Matthew Parris is a well-known, often infuriating and always readable British journalist. He’s almost always at his best when he writes about his former employer, Mrs. Thatcher (see if you can find Return of the Mummy, a laugh aloud funny piece he wrote at the time of the last British election). Now here he is in the London Spectator on a new exhibition devoted to artworks depicting Mrs. T:

“Paul Graham’s giant photograph, entitled ‘8 April, 2002’ is stunning. The portrait is about ten feet high and twice as high as wide, but most of it is black. Lady Thatcher occupies only the lower part of the composition, whose bottom frame chops her off so that only head and torso appear: she has obviously been snapped while walking, and snapped unawares, for she is not looking at us. She is wearing black — uncharacteristically, but this was around the time of the late Queen Mother’s death. The overwhelming colour is black, but her face is pale and has the soft, delicate paperiness of old age. She looks a little stooped. Her glance gives little away beyond exhaustion — and inner strength. The portrait has a sadness about it, but it is not demeaning and she is not undignified. In a way, this is a picture of a magnificent ruin.

The viewer has absolutely no clue as to what she is thinking, what she is remembering, or whether she is thinking or remembering at all. Her expression is inscrutable — or empty.

If I had £10,000 I would buy this picture, but, as it was, I could only stand and stare. It is the best and perhaps the last study of Margaret Thatcher as former empress that will ever appear. In time it will become a feature of books and articles illustrating her later years, and for as long as she is remembered it will be associated with her.

And what is so very poignant is that, were she to visit the exhibition, that photograph would say nothing to her. ‘Well, dear,’ she would say. ‘I don’t much care for that. No colour. Perfectly miserable. Makes me look a wreck. And where are my legs? He pointed the camera wrong. Why didn’t he ask me to pose?’

And she would move on, reaching, perhaps, for a giant handkerchief with which to cover some of the smaller exhibits.”

Wonderful.

Well I did it. I have been an NRO reader for the last 2 years and have felt increasingly guilty for enjoying all of the talent for free. And what do you know, just as this guilt was building, a young girl showed up at my door selling magazines for her shool fundraising. I am now an official paying subscriber. It begs the questions, is National Review using Global Positioning Technology to find the people like me? Because if you are, it worked.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention non-working, independent, non-political women.

I was just watching "The Great Muppet Caper" (last day of the semester) and discovered an overlooked moment of Muppet insight. The gang have just caught jewel thief Charles Grodin red-handed and sweet, earnest Kermit asks, "Why did you do it?" Grodin shrugs and says, "Because I'm a villain." Plain and simple, no "root cause" nonsense. I'll remember that line every time someone tries to tell me we should be more concerned about why "they" hate us.

Catching up on G-File email now. Bizarre amount of hostility from people who think I'm trying to create more labels, split more hairs etc. I wonder if they even read what I wrote since I'm trying to make the case that the neo label is useless and pointless not that we need more labels. Also, getting some nasty email from paleo types who seem more than a bit panicked that the word neocon might lose some of its utility. Just for the record, I'm writing these things because so many readers asked me to. If it's not something you're interested in, don't read it.

Being a working mom is "the hardest job in the world." I'm still not sure why Bush kept saying that on the campaign trail in 2000, but he was right. I've spent the day trying to write a piece for another mag and deal with Cosmo and Lucy while Jessica's fighting for truth and justice at Harvard and it's been very, very stressful. I don't think the Federal Government could have helped much, but it's definitely hard.

Let's not forget Ramesh Ponnuru: Ram-Po; Michael Ledeen: M-Lead (faster, please); David Frum: D-Fr (pronounced Dee-Fer, soon to evolve to Mos' Deef); John Podhoretz: J-Pod; James Robbins: J-Rob

Was playing with a renamer at www.babynames.com and your new name could be Chinara Zuwena Lopez

What do ya think? If you don't like it try again.

Go have fun with Derb's name or others. I bet you could get a good one for somebody.

Does Studs Terkel qualify?

My bride is in Boston for the day, doing some panel at Harvard. So I'm spending the day teaching Lucy TV trivia. We're on M*A*S*H quotes right now.I'm trying to get her to say "I've eaten a river of liver and an ocean of fish!"

What are conservatives? They are people who will move heaven and earth, if they have to, who will ruin a company or a country or a planet, to prove to us and to themselves that they are superior to everybody else, except for their pals. They take good care of their pals, keep them out of jail—and so on.

