these issues and I have recommended it to many.

Prof. Tamanaha cites no less than Cicero as emphasizing that it is the law that rules, not the individual who happens to be the magistrate: "As magistrates are subject to the laws, the people are subject to the magistrates. In fact it is true to say that a magistrate is a speaking law, and law a silent magistrate..." (page 11).

Montesquieu is quoted on his insistence that judgments be rendered strictly according to the law, not just the personal view of the judge: "Were they to be the private opinion of the judge, people would then live in a society, without exactly knowing the nature of their obligations..." (page 53).

The delicate balance of powers of our nation is preserved only by the judge's adherence to the "rule of law." Prof. Tamanaha explains that F.A. Hayek (Law, Legislation and Liberty, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979) found that judges in applying the common law are not legislating, since they are merely making explicit what was already immanent within the existing law, so the separation of powers is not violated, and the decisions are not unpredictable - thus voicing the old Medieval view that "law is discovered, not made." (pages 69-70).

Prof. Tamanaha is adamant in his conclusion that the law is what is supposed to decide cases, not the person who happens to be the judge: "Aristotle identified man with passion and law with reason; Locke contrasted rule by law with rule by the arbitrary will of another; Chief Justice Marshall denied that the will of judges influence the law. That is the point of the slogan: 'the rule of law, not man'... " (page 87). "...if judges are seated on the bench who have few qualms about exploiting the latent indeterminacy of law to favor personal or political objectives, the law is defenseless." (page 90) "...to live under the rule of law is not to be subject to the unpredictable vagaries of other individuals - whether monarchs, judges, government officials or fellow citizens. It is to be shielded from the familiar human weaknesses of bias, passion, prejudice, error, ignorance, cupidity or whim...out of concern of the potential abuse that inheres in the power to rule." (page 122). "The ultimate risk...[separation of powers discussion omitted]...is that the rule of law might become rule by judges." (page 124).

I think he best summarizes his arguments when he states: "Rule by judges poses the specter of the usurpation of power by an unaccountable elite, treating political issues as if they were matters of law, hiding political decisions under the guise of purely legal interpretations." (emphasis added, at page 125).

While I am not competent to comment on all the erudite legal and political history and positions outlined in this remarkably slim (only some 141 pages or so) volume, considering the depth of analysis contained therein, I do believe that this is the most succinct and correct interpretation of the "rule of law" and highly recommend it to any fair discussion of our current judicial predicament. I also believe it fully supports your position in the article. I recommend it to you as an important reference.I hope it helps.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I enjoyed your article immensely.

Sincerely,

[Name withheld]

Shannen's post reminds me: I've been thinking we in the Corner should try more often to debate, question or applaud NR editorials. Lots of folks don't understand that for the most part only a tiny cadres of intellectuals and ideologists write our editorials. I don't have anything to do with them for example. Neither do most Cornerites, I suspect. But the public doesn't always understand this. Often they will see a one-time contributor's piece as authoritatively reflective of the magazine's stance on an issue. Columnists and bloggers will declare "National Review contends...blah blah blah" because some freelance writer wrote something on our site. Conversely, when a frothing emailer screams at me about NR's drift, or apostasy or whatever, I'll point out that our editorial position remains Gibraltor-like on this point or that. They'll respond as if this is irrelevent. While obviously what we run -- and how much we run of it -- reflects our editorial policies to a certain extent, only the editorials actually reflect official positions.

So, I think it'd be helpful -- so long as it doesn't get me fired -- if we chat up these things a bit. Hopefully, it will convey that A) there's more dissent around here than some folks contend B) it will call attention to the editorials which are invariably high-minded, well-considered and well-written, C) get some good Corner chatter going.

Note: A couple readers have interpreted this post differently than I intended (such are the perils of NR Kremlinology). I think the editorials are generally great and persuasive. More important, I have no desire to write or work on any of them. Rather, I just think they reflect something more important than a random op-ed and would therefore make a good conversation starter around here.

According to the rules of the game, we can't play until we're invited. I choose to honor these rules for good conservative reasons and sloth, which can often be a good conservative reason. I learned about it at American Scene, followed the link to Matt Yglesias which actually explained the thing and after that, well, you can keep clicking to learn more. It's sort of the blog equivalent of one of those painting where the guy is painting himself painting himself painting himself....

It would be interesting -- in the sense of not really interesting but you'd listen if someone told you -- to know how long it takes a lefty blog meme to jump into a righty blog host and vice versa.

The BlogHer conference is a woman-centric conference on blogging to be held on July 30 in Santa Clara, CA: ...

"Subject: It's not the hands on the hips that you have to watch out for...
It's the pelvic thrusting...

"It's just a jump to the left.
And then a step to the right.
With your hands on your hips.
You bring your knees in tight.


But it's the pelvic thrust
that really drives you insane.


Let's do the Timewarp again!!!"

Can we safely assume that any re-enactment of Rocky Horror scenes/numbers by any diplomat is out of line?

Q: Frank, could we go back? Could you characterize your meeting with Bolton? Was he calm?

MR. FINGAR: No, he was angry. He was standing up.

Q: Did he raise his voice to you? Did he point his finger in your face?

MR. FINGAR: I don't remember if he pointed. John speaks in such a low voice normally. Was it louder than normal? Probably. I wouldn't characterize it as screaming at me or anything like that. It was more, hands on hips, the body language as I recall it, I knew he was mad.

“Rich,
Carl Ford's testimony really demonstrates the problem that any administration (not just the Bush administration) would have in trying to reform the intelligence bureaucracy.

I find it troubling that the intelligence analysis group, which is supposed to provide dispassionate analysis, is so emotional about an episode that occurred years ago. I find it extremely troubling that Ford seems to have gotten so upset because he failed in insulating `his’ analysts from dialogue with senior personnel. Several times, he said that anyone who had any problems with process or substance should talk to him. I think that transparency is at least as important in intelligence gathering as it is in other facets of government.”

From a reader:

Jonah, I'm normally linking every buddy I have to your articles by this point in the morning, cutting and pasting my favorite quips and quotes into chat windows, and ROFL'ing mightily all the while. I appreciate your keen wit and razor-like sarcasm like no other NRO contributor.

But this morning I'm taking issue with your criticism of Dr. James Dobson. My complaint is that you cite a single example of hyperbole, without even a cursory note he that backs his opinions with sound reason and historical perspective. In effect, you present the Supreme Court/KKK comment as sufficiently representative of Dobson's argument on judicial tyranny.

