December 29, 2003, 1:03 a.m.
The trial bar, revealed. An attack in a mosque. The disgraceful General Clark — etc.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're not going to believe this — well, actually, you probably will, if you've been following life in America over the last couple of decades. I will simply quote a story from CNSNews.com (if you've read Dave Shiflett's NRO piece, you've already been briefed):

"A new guide for trial lawyers advises them to be wary of Americans with 'extreme attitudes about personal responsibility' when selecting jurors in personal injury lawsuits. The author of the guide says such jurors typically 'espouse traditional family values' and often 'have strong religious beliefs.' . . . 'It is helpful to divide the jurors into two groups: the personal responsibility group and compassion-altruistic group,' [trial lawyer David] Wenner wrote. 'Jurors who are extreme on the personal responsibility bias, or who have a high need for personal responsibility, will strongly favor the defendant. In contrast, jurors who are extreme on the compassionate-altruistic bias, or who have a high need for compassion, will strongly favor the plaintiff.'"

Etc., etc. Isn't it nice when the news confirms what you already know, undoubtedly, is true? Every day brings fresh evidence of what Gertrude Himmelfarb labeled "one nation, two cultures." And ATLA — the Association of Trial Lawyers in America — is a flagship of a culture to which many of us simply don't belong (or rather, from which many of us would like to dissent).

Memo to you personal-responsibility freaks: Grow up, will you? Or at least stay off juries!

A remarkable event occurred, of which we should all take note. In Jerusalem, the Egyptian foreign minister went to Al Aqsa mosque to worship. He was attacked by Palestinians . . . and had to be rescued by the Israeli police. There is so much in this story — so much that is illustrative — the mind reels.

Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher (no relation to Bill, as far as I know) stepped into the mosque with only his (Egyptian) bodyguards — of course, no Israeli protector could defile that place. Maher was then physically attacked by a mob accusing him of being a sell-out, an Arab Uncle Tom. (Understand that in much of the Middle East, an Uncle Tom is someone who doesn’t want to burn Israel to the ground right today.) The mob was too great for the Egyptian bodyguards alone. Israeli police, duly waiting outside, rushed into the mosque and extricated the terrified foreign minister (the photos tell it all). Then Mr. Maher was taken by an Israeli ambulance to an Israeli hospital for treatment. Prime Minister Sharon phoned with his concern and best wishes.

All of this, of course, is deeply humiliating to many Egyptians, and to many Arabs generally: that the foreign minister of the most important Arab state should have to be saved from savages by Israelis — by Jews. Naturally, the story was put out quickly that these weren’t Arabs who attacked Maher, but Jews! Then — when that proved too fanciful, even for the Middle East — it was put out that the Jews had provoked the attack on the foreign minister.

Nevertheless, most Arabs knew precisely what had occurred (we may safely assume), even if it was painful to admit.

This little episode provides so much to ponder — about intra-Arab relations, about international relations, and about the nature of Israel — it could last you for weeks.

Ready for this one? It's an oldie-but-goodie — or rather, a renewal of an oldie-but-goodie, because it comes from Sunday's New York Times Sunday Magazine.

An article about the Columbia University figure David Truman said, "To Truman, a lifelong liberal shaped by the evils of Nazism, Stalinism and McCarthyism . . ."

Ah, yes — the familiar triumvirate. Nazism, Stalinism, and McCarthyism. Ponder that for a second. It's rather like saying cancer, AIDS, and acne. And did you catch that "Stalinism" instead of "Communism"? Don't ever let them put that one over, guys. "Stalinism" is the preferred term of those who imagine that Stalin's reign constituted some dramatic departure from good ol' Soviet Communism. In fact, it was the essence of it.

Gen. Wesley Clark continues to stain his reputation. He is prominent among those who peddle the nonsense that taking on Iraq somehow "distracted" us from al Qaeda, constituting a "shift of resources" — an inane, groundless line.

Last week, Clark said, "A wise leadership would not have put us into Iraq at this time. Instead we'd have concentrated on Osama bin Laden."

How do you "concentrate" on him (if he is in fact still alive — and even if he isn't)? What makes Clark imagine that the choice is either-or: either "do" Saddam or "do" Osama? But this is the preferred line of those who opposed the Iraq campaign, and they have revved it up, because, inconveniently for them, the U.S. captured Hussein, whereas bin Laden's fate is still unknown.

For me, President Bush answered this question decisively, when he said, about bin Laden, "If he's dead, we got him. If he's not, we'll get him."

Does Wesley Clark really believe that the government is slacking it on bin Laden — that we are not doing all we can to find him, or to determine his status?