Conservatives are crazy as bedbugs. They are bullies.

Shock and awe.

Class war? You bet.

They have proved their superiority to admirers of Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain and Jesus of Nazareth, with an able assist from television, making inconsequential our protests against their war.

"I'm an alumna of Pepperdine University, a school which proudly owns a house/campus on Exhibition Road, literally across the street from the Imperial University, in the middle of South Kensington, right near Harrods, Hyde Park, the Albert Hall. Within two days of arriving for our first semester in London, our relatively small [American] class (37 students, 10 men, 27 women) was visited by a local police officer to instruct us on living in London. Her first question was to the women, 'How many of you brought mace?' Three girls raised their hands. She told us we couldn't use it, shouldn't even carry it, it was illegal.

"Had any of us brought any other type of weapon, such as a knife? Several of the men in our group indicated that they carried pocket knives. She told us to leave them at home too.

"Then she instructed us on how to properly be a victim. If we were attacked, we were to assume a defensive posture, such as raising our hands to block an attack. The reason was (and she spelled it out in no uncertain terms) that if a witness saw the incident and we were to attempt to defend ourselves by fighting back, the witness would be unable to tell who the agressor was. However, if we rolled up in a ball, it would be quite clear who the victim was.

"The feeling I got was, in London, it is not permissable to defend oneself. I also understood that this police officer thought Americans were more likely to be agressive and/or cause more damage to a potential attacker. She was warning us for our own good. I have to admit, she did not make me feel particularly safe."

Praisegod Barebones, a 17th Century British parliamentarian. Orson Welles must also be a contender. For what it's worth, I also (according to family lore) have a distant relation (late 19th Century) by the name of Archelaus Stuttaford - not a bad name, I reckon.

The best name-giver in fiction? Charles Dickens - without a doubt.

John, speaking as someone who is half Scottish, retribution will soon follow. Tales of Scots thrift, however, are, indeed, rarely exaggerated – as a child I spent every summer at my grandparents’ place near a small Scottish town called Tain. On one occasion the British newspapers were filled with tales of the disastrous collapse of (if I remember correctly) a nationally prominent travel company. The headline in the local paper:

“Tain man won’t lose a penny.”

An e-mail response: "You guys should really pounce on this harder. I've
been noticing this growing trend among liberal media
types and academia. On a recent NPR 'Fresh Air'
program, the guest being interview was Sarah Shays
(sp?), a former NPR reporter who is now heading up
some democracy-building NGO in Kabul, focusing on
women I believe.

"She kept referring to the Afghan culture, Taliban
sympathizers, and her clients' chauvinist-pig husbands
as 'conservative.' She would use the word 3,4,5 times
in one sentence. She'd pause, as if searching for
another word, then keep repeating 'conservative' over
and over again.

"I guess any word, like 'prehistoric,' 'backward,'
'repressive,' etc, that might criticize or pass
judgment might be a little too hot to handle (unless
you're talking about Western Civ. or Christianity,
then it's ok...)

"This really ticked me off, even though I only count
myself as very slightly 'conservative.' The tone of
the rhetoric is really starting to bug the crap out of
me.

"It's like the 'Bush is a Fascist' signs at the ANSWER
rallies. They're taking the word fascist hostage, so
what do we call Hitler or Mussolini now?

"I love reading the Corner!"

On the May 12 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball on which both your employee, Seth Mnookin, and my employee, Liz Swasey, appeared, Mr. Mnookin ridiculed Liz for suggesting that affirmative action run amok could explain New York Times executive editor Howell Raines’ failure to supervise his plagiarist former reporter, Jayson Blair.

Given the time constraints and format of Hardball, I might have let Mr. Mnookin’s condemnation of my employee’s position pass. However, on the following day on Newsweek.com, Mr. Mnookin’s Raw Copy, "What’s Race Got To Do With It?" accused Liz of "smearing" Howell Raines, being "intellectually dishonest" and "twisting reality to make her point" to such an extent that Mr. Mnookin said he "openly laughed at" her.

This morning, the New York Times ran "Editor of Times Tells Staff He Accepts Blame for Fraud," by Jacques Steinberg. The National Journal summarized the piece as follows: "New York Times exec. ed. Howell Raines, on whether Jayson Blair lasted as long as he did at the paper because of his race: ‘When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes.’"