I believe you have slighted Dr. Dobson by presenting him exclusively in the harsh glare of rhetoric, something that would perhaps only befit a true charlatan like the Reverend Al Sharpton or Professor Ward Churchill. And, ultimately, discourse would be better served if you criticized his arguments on the merits of its logic and sourcing, which are abundantly present in both his radio and online formats.

Sorry folks. I had to pick up the wife and kid at the airport this morning. Then I had a meeting with a friend in the....West Wing. I can report that there weren't nearly as many people running around, bumping into each other, and dropping pieces of paper as there are in the TV version.

Now I have a very important deadline to meet. But I'll be back. Oh yes...I'll be back.

Former Representative NEWT GINGRICH (Republican, Georgia; Former House Speaker): I don't want to prejudge him, and I--my hope is that Tom will be able to prove his case. But I think the burden is on him to prove it at this stage.

GLORIA BORGER reporting:
And do you think he's doing that?

Mr. GINGRICH: I don't know yet. I think that the jury's out, and I think that he is going to have--you know, my only advice through friends has been that they have got to get everything out in the open, and they've got to understand that this is not something where fighting a delaying tactic does anything except to hurt his case.

BORGER: He's said that this is the liberal media going after him.

Mr. GINGRICH: Sure.

BORGER: You agree with that?

Mr. GINGRICH: Well, that's the famous Hillary Clinton defense, This is the vast left-wing cor--you know, conspiracy as opposed to her description of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

BORGER: So he's using...

Mr. GINGRICH: I'm saying when you're being attacked, the first thing you naturally do is you describe your attackers. In this case, that won't work. DeLay's problem isn't with the Democrats. DeLay's problem is with the country. And so DeLay has a challenge, I think, to lay out a case that the country comes to believe, that the country decides is legitimate. If he does that, he's fine.

Mr. Ford, however, said in the hearing, "I can't lay on Secretary Bolton the intelligence community's failure." He added, "It had nothing to do with Bolton."

Subject: comment from a U.S. dip who agrees with you.

As a dip overseas, saw something in a Wash Post editorial on Bolton which irked me and shows the misapprehension of so many on this issue. The Post said words to the effect that `Bolton so derides the organization he would serve.' Our ambassadors don't serve the orgs to which they are posted. They serve the U.S. and U.S. interests. More importantly, they are `the President's rep to the country/institution,' not just State Department careerists on another assignment. Small but valid point.

You could recover your coolness very easily: buy an IPOD, pin it to your chest then tap it occasionally, saying to it, “Uhura, are you there?”, and have it play “Africa”. Jonah would die on the spot.

Jeremy Kareken of NYC writes of NR’s NY fundraiser in Feb.:

Elbows and palms, what a sincere pleasure it was to rub and press them, respectively. All my heroes were there: from the delightful, Celt-zonian Kate O’Beirne…to that epitome of geek-chic Jonah Goldberg…. Thank you, National Review, for introducing me to libertarians, wonks, social conservatives, and econ-junkies. My brain and soul thank you, whilst my liver hopes you understand if it holds grudges.

Come to our Atlanta fundraiser—details here.

The opener from the NY Sun:

For 23 years, the Socialist Scholars Conference was a big tent under which leftist activists and academics took shelter in an increasingly conservative America. Last June, however, seven of the group's 16 board members resigned, "in protest of the lack of democratic and participatory governance procedures."

As a result of the split, the group's annual conference has been canceled, at least for this year. Meanwhile, the seven who quit the board quickly formed a new organization, the 2005 Left Forum, which has scheduled its debut conference for this weekend at the CUNY Graduate Center in Midtown Manhattan.

From a reader:

All this talk about referring to WWI before WWII reminds me I have some very old coins marked with the year 412 BC on them. Want to buy some?

I should add that I agree with the reader that on a personal level MacKinnon is quite nice (though, for the record, I'm sure she doesn't remember me). From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg-

I don't think Catherine MacKinnon needs me to defend her, but I think your remark that her most famous campaign was a failure is inaccurate. You focus your post on date rape and pornography and compare the success of those two efforts. But you ignore MacKinnon's most successful (and arguably most famous) campaign, which was against sexual harassment. Before MacKinnon, sexual harassment was not a term that most people had any familiarity with, let alone the basis for a civil or criminal prosecution. In large part thanks to her efforts, the term is now a part of every American's life and, for better or for worse, has drastically changed the way men and women interact in and out of the work place. (In fact, she has probably had more of an effect on American's lives than any almost any other lawyer in history.)

On one hand, you are right because she herself may be more widely noticed for her work on pornography. On the other hand, I think her efforts against sexual harassment are more famous (although fewer people may associate those efforts with her - if that makes sense) and are more important and worthwhile. She would probably disagree with me on that last part and say that pornography and sexual harassment are equal wrongs, although I won't put words into her mouth.

Full disclosure, MacKinnon was a law school professor of mine. Although I did not interact with her very much, I found her to be a very nice person. I also agree with her on many things, although I am too much of a radical on free speech issues to support her positions on pornography.

(Additionally, she allowed you to choose your own exam question from a list of about 20 that was given to you in advance, and one of those questions in essence allowed you to write your own question. Awesome.)

Thanks, I enjoy your posts.

Jonah,

Again, thanks for your visit to Northwestern U on February 28.

I've enjoyed your proposals for airborne-laser volcano piercing, but with a very serious subtext, as I have a morbid fascnination for VEI7+ events.

Ever since the December 26 Aceh earthquake (the tsunami-triggering one), and well before the March 29 and April 10 earthquakes, I was nervous about the significance of large earthquakes near Sumatra, which contains several volcanoes of historical significance (Toba, Krakatoa, etc.). Tambora is further down the chain in Sumbawa, between Java and Flores, but still within the area that could be affected by another quake further down the same fault line.

This has apparently been picked up by others.

Now, Talang is erupting today, along with several additional earthquakes in the region.

I'm not going to wait on the government to get my own home and family prepared -- wouldn't hurt to be as prepared as Mormons are -- but I think you'd agree we'd like to have options other than just waiting for the worst to happen. I hope they'd at least consider drilling many geothermal wells that could not only generate loads of electricity but also, just maybe, give a volcano an "easy way out" that could be less destructive.

In the meantime, you can sign up on an Australian volcanologist's website for Email bulletins of breaking news.

In the early days of television, the comedian Sid Caesar, playing a jubilant doughboy on Armistice Day at the end of what was then called the Great War, shouted, "World War I is over!"

