The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .

Hispanics Back Estrada


More On Battleships


Further corrections; a reader e-mails (actually, I have many emails along these lines overnight):

Sorry to correct even further, but ALL the battelships have been decommissioned. Wisconsin could possibly be re-commissioned, but Iowa, New Jersey and Missouri have been either damaged (Iowa, 1987 explosion) or demilitarized for museum display to an extent that they would be really, really hard to reactivate. Damn it.

Here’s the Navy’s battleship-status list.


Roger That!


A great column by Roger Kimball on the myth of Iraqi antiquity destruction, in today’s Wall Street Journal. Read it here.

Web Briefing: July 31, 2014

D.C. Immigrants


A minor reason why immigration reform may be so difficult to achieve: Immigrants in the D.C. area are the most successful foreign-born people in America, in terms of their English-speaking ability and poverty rates, according to a new study. Is it possible that many lawmakers (and others) in Washington receive a distorted view of the situation? I’m actually a supporter of generous immigration levels, but this made me wonder about causes and effects.


Who Knew? Larry King, Probing Journalist!


Hillary Clinton’s answers were terrible, but Larry King wasn’t throwing her softballs. Here’s a sampling of his questions (and here is the transcript, in case you want to bother with her answers):

KING: Clear up something for us. You’ve written this details of how he told you, the morning he told you, the grand jury. Others are saying you had to know before. There’s a book out that said David Kendall told you before. Now no one knows it better than you.

KING: What do you make of the stories that you knew before?

KING: Didn’t read the paper?

KING: Didn’t watch the news?

KING: So when he told you is when he told you?

KING: A few more items. Why did you not discuss the pardons?

KING: Didn’t you as citizen have some thoughts about it?

KING: Didn’t bother you at all?

KING: How did the Rose Law Firm’s Whitewater billing arrive into the White House?

KING: You don know how they got there?

KING: How do you feel about Susan McDougal?

KING: In the Senate yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff came up to be a federal court appeals judge. The vote was 88-1. You were the one.

KING: Why?

KING: So you didn’t think him worthy of a judgeship then?

KING: Could have skipped the vote, couldn’t you?

KING: So you were making a statement?

KING: Would you describe the marriage today as strong and healthy? Or am I putting words in your mouth?

Just Making Sure...

Text all read the Victor Davis Hanson Q&A.

Ain’t Afraid of No Schumer


More Pryor highlights:

When Schumer asked Pryor whether he stands by an earlier comment calling the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,” Pryor said he still believes that.

Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked the nominee whether he would vigorously follow Roe v. Wade as current law, even though he opposes it.

“You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman,” Pryor said.

Pryor Pile-On


From what I saw in some replays last night, Bill Pryor did a remarkable job yesterday in front of the rabidly hostile Senate Judiciary Committee. (Byron will have a piece later this morning.) Here’s a sense of what he was dealing with:

Schumer: “I am disappointed to say that [Judge Pryor] resembles the nine nominees I have voted against. In many ways he is an amalgamation of [Bush's recent nominees]. He looks like Sutton on states rights issues. And he looks like Kuhl and Owen on women’s rights. He is a stitching together of the worst judges I have opposed.”

Schumer: “It’s not enough to say ‘I will follow the law.’…I need to see that your personal ideology won’t influence your decisions.”

Schumer: “[Pryor's] beliefs are so deeply held that it’s very difficult to believe those views won’t influence how he follows the law. A person’s views matter.”

Schumer: “I find it difficult to believe his incredibly strong ideology won’t impact how he rules.”

Schumer: “I believe a judge can be pro-life and follow Roe v. Wade. Some people can separate their personal views. But not everyone can pull this off. I’ve got some real concerns that [Pryor] can’t.”

Schumer: “Your record screams passionate advocate, but doesn’t so much as whisper judge.”

Schumer: “I don’t think ideological warriors should predominate on the bench. If we have a Supreme Court justice nominee, I hope he looks like Richard Wessley, and less like he comes straight out of the Right-Wing Wheel House.”

Schumer: “Pryor has a long way to go to prove he is a fair and impartial judge.”