Despite Mr. Raines’ admission, Mr. Mnookin’s discredited piece smearing my employee remains the number two story on Newsweek.com. I ask that the piece be removed. I also challenge Mr. Mnookin to be man enough to apologize to Ms. Swasey.

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell

You might have seen this already, but Happy Fun Pundit has a great list of gripes about Star Trek. Longtime readers will recognize that I share a few of them.

Referring to Raines and Sulzberger, Andrew Sullivan asks, "Is there a company on the planet where an executive who had made such a decision would still be in place? If an Enron executive had made a similar decision, do you think Raines would be calling for him to stay in place?" It's a good point and first raised, I believe by The New York Sun in an excellent May 12 editorial which opens by comparing the following quotes:

"[T]he move to hold top managers personally liable for any misrepresentations made to investors — which the new corporate oversight legislation also does — is a watershed worth celebrating…C.E.O’s will no longer be able to feign ignorance about the details of the companies’ accounting, as Jeffrey Skilling haughtily did early this year at a Congressional hearing on Enron’s implosion."

—The New York Times, editorial, "Downsizing the Imperial C.E.O.," August 9, 2002

"But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. ‘The person who did this is Jayson Blair,’ he said. ‘Let’s not begin to demonize our executives — either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher.’"

—The New York Times, news article, "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception," May 11, 2003

From a reader:

Surely, you aren't going to take credit for stating the incredibly obvious?

Shoot, "predicting" that T'Pol would go into heat when the ratings dropped is like "predicting" the time of sunset or sunrise. Given a modicum of knowledge, it is obvious.

Any scifi/comic book geeks worth their intellect (like you and me) saw this one coming. I am only surprised that it took so long!

I don't know whether to say "duh" or "congratulations." I suppose that you'll settle for the latter....

[Name withheld]
10 year NRODT subscriber

P.S. Tell K-Lo that some of us like obscure Trek/Simpsons/Marvel references spliced into the running corner observations.

I never met Mark Cosslett, and wouldn't even have known his name but for his fatal accident. I do know one thing, and I knew it before he was gone: At a time when my family was looking for a hero, there he was.

From a reader:

I can't remember, but it seems as if it was you who said something like "Mind my words, if the ratings for Enterprise drop enough, you can bet that T'Pol will go into Pon Farr."

Well, guess what happened on last night's episode...

He's right. Here's the opening from my Enterprise review , with the relevant prediction:

Okay, the Vulcan chick is over the top.

By now, anyone who cares (if you don't, you shouldn't be reading this anyway) has seen or heard that the new Trek series, Enterprise, has a Vulcan sexpot named T'Pol. The producers learned their lesson from Voyager's 7-of-9, and have concluded they will never again be caught without a silicone-enhanced chick in a spackled-on uniform. It is cool that they've chosen a Vulcan to be the sex symbol, since Vulcans — while superior to humans in so many ways — have "not tonight, dear" headaches that last in roughly seven-year stretches (prediction: T'Pol will hear the Vulcan call of the birds and the bees, the Pon Farr, the moment the ratings dip).

With her over-the-top bitchiness and her under-her-top augmentation, T'Pol reminds me of that old Robin Williams joke about how he wanted sex to become an Olympic sport, just so we could see what the East Germans would come up with.

My syndicated column. It should have gone up yesterday but there was a glitch.

Look, I take a back seat to only a very few people when it comes to my contempt for Steve Glass. But isn't there something odd about journalists, particularly liberal ones, protesting the publication of a book and journalists, particularly conservatives, inveighing against the profit motive? I agree with Erich Eichmann and John that Glass is a feckless crapweasel. And I even agree that Glass's attempt to cash-in on his own transgressions is unseemly. But I can't get past the fact that the media are making a bigger deal about Glass's book than they would if, say, a murderer wrote one. When Mumia Abu Jamal -- the convicted, and rightly so, murder -- cashes in on his nefariously-earned celebrity, first amendment voluptuaries cheer. Isn't murder worse than plagiarism and fabrication? There's something vaguely self-serving in the hooplah over Glass and Blair, something which seems to say "We are so great, it is huge news for everybody when one of us stumbles. I am emphatically not ascribing these views to Miller and Eichmann, it's just that they got me thinking about it.