The humor in that, of course, was its intentional anachronism: The name of the last century's first major war did not become World War I until 1939, at the outbreak of what was promptly named World War II. (In the coming issue of the language quarterly Verbatim, Kathleen Miller reports that some cynics were referring to "the First World War" as early as 1918. There has not yet been a Wilsonian war to end wars. However, the "II" usage has become popular in titling movie sequels.)

Jonah,

Tsk, tsk! Don't you remember the end of the Raiders of the Lost Ark? The Nazis thought that they could use the Ark for their own evil tasks, but were destroyed (or rather, melted) for their blasphemy. Although I don't really remember Temple of Doom too well, at the end of The Last Crusade, it was clearly impossible for an evil person to drink from the Holy Grail because he or she chose the chalice according to his or her evil character, and therefore would have not "chosen wisely".

Jonah,

DC had to have come up with the spear idea by ripping off Richard Wagner, who used that very same spear in his opera "Parsifal," which in turn was based on the German legend "Parzifal." In it, the spear (along with the Holy Grail) is the source of great powers of good; the heroic Knights of the Grail suffer greatly when the spear is stolen; their king (who has a permanent wound in his side) is healed by the spear after Parsifal regains it from the enemy. I had no idea DC was so classically minded!

warning against German rearmament in the 1930s. Another volcano fires a shot across the bow of humanity. How many more times must this happen before we accept the need for volcano-lancing technology?

Faster, please.

I might as well chime in on Dworkin. I met her too, albeit briefly. As some readers might recall, I went to Goucher college which had only really gone co-ed my freshman (freshperson?) year. Goucher was not overrun with angry feminist types, but it should hardly surprise anyone that in a school that small which had been all-women that they'd be over-represented. Anyway, I heard a talk by her in our small auditorium. I asked a question I do not remember. But she was unpleasent. Her talk was quite thoroughly anti-male. She was clearly playing to the audience and she left a poor impression on me. As did her writing. And, most of all, her effect on many of the young women I went to school with and some of the teachers I learned from was anything but admirable or edifying.

I'm sure she was partly the person David and Rick found her to be. But I don't think that was the whole person. That New York Sun obituary David links to covers the facts well enough. But in summary, I would say she cultivated a persona and a political partnership with Catharine MacKinnon (whom I've also met and talked to at length) et al. which perpetuated some horrendous cultural stereotypes of men as thugs and women as victims (and yes, fine, Dworkin didn't exactly say that "sex is rape"). She trafficked in what amounted to a neo-Victorian feminism -- women must be protected by the state from their own choices, etc. But Victorianism at least has charms to go with its faults. Dworkin's worldview lacked anything even remotely resembling charm. It was all bile, no frosting. That doesn't mean there aren't truths undgirding both worldviews: Men are sinful by nature, pornography is degrading, society needs rules (though not necessarily laws) to govern relations between the sexes, etc.

As for the sentiment expressed by both David and Rick that, despite her faults, she was authentic, "she really meant it," etc. I know where they're coming from and I agree that intellectual integrity is something to admire in almost all cases. But intellectual integrity is an attribute that cannot overwhelm character, or morality. The devil has intellectual integrity, as do all sorts of Stalinists, Nazis and other vile ideologues and useful idiots. I recall a wonderful interview a few years ago with Eugene Genovese about his days as a youthful Stalinist in academia. When asked if, in his younger days, he would have agreed to the mass executions of his friends and colleagues if the Communists gained power in America, he replied (I'm quoting from memory) "Oh, absolutely." Genovese grew out of that nonsense, which is an even greater sign of an even more admirable intellectual integrity.

This isn't to say Dworkin was a vile person. I get the sense that she was more damaged than deranged. But "She stuck to her convictions" isn't the greatest epitaph if her convictions were wrong.

Lastly, it's worth noting that Dworkin and MacKinnon were collosal failures in their most famous campaign: pornography. Whatever success they had in combating "date rape," and date rape sans-quotation-marks, it's hard to say since lots of people are against rape. But on the pornography front they failed spectacularly. Over the time they were working against pornography, pornography has become mainstream and vastly more profitable, glamorous and corporate. Perhaps if they hadn't struck such an unlikable, needlessly radical, but authentic! public pose -and behaved more like the woman David and Rick met, they might have had been more successful.

Then again maybe not.

These paragraphs seemed to me to be worth highlighting: "It is widely believed in Washington that the Tories are weak on Iraq. Here is what the Tory manifesto says on the topic: 'If a Conservative Government ever has to take the country to war, we will tell the British people why. Mr Blair misrepresented intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq, and failed to plan for the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's downfall. It is nevertheless the case that a democratic Iraq would be a powerful beacon of hope in a troubled part of the world. So we believe that Britain must remain committed to rebuilding Iraq and allowing democracy to take hold.'

"A little more measured and less passionate than Tony Blair's personal position — though a great deal more satisfactory than that of most Labor ministers and MPs — but firmly on the American side. On the longer-term and more vital question of the common European foreign and defense policy, moreover, the Tories are somewhat closer than Blair to the U.S. They would oppose the European constitution which imposes a common foreign policy and they believe that European cooperation in defense should occur only within the framework of NATO — a commitment on which Blair is very slippery.

"American conservatives and neoconservatives who pine for a Blair victory should consider two points. First, Blair is a personal phenomenon with a short remaining shelf-life. Within a few years he will be replaced by a leader, probably Gordon Brown, who is more reflective of his party. And, second, that a Labor victory even under Blair would entrench the European integration in defense and foreign policy that might deprive the U.S. of British (and Italian, and East European, and Baltic) support in some future Iraq crisis."

Jonah:

A recent episode of the "Justice League Unlimited" show on Cartoon Network dealt with this superheroes-interfering-in-the-affairs-of-sovereign-states theme, too: in it, the North Koreans (or perhaps the Chinese; I don't think it was exactly clear) build a ridiculously huge, nuclear-powered, radiation-leaking robot and accidentally lose control of it, causing it to stomp around the countryside irradiating everything in sight. Green Lantern, Captain Atom, Supergirl, and Green Arrow fly off to investigate, but the North Korean authorities, keen to cover the matter up, turn down their offer to help, insisting that they have everything under control. Green Lantern asks Martian Manhunter for advice, and wonders if the Justice League shouldn't simply destroy the robot over the protests of the North Korean government (it is, after all, probably killing thousands upon thousands of people with its deadly radiation even as they speak). Unbelievably, MM throws a fit, testily explaining that the Justice League can't go around helping people who don't want their help: that that would be akin to "imposing their will" over mankind.