Continued Clark, last week, "We knew who attacked this country on 9/11 and it was not Saddam Hussein, it was Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network. We should have gone after that network and we should have gone after it directly instead of taking half the United States Army and putting it in Iraq and using $150 billion and distracting us from our world leadership in the war on terror."

Parse this a bit: We should have gone after that network and we should have gone after it directly. Did Clark somehow miss the Afghan campaign? Did he miss the destruction of the Taliban — al Qaeda's chief patron — and the utter disruption and dispersal of al Qaeda? Did he think his audience missed it? And does he doubt that we killed as many al Qaeda as we could, and are continuing to do so?

Another question: How could the U.S. Army (instead of special operatives) hunt for bin Laden, or, for that matter, further the destruction of al Qaeda? That, unfortunately, is not a job for an army, not at this point: It is trickier and more shadowy than that.

Then there is the sad fact that Clark sees no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. If a person doesn't see that by now, he is probably ineducable.

I wouldn't have guessed that, of all the Democratic candidates, the highly decorated general would be the most disgraceful, but it seems that way.

And that is not even touching on his absurd and despicable statement that, "If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time." What decent person, even if he believed it, would say it? As a candidate?

Yes, Wes, and if only I'd had the right instructor as a boy, I'd be dominating the PGA Tour now.

John Kerry's no prize either (in case you forgot). Campaigning last week, he said, "I tell you, if I was president, somebody from Enron would be in jail right now." Um, does he know that he's not running for dictator? Does he know that we're in a republic, not a police state, where the Number One can just decide who gets snatched and imprisoned tonight?

Veteran Washington Post columnist David Broder — the "dean" of the Washington press corps — published his annual year-end column this past weekend, and he said several things worth highlighting, one of which is: ". . . the folly and unfairness of lining the pockets of the wealthy with tax breaks . . ." We're back to an old problem, and complaint. How do you line the pockets of someone with tax breaks? Traditionally, "to line pockets" meant to put something in those pockets. But, in Dem-speak, it means letting you keep more of your own money — taking less from those pockets.

If you once taxed me at 75 percent, and now tax me at 60 percent, you have "lined my pockets" by 15 percent. Neat, huh?

Broder ended his column with an upper: "But, hey, Sandra Day O'Connor prevailed [i]n the Michigan affirmative action case and Antonin Scalia lost. So things could be a lot worse. Have a happy new year." There is no pretense that O'Connor's decision — the majority decision — was the right one legally and constitutionally. There never is. It was just the desirable outcome — in this worldview — politically.

It is good to be dean. But that is not to say that to be dean is to be right!

Right?

My goodness has this been a crotchety column. Sorry about that. And at Christmas! Worse, I'm not done yet.

Went last night to this movie, Bad Santa, which is about a really bad Santa. The movie is filled with the foulest language, endless fornication, the works. Quite properly, it is rated R. And do you know? The theater was full of kiddies. Parents had brought their kiddies, and they stayed. I sat sandwiched between kiddies who were alternately amused and bewildered (or so I thought I could tell). It was extremely discomfiting.

The rating system is a real blessing. But does anyone use it?

A quick language note: Higher up, I said "a flagship of a culture . . ." I'm a bit uncomfortable with "a flagship." Really, there should be only one flagship. Similarly, politicians are always saying that such and such is "a centerpiece" of their campaign. To me, there ought to be one centerpiece (although I realize you can have a very long table). "This is the focus of my campaign." I think "a focus" is a little weaselly too.

Etc. (just in case you were interested).

A speck of mail, and then out. A reader from Amherst, Mass., says, "Our high school, Amherst Regional, as you might remember, canceled a production of West Side Story a few years ago because it was 'racist.' Well, they're putting on The Vagina Monologues for Valentine's Day. As they used to say, you can't make this stuff up."

No, indeed.

And I had written, in my last column, about a British "Rastafarian poet" who refused a decoration from the Queen, because she and Blair were "going on and on about the empire," or something. I commented, "Do you agree that it says something important about a country that it tries to bestow awards on people who are openly contemptuous of it?"

A reader wrote, "It happens here, too! The irredentist Mexican-American group Los Tigres del Norte received a Latino Spirit award from ex-governor Gray Davis and were honored by the Smithsonian. Think Vicente Fox would even think about doing anything similar for Mark Krikorian?"

Marvelous line.

Another reader writes, "You take issue with nations that give awards to people who hate them. But we do the same. They're called 'Oscars.'"

I certainly can't top that. See you soon, y'all.

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!