This is not really apropos, but it does remind me of a story. One of my best friends from high school went to Emory. When Kurt Vonnegut gave a lecture there, all the earnest young kids (there are a few at Emory, mostly in hiding) asked Vonnegut to sign their books for them. They all lined up with copies of Slaughterhouse Five, Breakfast of Champions etc. Except for one guy. My firend's fraternity brother waited on line to get his copy of "Back To School" with Rodney Dangerfield signed. People who've seen this classic of American cinema know why that's funny.

I saw it last night. It's good, not great. Parts are great. Parts are poor (dialogue and plot-wise). The Wachowski brothers seemed to have asked each other several times "Wouldn't it be cool if....?" And answered the question wrong. Nevertheless, it's very enjoyable and it's entirely possible the third Matrix will fix many of the problems with the second one. I'm not going to review it for NRO but, once again, Stephen Hunter does a
great job (though I think I liked it a bit more than him). Personally, though, it's a not a review I would read until after I saw the movie.

The revelation in the historian ROBERT DALLEK'S new book, "An Unfinished Life" that President JOHN F. KENNEDY apparently had an affair with a teenage intern got us wondering if former President BILL CLINTON, who has had his own problems in this department, had read the book.

We found him at the Asia Society Spring Gala at Cipriani at 42nd Street on Monday night. Mr. Clinton received a standing ovation when he arrived. When we introduced ourselves, he praised the work of our colleague, ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, who received an award from the group for her reportage from China. Then a well-wisher interrupted us. A Secret Service agent noticed that we were taking notes.

"Ms.," the agent said. "You cannot report on Mr. Clinton's conversation."

"It's O.K.," Mr. Clinton said.

We have to face up to the fact that we have a terrorist problem here. Last week’s Interior Ministry announcement that 19 Al-Qaeda members, 17 of them Saudis, had planned terrorist attacks in the country and were being hunted was a wake-up call — particularly to those who steadfastly refuse to accept that individual Saudis or Muslims could ever do anything evil, who still cling to the fantasy that Sept. 11 and all the other attacks laid at the doors of terrorists who happen to be Arab or Muslim were in fact the work of the Israelis or the CIA. For too long we have ignored the truth. We did not want to admit that Saudis were involved in Sept. 11. We can no longer ignore that we have a nest of vipers here, hoping that by doing so they will go away. They will not. They are our problem and we all their targets now.

Hamad bin Hamed Al-Salame wrote: "Oh foreign cave-dwellers, depart our country and go to hell!... Leave us. We are a believing people, and our government is wise... Go with all your ugliness and baseness... Go to hell. All your terrorist acts and bomb blasts will not make us bow our heads... Go to the place from whence you came, to the caves of Tora Bora, and kiss the feet of your masters who taught you to spill blood and kill innocents... They were the ones who taught you how to lie, deceive, and mislead the simple folk. Go, cowards... go to hell, or go to the heaven of your leader, who taught you sorcery in the caves of Tora Bora. Sit by his side in the dark paradise of ugly ideas and deeds... which if distributed to all the inhabitants of the Earth would suffice them until the Day of Judgment..."

"Go, idiots, and awaken all the sleeper cells... Wake them, and go with them, far from us. You have no place among us... Go to hell."(8)

In today's column I lament the media's inability to even entertain the idea that race was an issue in the Jayson Blair story. Courtland Milloy tells us that to even raise the question reveals pathologies far greated than poor Jayson's:

"That such obvious distress could so easily morph into a media feeding frenzy over questions such as "Did he receive preferential treatment because he is black?" and "Is diversity a good thing?" reflects shortcomings far more pathological than those displayed by Blair.

G-File is up. Check it out.

Tommy Chong arrested for selling bongs.

National Association of Black Journalists named Gerald Boyd journalist of the year prior to the announcement that he had been promoted to Times managing editor. When they introduced people on the dais at dinner that night, Harry Belafonte got a warm round of applause, as you might imagine. But Gerald got a standing ovation. I turned to Gerald's wife, Robin, and said, "Isn't it nice to know that you're married to a man who gets more applause than Harry Belafonte?" That was a special evening. [snip]

The issue in advancing newsroom diversity is that you have to get people into gate-keeper roles. You have to force your hiring managers to find talent and demand that every pool of applicants for any job includes at least one woman and one minority.