I think if I were Green Lantern, I probably would have used my ring to generate an oversized hand with a middle finger extended at MM before flying off and saving countless innocent lives. Cartoons these days!

PS. The magic spear used by Hitler to keep Supes and the others at bay during WWII wasn't just ANY magic spear: it was the Spear of Destiny, the one used to pierce the side of Christ during the crucifixion. Not sure how DC came up with THAT one...

J-Go writes, "There was a time when mustaches were macho and certain men of alternative orientation sought to out-macho everyone else."

Don't forget the immortal exchange from the Simpsons episode "Much Apu about Nothing":

Homer: We're here, we're queer, we don't want any more bears!
Lenny: Hey, that's a pretty catchy chant. Where did you hear it?
Homer: Oh, I heard it at the mustache parade they have every year.

Clearly, I am outing myself as something here, but while it doesn't answer your WWII question, a couple of the current Superman series deal with a story lines in which Superman has involved himself in a middle-eastern war (a little vague on where, countries are fictional of course), also sort of covers the Palestine/Israeli and Iraqi war (but could be any similar war)- in the PLO/Israeli one- Superman basically disarms both sides of their guns and similar weapons at superspeed, only to have each side start to attack him and each other with rocks- get it- Superman can't make people stop killing each other. In this series (Lois lane his wife has disappeared along with perhaps millions of other people worldwide from some sort of superweapon being tested that randomly made people vanish -its latter discovered that its his device that sends people to the phantom zone-which now as an earthlike environment) - Anyway... and more importantly though and applicable to your posting is that -he and the other members of the justice league get into it at their moon base, because Superman broke an unwritten rule against interfering in acts of State, which could turn the world on them. Apparently Superman is acting out, asking for wide latitude and to be left alone, since he is grieving thinking Lois may be dead- which the Martin Manhunter calls him on as lots of people are grieving- Superman doesn't like being compared to them, which MM also calls him on, asking if Supes grief is somehow worse than others or his (MM being the sole survivor of Mars) [sort of a hint that Superman could go rogue if something bad enough happens and thinks he is somehow better than humans]- While they never actually show a fight, Aquaman is especially angry and goes with a large invasion force to the fortress of solitude (ships, wales, etc)- see Aquaman is the King/Emperor of Atlantis, a sovereign nation, so Superman overriding acts of State just because he can- makes Aquaman very angry, no fight occurs (or at least isn't shown- maybe latter in a flash back- one can hope)- basically just a stare down and a not very subtle warning to the Big S from Aquaman, to knock it off, Aquaman will not sit back while Superman interferes with sovereign countries affairs, especially his.

In the other line, Lois is shot while reporting in some Iraq like war, and Superman who apparently can hear Lois' heartbeat anywhere in the world goes to save her, taking her to a hospital until the justice league arrives to take her to their base for more advanced treatment, anyway, his arrival on the scene causes the enemy to ask for a cease-fire, thinking superman is going to help our side. Nothing comes of this story line (yet), other than Lois's suspension that US forces shot her to cause Superman to enter the battlezone, which he normally would not do.

Anyway- I figure you might care, not that DC doesn't still suck- but K.Lo seems to be giving you a break from the no comics posting. For a more interesting Superhero in modern wars or similar, you should see Marvel's Ultimate series -where the Avengers are considered America's supersoldiers and Europe is protesting the ideal of developing their own or their involvement in wars (they consider Captain America, Ironman, etc- as WMDs); also the X-Men, FF and others.

Ramesh's post highlights something that's been bugging me for a long time. Frist's decison to change the rules is not the nuclear option. The nuclear option is Harry Reid's. He can decide whether to respond nuclear-ly or not. If China invades Taiwan despite America's threat that we may use nuke's in response, by way of a terrible illustration, that doesn't mean China's decision to invade constituted a nuclear option. If we decided to respond with nukes it would. It is the Democrat's choice to "blow up" the Senate. The news that it's dawning on the Democrats that this was as much a dangerous bluff as it was a sure threat only serves to demonstrate that.

I'm hearing that Republicans now have at least 50 votes to change the rules--which means at least 51 if you add Cheney. Senator Byrd's hysteria helped pad the total.

And if Michael Crowley's reporting in the New Republic is correct--and I have no reason to think it isn't--the Democrats have no idea what to do about it. Senate Democrats have vowed to shut down the Senate if Republicans end judicial filibusters. But the Democrats don't want to be accused of shutting down the government or hindering national security, there aren't many Republican agenda items that they can block any more effectively than they already are blocking them, and Democrats want to get pork passed just as much as Republicans do. Crowley's conclusion: An "increasing number [of Democrats] are desperately hoping that Frist's bomb never detonates." So while the Republicans are almost guaranteed to get very bad press for ending the judicial filibuster, it's not clear whether they'll face serious retaliation from the Democrats.

A former chief of the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research castigated John R. Bolton on Tuesday as a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" who abused analysts who disagreed with his views of Cuba's weapons capabilities.

I always take these sort of generational predictions with a grain of salt.

Yes, I'm sure some generations have their own particular swings and dips. But isn't it just as likely that young people of any generation exhibit certain attitutudes that likely fade as they grow older?

I'm sure many Boomers in their 20s, for instance, thought marijuana would surely be legal by the time they were middle aged. That time has come and pot isn't legal but this fact doesn't seem to have many current-day Boomers marching in the streets.

Another example: Supposedly, many 20-something Boomers had their attitudes toward the military permanently shaped by the Vietnam War, yet I imagine most middle-aged Boomers have a different take on our military now -- how else do you explain the Republican emergence in suburban areas around the country over the past 20 years?

When I was in my 20s, I wasn't a practicing member of any organized religion; I was disinterested in religion in general. Now I'm 40 and I'm decidedly Roman Catholic.

I think you're right in saying Generation Y, X and the Boomers all crave(d) "choice." If some groups of people elevate the concept of choice to a higher level than others, however, this could be less generational than it is age-specific.

I'm on .... right now.

Ramesh - I agree with your point (and many of Engel's). But I'd also add that he leaves a lot out of the historical evolution of the word liberal. By the time FDR was president, never mind JFK, "liberal" had already changed profoundly and was characterized more by a faith in positive, largely economic, rights (think of FDR's "second bill of rights"). The Civil Rights movement was in an important sense a return to a liberalism grounded in traditional understandings of the word -- which is what gave it much of its moral authority; it was consistent with the best principles of the Declaration of Independence etc.