Schumer: “When you believe abortion is murder, how can you convince the public that you are capable of being fair?”

Feinstein: “I believe one can be a strong advocate and can be a good, impartial judge. But in this case, my theory is put to the test. In virtually every area, you have strong beliefs. Your comments on Roe make one wonder if you could step aside from those views.”

Kennedy: “You want to roll back the Constitution to fit your agenda. You’re an advocate so extreme that your statements at times are intemperate.”

Perle On The Iranian Mullahcracy


“I think we should be encouraging its failure.”

Monitoring Foreign Seaports


I think I kinda assumed we were doing this already.

I Spoke Too Soon


The answer to

Third, Third and a Half, Fourth International


“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

My Other Email


There was an episode of Cheers where the gang goes bowling. Norm ducks into the bowling alley bar and the regulars there all shout “Norm!” When Norm returns to the Cheers gang, they ask what was up with that. He says, “I do have a life you know” — or something like that. Well, I have another “life” as a syndicated columnist. I get very different email over there, because my syndicated column appears in newspapers around the country and hence is read by more liberals and the like than NRO (NRO has lots of liberal readers, but most of them tend to be people genuinely interested in reading the other side’s point of view).

Anyway, my column on the DNC layoffs appeared in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Here’s a typical response:

Dear Right Wing Propaganda Tool,

What a joke you are maligning the DNC, lame as it may be, about reverse racism (the DNC 10). Let’s not forget, YOUR party is the party of Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc. etc. YOUR party just got Sonny Perdue elected in Georgia on the promise of reinstating the Confederate Battle Flag. YOUR party got black voters DROPPED FROM THE ROLLS to elect Bush in 2000. YOUR party does not have one African-American representative in congress nor a senator. YOUR party uses code words like “state’s rights” to get out the southern white racist vote.

Using your ill-gotten Inquirer platform to harangue the DNC about racism is so typical of the blistering, festering HYPOCRISY that makes up right wing ideology. At some point people will see through it, and you and your kind will be exposed as the liars you know you are.

[Name withheld]

The Name Says It All


Battleship Mea Culpa


A reader corrects me:

First, let me say that I am a huge fan and faithful reader of all things NR. So it pains me to have to send this correction: There are no “battleships” currently deployed to the Persian Gulf, or anywhere else. A “battleship” is a specific type of warship, of which the U.S. Navy has only three that are currently commissioned (four, if you count the U.S.S. Missouri). All are essentially on display somewhere, and are not ready for active duty. Whenever I hear this, it sets my teeth to grinding at a furious rate. John Scott on FNC used this term so much, I had to go see the dentist. I have the same reaction to the term “fighter jets”. It sounds like a fourth-grader talking. My teeth and I would be grateful (sorry) if you would pass this tidbit on to everyone else.

Carlos Manuel in America


One of Cuba’s most popular singers defects (and I heard it from CNN!).



That stands for “Link via Howard Bashman,” as in How Appealing, the web’s ultimate legal blog.

Title Ix Survives


The U.S. District Court for D.C. dismissed the lawsuit brought by male athletes and coaches against Title IX. The entire 100+ page opinion is available here. (LvHB)

Ponnuru On Caldwell


I like the idea that one can read something and end up knowing less about the subject matter afterwards. It reminds me of the “Trouble with Tribbles” episode of Star Trek where the animals starved to death by eating vast amounts of the poisoned quadrotriticale. Anyway, I agree there are big problems with the piece. I was really just trying to keep my powder dry until I wrote about it — and be cordial to Caldwell. But I do think the piece is worth reading and I do think it’s interesting. It’s interesting because it further bolsters the complaint — fair or unfair — against the Standard as a champion of statist conservatism. It’s worth reading because it reveals how one would go about fixing the problem (and I do think spam is a problem) once you decide that Uncle Sam is the right handyman.

Re: Caldwell On Spam


I’m generally a fan of Christopher Caldwell, but I cannot agree with Jonah’s assessment that the article is worth reading even if you disagree with it. I think that by the time you finish it you know less about the subject, in important ways, than when you began. But I think NRO has a rebuttal in the works.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review