But as almost any leftwing academic will tell you today, many of the leaders of the civil rights movement, starting with King on down, believed in "economic justice" and the whole suite of positive rights that come with such things. Almost invariably that is the "unfinished legacy" of MLK they refer to. And because that agenda involves a liberalism-in-name-only which really means statism it hasn't been nearly as popular.

Joel Engel has a piece on the shifting meanings of the word liberal. He wants to retrieve the word for an older, better liberalism. Fair enough. And several of his specific points are reasonable. But a few of them go overboard in a way that weakens his force. Here is how he starts his litany of liberal betrayals of liberalism: "BUT ALAS, somewhere over the last two decades or so, liberalism lost its root as the word liberal was perverted to the point of Orwellian inversion--and therefore rendered meaningless. For example, rooting against the United States and for 'insurgents' who delight in slaughtering innocents is many things (stupid, for one, also sad, evil, and short-sighted), but it is assuredly not liberal. Decrying the American 'religious right' for advocating a 'culture of life' while simultaneously praising the neck-slicing Islamofascists is many things (start with pathetic), but it is not liberal. Calling 3,000 workers who died when the buildings fell 'little Eichmanns' is many things (vile, as well as repulsive and morally repugnant), but it is not liberal."

All of that is true--but most contemporary liberals would presumably agree with those sentiments. It may be that liberals should be criticized for not doing enough to distance themselves from people who hold these sentiments; but it is neither true nor fair, I think, to suggest that most liberals hold those sentiments themselves. And it advances no worthwhile cause to depict our society as more divided than it actually is.

Generation Y likes having "choices."

This is such shocking news! I remember how generation X craved a lack of choices. And, if memory serves, the modus vivendi of the babyboomers was to demand that all but the very worst choices be repealed from the cultural menu.

Isn't it possible that everyone likes choices in one form or another -- except the ones who don't -- and this latest round of generational astrologizing is so much confirmation bias?

I think there's a lot of interesting stuff in this article -- about the future of the culture war, etc -- but saying that some that studies prove some members of Generation Y will choose one thing and other members will choose the opposite renders the notion that there's a generational essence a bit moot. "All Generation Y kids love hot dogs with dijon mustard -- except the ones who don't!"

From a reader:

I may be out-geeking you here, but D.C. did do a storyline to answer that question in its retro WWII series "All Star Squadron" in the 1980s.

Hitler had a magic spear that turned magic-powered superheroes evil when
they got into its range. That took out all the most powerful heroes,
including the Big S because he is vulnerable to magic. The range just
happened to cover Western Europe and Asia, leaving Superman, the Spectre,
Green Lantern, Wonder Woman and most of the other heroes powerful enough to
end the war single-handedly on the sidelines while Batman, Dr. Midnight and
other human-level heroes were free to act abroad. Captain Marvel, who was
not a D.C. hero in the original conflict but was subsequently acquired, was
also covered in the retro series.

It isn't really any more stupid than anything else they came up with.

Two emails:

Dear Jonah:

From what I've read in pre-World War II books, the 1914-1918 conflict was generally referred to as "the World War."

Now what follows is a pet theory of mine, confirmed by no particular research. But I'm more or less convinced that the terms "World War I" and "World War II" began as Time-isms. That is, terms coined by Time Magazine when that particular magazine was fairly obnoxious about coining cutesie terms and streamlining journalistic prose. We don't realize it now because the terms are so familiar, but "World War I" and "World War II" are a bit odd and artificial-sounding, the creation of someone too clever by half, but just right for Time in that era.

What makes me think this is that some years ago, while researching published articles on Superman (of all things), I came across a Time article printed just after the German invasion of Poland, light-heartedly discussing the dilemma faced by the creators of an all-powerful fictional character in the light of real-world events. (That is, if he really existed, Superman could easily put a stop to the European war. So how do the strip's creators explain why he doesn't?) This was published in late '39, about as early as possible after the war broke out, and yet the article used the term "World War II." I don't know if the term was in use before that (as it might well have been, since the concept of a second world war looming in the near future was not unfamiliar in the late '30s), but it's amusing to think that the first use of "World War II" ever might have been in an article about Superman.

"World War Eye" was used in some time travel novel I once read. The heroine, a girl from the 1890s, is briefly brought forward to the present day, and while looking around the hero's apartment, asks about the title of some book on his shelves, "What's World War Eye?" The hero just feels dismay that he'll have to tell her what's going to happen to in the Twentieth Century...

And:

Don't let that correspondent diffuse any righteously pedantic outrage. Doesn't it always bother you that Star Trek races tended name their planet in reference to orbit number of their star, like "Legara IV" from TNG and "Camus II" from TOS? As if Earth is "Sol III." Unbelievable.

I'd note there is a small but significant difference between calling it "the first world war" and calling it "World War One." But this is still interesting.

From a reader:

"A favorite peeve of mine is when people in movies refer to "World War I"
before World War II takes place."

Well, they did refer to it as WW I before WW II happened.

"It was commonly called "The Great War" or sometimes "the war to end all
wars" until World War II, although the name "First World War" was coined as
early as 1920 by Lt-Col à Court Repington in The First World War 1914 ­18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world_war

"Wars are socially constructed, as are their names. The war known in some
circles as the Civil War or the War Between the States is also known in
other circles as the War of Northern Agression.

The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the phrase "world war" was first
noted in use in the 8 April 1909 edition of the Westminster Gazette.

The conflict that erupted in August 1914, and that ended at the 11th hour of
the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, was known at the time simply as the
Great War. In the United States, it was officially designated The World War.
On October 7, 1919, War Department General Orders No. 115 directed: "The war
against the Central Powers of Europe, in which the United States has taken
part, will hereafter be designated in all official communications and
publications as 'The World War.'" It was also called "The War to End All
Wars," but this optimism proved unjustified. Some would suggest that this
War was just the first phase of the Second 30 Years War, spanning the period
1914 - 1945.

The term "First World War" was used in 1920 by Lt-Col à Court Repington, in
his book The First World War 1914-18.

The phrase "World War 2" was first noted in use in Manchester Guardian on
18 February 1919. It seems that World Wars I & II were named together for
the first time by Time magazine on 11 September 1938."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4-name.htm

Chris Suellentrop wallops the dickens out of Sy Hersh for just saying whatever he pleases. A must read. The opener:

Since the Abu Ghraib story broke eleven months ago, The New Yorker’s national-security correspondent, Seymour Hersh, has followed it up with a series of spectacular scoops. Videotape of young boys being raped at Abu Ghraib. Evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be a “composite figure” and a propaganda creation of either Iraq’s Baathist insurgency or the U.S. government. The active involvement of Karl Rove and the president in “prisoner-interrogation issues.” The mysterious disappearance of $1 billion, in cash, in Iraq. A threat by the administration to a TV network to cut off access to briefings in retaliation for asking Laura Bush “a very tough question about abortion.” The Iraqi insurgency’s access to short-range FROG missiles that “can do grievous damage to American troops.” The murder, by an American platoon, of 36 Iraqi guards.

Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!” In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation.

Every writer understands that there is a gap between the print persona and the actual self, but Hersh subscribes to a bright-line test, a wider chasm than is usually acknowledged, particularly in today’s multimedia age.

Maybe Al Franken should reissue his book with a new foreward?

One question: Are other NRO-niks really out in front in their support for Intelligent Design? If they are I hadn't noticed. My guess is quite a few of the gang around "here" don't care much about it one way or the other. But I've never really seen it is as major NR issue one way or the other.

I agree with Ramesh and Jonah on the Corner regarding the Pope's positions that defy simple right/left categorization. I think that it is a mistake to dub the Pope paradoxical, however. It is the parties that have the paradoxes. The Pope's positions are all in sympathy with one another. Why oppose totally unregulated free markets? Because they degrade human beings. Why oppose communist domination? Because it degrades human beings. The Pope's positions moderate the worst passions of both parties. The current challenges for modern civilization (and the church) which are so well described in the Derbyshire piece mentioned below, may be all the more challenging in that left and right are both more aligned against the church teaching than in these previous battles (where perhaps one party would adopt the church's position). Consider stem cell research on human embryos. If the principle of human dignity is to be upheld (and applied to embryos as the church would have it) then embryonic stem cell research should not only be unfunded--it should be illegal. Neither party has the political stomach for that, which suggests that the political center of the brave new world debates is much further away from the church's teaching than on say, social safety nets or abortion. On biotech--and many related issues--it appears that neither party genuinely wants to stand with the church. None of that changes the fundamentally un-paradoxical nature of the Pope's teaching.

Your earlier correspondent is a little confused. While Cameron Diaz hosted SNL last week, the huge roar for "Ann Coulter" went up because she was being played by Drew Barrymore, a surprise guest whose appearance on the show had not been announced. The audience was, at that point, pre-disposed to happy-happy-joy-joy, as the sketch - the very funny "Barry Gibb Talk Show" - also featured two other surprise appearances, former cast member Jimmy Fallon and heartthrobby former host (and Diaz boyfriend) Justin Timberlake.

The lukewarm claps for DeLay I think we can chalk up to, "Huh? Who?" It's not like he's a big name outside of political circles. Heck, most folks here in Houston have no idea who the man is.

Saturday Night Live audiences are usually reliably liberal, cheering on cue at each leftitst dig. But on Saturday, Tina Fey's snarky comments on Tom Delay got only a handful of claps, while an enormous roar went up when Cameron Diaz appeared as Ann Coulter. Signs of change, perhaps, or just a bunch of flyover tourists in the audience?

Today, the reasons for Hollywood's disengagement are not all that different, according to Lawrence O'Donnell, an MSNBC political analyst and a writer and producer for "The West Wing." Like many of the city's wealthiest residents, he said, the Hollywood elite doesn't rely on local government for much.

"We have to remember, these people generally do not use the public school system," he said. "They generally do not rely on the local police force for their security. They have their own … that are much better and more efficient."

The Pope's *religious* legacy was mana from heaven for conservatives. Actual Catholicism. What a concept.

The Pope's *political/economic* views were often, um, wrong. So what? They were mostly harmless.

It's like finding out that your capable, honest auto mechanic listens to heavy metal music. It's irrelevant, and seems to be an occupational hazard.

From Byron's piece (link on the homepage):

To make a comparison: Which film had a better opening weekend, Fahrenheit 9/11 or Barbershop 2: Back in Business? The correct answer is Barbershop. In terms of opening receipts, Mean Girls also beat Fahrenheit 9/11, as did Starsky & Hutch, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, Alien vs. Predator, 50 First Dates, and several others. The year’s big hits, like Shrek 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Spiderman 2 all had openings between four and five times the size of Fahrenheit 9/11’s. In the end, Fahrenheit 9/11 had the 32nd-best opening weekend of 2004, taking in $23,920,637 in its first days.

This reader illuminates how behind I am on the latest research on Charlemagne. I plead guilty. NRO readers are awesome:

Dear Jonah

I enjoyed your column on Pope John Paul 2nd, and was interested by your
allusion to Leo 3rd and the Imperial coronation of Charlemagne. I think your
point is right, but in despite of your assertion that Leo was ‘forced’ to
crown Charlemagne.

There is strong evidence that Leo sprang the coronation on Charlemagne
precisely so that the imperial crown was seen to be the gift of the papacy,
and thus in a world where the divide between spiritual and temporal power
was somewhat murky give the Papacy very important powers over and above the Holy Roman Emperor.

That Charlemagne aspired to this title is beyond doubt, that he wanted it
conferred and therefore approved by the pope is I believe unlikely - rather
he would have rather taken it himself in the manner of other Emperors and
thus avoided the ‘notion that even kings were answerable to a higher
authority’.

I could try and make this a relevant and interesting email by cross
referencing the desire of Charlemagne to abjure all higher authority – and
his chagrin when a politically astute pope out manoeuvred him – with the
modern liberal reactions to the demise of the late Pope, but to be honest I
was really motivated by sharing a somewhat esoteric thought.

Best regards – and apologies for consuming time probably better spent
mulling over the challenges of social security reform or other such modern
matters!

Mr. Goldberg - Something I have noticed, regrettably, for the last thirty years or so, is that Republicans are almost always too slow to react to attacks, appear to be on the defensive most of the time, and lack something I call the "Atwater gene".

Once again, the Democrats have launched a carefully planned, choreographed and executed assault on one of our very best people, Rep. Delay, and here we are, sitting and waiting for the next wave of attacks rather than counter-attacking with everything we've got.

Every attack on Delay was predictable -- heck, it was even announced by Rahm Emmanuel months ago -- and we certainly should have (or at least could easily have) a mountain of data proving that Democrats (think: Harry Reid) have not only done everything Delay has done, but have bent and shredded every ethics requirement ever conceived by Congress!

Why then, are we not calling press conferences, complete with charts and graphs and photos, of Democrats doing everything Delay has done, and much more?? Why are we not attacking the very publicly debauched and corrupt behavior of Sen. Edward Kennedy? How about Nancy Pelosi?

I want to see your wonderful online publication put all of your formidable muscle behind a counter-assault and behind Rep. Delay, who just happens to be a very nice man and one heck of an effective champion of everything conservative.

Look, they couldn't get President Bush because, in the end, his character is well known by Americans, even ones who don't pay much attention. Now, they've trained their sights on a victim who is unknown by most, and if we don't stand up, bare our teeth and support this man, they just might get him.

Then what will we do? Sit around waiting for the next victim? You cannot fight aggressiveness with luke-warm words of support. You have to get dirty with them and kick their teeth in. Make them so afraid of what will happen to them, that they never, ever again go after one of ours.

Do something!!!!

Gentlemen--and you are all gentlemen (for now! But I’m getting ahead of myself again!)--I know that when you think of the words “Supreme Pontiff” you don’t automatically think of “Bill Clinton,” but I want you to take a deep breath, close your eyes, and just let the words “Pope Bill I” sound in your ears.

Talk about redemption! Talk about Christ’s everlasting love! Talk about the transforming power of God’s light! Pope Bill I would be a shining beacon, an example, an apotheosis, if you will, of the power and majesty of the Church.

Couple of bumps. One, I’m not a Roman Catholic. . .

Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton faced tough questioning Monday from Senate Democrats on his nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Republicans were looking for swift approval from the Foreign Relations Committee.

The London Spectator does not, incredibly, allow access to its web site these days even to subscribers (like me) of its print edition unless they pay an extra charge, and that’s a shame because it means that Matthew Parris’ brilliant – and curiously moving - article on the Church of England won’t get the readership it deserves.

It’s never easy to explain the traditional English attitude to religion (which used to find many an echo over here too) to those outside Albion, but Parris (an atheist, as it happens) does as well as I’ve ever seen:

”The Established Church…understood in her bones two great truths: the English are wary about religion; but the English do not want to be atheists. To the English mind, atheism itself carries an unpleasant whiff of enthusiasm. To the English mind, the universe is a very mysterious thing and should be allowed to remain so. And so the English church became what up to our own day it has always remained: a God-fearing receptacle for intelligent doubt; the marrying of a quietist belief in order, duty, decency and the evident difference between right and wrong with a shrewd suspicion that anyone who thinks he can be sure of more than that is probably dangerous…That right at the center of [English] national life, should for so long have stood this great and lovely edifice of sort-of religion, adorned (through her buildings, her rituals, her art and her music) with so much beauty, so much grace and so much balm for troubled spirits, and served in her priesthood by so many luminously decent men, has surely for centuries helped confound atheism on the one hand, and serious religious enthusiasm on the other. Not so much religious belief as religious relief, this has calmed everybody down. “You really don’t need to decide,” has been Anglicanism’s refrain, “and besides, who knows?”

Amen

Before Mulder there was MacArthur, General Douglas MacArthur. The penultimate London Spectator quotes from a speech that MacArthur made to West Point cadets in 1955:

“The next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.”

Obviously he had seen the wreckage of the Roswell spacecraft.

He knew.

Arjan at Zacht Ei has details of what looks to be a most remarkable court decision. Judge for yourselves.

President Khatami was in Rome for the Pope’s funeral. Smiles and handshakes all round. Here, however, is the reality of the country he heads:

”Christian Persecution watchdog groups are protesting the upcoming trial of an Iranian church leader of an Assemblies of God congregation in the southern port city of Bandar-i-Bushehr in Iran. The lay pastor, 47-year-old Hamid Pourmand, is to go before a Sharia court next week on charges of apostasy from Islam and proselytising Muslims. The former charge is punishable by death.”

Hat-tip Harry

Via Reuters:

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Wednesday pulled a political ad that ran on Google Inc. when Web searchers typed in the acronym for American International Group Inc., a prosecutorial target of the crime-busting gubernatorial candidate. During Wednesday morning and early afternoon, Google searchers who typed in the key word "AIG" were delivered a search ad at the top right of the results page that read "Spitzer for NY Governor." People who clicked on that ad were sent to www.spitzer2006.com. "It wasn't appropriate and as soon as Mr. Spitzer found out about it, he had it removed it as soon as possible," Darren Dopp, a spokesman for the NY attorney general, told Reuters. Dopp said it appeared that a relatively low-level campaign staffer responsible for promoting Spitzer's campaign Web site made a mistake and put in the AIG key word."

Handy things, those ‘relatively low-level campaign staffers’, aren’t they?

The Financial Times plays Pravda to Brussels’ Kremlin, so it is always interesting to see which letters to the editor it decides to publish. Right at the top of the selection this weekend was a screed by Sir Roy Denman, a prominent British bureaucrat whose career has included a stint as the EU’s ‘ambassador’ to Washington. The letter is a priceless piece of high-flown mandarinese, elegant, eloquent and thoroughly misleading.

Sir Roy is worried that Britons will vote no when they are (finally) given the chance to vote on the EU Constitution. He notes that “even if France votes No on May 29, it will not help Britain…There will be a general disposition to make sufficient changes to allow France another vote. When it then votes Yes, conscious of the dangers of French isolation, France and Germany may well propose going ahead definitively without the UK.”

Translation: a ‘no’ vote by the French people will be unacceptable to Brussels.

I wonder what French voters will think of that.

As for Denman’s hysterical comments (less influence than Norway!) on the UK’s international position if it chose to stay out of Eutopia, they would be laughable if they were not so sad.

Read the whole thing.

Could Head and Shoulders save the planet?

“Millions of tons of dandruff are circling the Earth, blocking out sunlight, causing rain and spreading disease, startling new research shows.”

For those following the ratification process of the proposed EU ‘constitution’ most of the focus has been on the vote in France, which is due on May 29th. At the moment, the noes are nicely ahead there, benefiting from a wide – and often conflicting – range of factors (some noes, for instance, see the EU as too free market, others as too interventionist), as well as an entirely justified suspicion that the French political establishment is ganging up on the French people to try and force the wretched document through.

But it’s also worth watching what’s going on in the Netherlands. There’s been almost no debate in that country, but polls there seem to be showing a trend there too towards the noes (the Dutch vote on June 1st), albeit against an atmosphere of tremendous apathy. That apathy might well be the best ally that the yes camp has, and is, probably, being deliberately encouraged by the main political parties. Most Dutch feel it is a civic obligation to vote, even on issues they don’t care much about, and the natural inclination of such apathetic voters will be to vote according to the recommendations of their party – and, in almost all cases, that’s for a yes.

That, needless, to say would be a shame. The No campaign needs to be doing a lot more. It’s not as if the EU hasn’t thrown up a number of issues – from widespread corruption to the goings on at the EU’s nuclear facility at Petten – that should unite many Dutch, of all political affiliations, or none, in an effort to deny Brussels yet more power to abuse.

More from the London Sunday Times:

"Welcome to the banana republic of Blackburn, the northern town where, according to one parliamentary candidate, citizens’ votes are no longer their own. This week Craig Murray, a former diplomat hoping to become the local MP, will be writing to the Electoral Commission to raise his fears of vote-rigging in the constituency. The soaring numbers of people voting by post, he said, are leaving the election wide open to fraud. “I’ve been approached by several people in the Asian community who are under huge pressure from Labour activists to apply for a postal vote rather than a ballot vote and then hand their postal vote over to the Labour party,” he said. “That is happening now in Blackburn on a wide scale. In my career as a diplomat I’ve been used to precisely this situation abroad but wasn’t expecting to face it in the UK.” In Blackburn the contest is particularly tense. The sitting MP is Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and the local Muslim community is threatening to vote him out in protest over the Iraq war. In its efforts to hang on to every vote it can, Labour is urging people to register for postal votes; already 50% more people than in 2001 will be using the system in Blackburn this time. Many of them, claimed Murray, are facing pressure or even threats of “repercussions” intended to influence who they support. The allegations in Blackburn are by no means isolated. The British electoral system, once the envy of the world, is under unprecedented fire...The police are also conducting investigations in Woking, Burnley, Reading, Peterborough, Oldham, Bradford and Halton. Critics blame the scandal on Labour’s changes to the system, which now allows anyone to ask for a postal vote. Thrown on the defensive last week Tony Blair insisted: “Overall, the postal voting system is no more prone to fraud than other electoral systems....” The loopholes were all too clear to Labour activists in Birmingham during the local elections last year. Some candidates for the council had obtained thousands of blank postal voting forms and set up a secret fraud factory in a warehouse. Corrupt postmen handed over sacks of postal ballots to Labour candidates, tricked voters into parting with blank forms and paid small boys to steal postal ballots from letterboxes."

Don’t worry Tony, I’m sure that you can persuade Jimmy Carter to testify that the election was ‘free and fair,” and the BBC can probably be relied upon not to say too much.

Looks like a job for the British blogosphere to me.

Regular readers here will remember the strange tale of the Labour Party and postal vote ‘irregularities’ in the course of local elections in the UK.

Now the Sunday Times reveals this:

"MINISTERS ditched a bill to combat postal voting fraud even though leaked cabinet minutes show they agreed it was essential to make the electoral system secure. The papers show that a cabinet committee chaired by Peter Hain, the Commons leader, decided that the safeguards were “clearly needed” to prevent electoral fraud in postal votes. Ministers went so far as to draw up a bill but then dropped it after a government-commissioned study showed it would reduce the turnout of key Labour voters such as the young and poor. The disclosure will reignite the row over postal voting. It follows a senior judge’s warning last week that the British electoral system is now wide open to fraud and would “disgrace a banana republic”."

That Tony Blair’s rule has been marked by abuses of power is no secret, but that it may have descended into outright electoral fraud is, well, disappointing, and something to remember the next time you hear him pontificating about the spread of democracy.

With elections coming on May 5th, the Tories need to be on this story, relentlessly.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah:

You mentioned in passing in pointing out the truly obvious (that NRO is
one of the best places on the web for free spirited debates that may be
for or against the Bush administration) that most NRO people were against
the Medicare drug bill.

I recently reeturned from the conference of the Association of Private
Enterprise Education (home of various free-marketeers, conservatives,
objectivists, small government foks, Austrian Economists, libertarians,
etc etc). Your own Jonathan Adler was present for a couple of panels. One
presenter (and I'm very sorry that I can't recall which one, so you may
not want to use this piece) made the following very interesting point. He
couldn't figure out conservative opposition to the Medicare drug bill
because a ) the entitlement was to treatment and was founded at the birth
of Medicare; and b ) the orginal refusal to pay for drugs was, in effect,
a price control.... a price ceiling of $0 that inefficiently biased
physician and patient choices for achieving the actual entitlement
(treatment) towards non-pharmaceutical intervention. I'd never heard this
argument on the Corner, and I thought you might find it interesting. Have
you ever heard this argument? Do you think it makes sense? Does anyone
know whether there is any evidence to suggest the amount of savings from
rationalizing the treatment incentives? Are the rationalizing savings
swamped by the costs of additional utilization?

I guess the best analogy I can think of here is when conservatives
supported expanding medicare and medicaid benefits to certain types of at
home care---were they supporting a new entitlement or recognizing the
inefficiency of a system that biased treatment towards in-hospital care.
Did total costs for this type of service go up or down? Or suppose a food
entitlement program covered beef and pork but not chicken. If a
conservative said "this is silly, let people have the broadest choice
possible" would they be favoring an expanded entitlement (chicken) or
trying to eliminate a distortion? What this suggests is that the real
problem with the drug bill is not that it creates "a new entitlement" but
rather that it looks so very much "fee for service." But that leads
directly into debates about the other parts of that bill and elsewhere
---- the future role of managed care in medicare, which I'm sure that
some people understand, but not me.

Sincerely,

Please don't use my name,

[Name withheld]

PS I have a PhD in Economics and I think Brad de Long is mistaken on
every count. The only reason I'm not adding a point by point reply is
that your other readers have eloquently made the same points I would have
made. However, if you want ammunition on who wants to control whose life,
how about: Hillary Care, Jimmy Carter and the thermostats, extreme
interpretations of endagered species acts affecting how private owners
can use their land, minimum wage laws, rent controls, telling Catholic
hospitals and charities what they can and not not offer their employees,
telling me how to invest 12 percent of my income for "retirement,"
telling a high school student what they can and cannot say over the
loudspeaker before a football game, college "speech codes," marginal tax
rates, obsessively controling local zoning....just for starters.

I’m no great fan of the monarchy, and even less of an admirer of Prince Charles, but it’s hard not to feel sorry for the way in which he has been treated by Britain’s media (and a good chunk of its population) in the run-up to his marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Yes, Camilla is (as the British press seem to take great – and cruel - delight in pointing out) no great beauty, particularly when compared with Lady Di, but what of it? She and Charles are obviously devoted to each other and she, it appears, has a great deal of the commonsense, good manners and tact that Charles so obviously lacks. She’ll likely do him – and the House of Windsor – a great deal of good.

Good luck to them both.