The Times report is candid about the severe criticisms directed at Blair by the two metropolitan editors--Joyce Purnick and Jonathan Landman--prior to his assignment to the paper's national staff. It is less forthcoming about the close mentor-protégé relationship that apparently existed between Blair and the Times' managing editor, Gerald Boyd, who also is African American. By the Times' account, Boyd was head of a committee that recommended Blair be hired, despite the reservations of other editors. Boyd, along with Raines, pushed the inexperienced reporter with a poor record onto the prestigious national staff.

What the Times does not note is that in 2001 it was the Blair who nominated Boyd for the National Assn. of Black Journalists' journalist of the year award for his role in producing the Pulitzer Prize-winning series "How Race Is Lived in America." When Boyd subsequently was promoted to managing editor, according to sources at the Times, Blair was selected to write the announcement for the paper's in-house newsletter.

On "American Idol" last night, the fans of contestant Kimberly Locke had "K-Lo" posters. Isn't there a copyright violation or something here?

K-Lo, I assumed you meant this pieace by Reynolds on sci-fi religion.

this one off the mom of the year list.

Will Raines avoid ritual human sacrifice?

May hold 11,000 bodies

Exactly who's the hypocrite, Mr. Krugman? Me, for expressing my views in a designated segment at the end of the show? Or you, for not so cleverly masking your own biases against the war in a cheaply written column?

You're as phony as you are unprofessional. And you have the nerve to criticize me, or Fox News, and by extension, News Corporation?

Look, I'd much rather put my cards on the table and let people know where I stand in a clear editorial, than insidiously imply it in what's supposed to be a straight news story. And by the way, you sanctimonious twit, no one -- no one -- tells me what to say. I say it. And I write it. And no one lectures me on it. Save you, you pretentious charlatan.

In five years of research, one prize eluded Dallek's efforts: a 500-page oral history recorded by Jacqueline Kennedy now kept under lock and key at the Kennedy Library outside Boston. Caroline Kennedy politely refused Dallek's request to read it, saying her mother asked that it remain closed until 50 years after her death. When opened in 2044, he suggests, it could prompt yet another reassessment of America's 35th president.

Meanwhile top EU functionary Chris Patten (no fan of a referendum himself, I would imagine: his last encounter with British voters did not end well) has re-entered the controversy over the Euro with an article in the London Times. His aim? To encourage Tony Blair to override his finance minister’s objections to UK membership of the single currency. Amongst Patten's 'arguments' are these, er, telling points:

“The truth is that, despite its superior employment policies and regulatory environment (a legacy of the Thatcher and Major years) Britain remains well down the EU economic league table.”

Patten doesn’t say that part of John Major’s success in preserving Mrs Thatcher’s legacy was due to his opposition to EU (over)regulation.

“Even the UK’s impressive employment record does not put it in the top bracket: four eurozone countries have fewer jobless than Britain…”

Strangely, Patten doesn’t tell us which four countries. Well, here’s the answer (for March): Luxembourg (3.4%), Holland (3.6% - February), Austria (4.3%) and Ireland (4.5%), fine nations all of them, but hardly major economies. The UK’s unemployment rate is a little over 5%, pretty good when compared with, say, France (9.1%) or Germany (8.9%).

“Great damage is done to a brave and accomplished Prime Minister and to his vision of Britain’s destiny when he seems more ready to take risks to accomplish the goals of an American President than he is to secure his own.”

No further comment necessary.

Peter Hain, the UK’s former minister for Europe, is saying that the British people will not be allowed to vote on the proposed EU constitution. What a surprise…

According to the Daily Telegraph, Hain also claims that the constitution will be no more significant "than the other treaties we have signed over the last 30 years".

Really? All those people at that constitutional convention in Brussels must have been wasting their time then.

"There are no longer two political parties [in the United States]. If celebrities don't speak out, nobody does."

Given that Clinton Executive Order 13166 regulations effectively require all recipients of federal funds to provide translations into any language, be it written, unwritten or invented, Multnomah County's original view -- that Klingon translation is required under E.O. 13166 -- was on sound legal ground.

A person who understands English still has the right to demand a translator if he also speaks Klingon or any other tongue. The interesting question is whether a person has to actually speak another language in order to demand to be served in that language under E.O. 13166. Barnaby Zall, an attorney who has pled official English cases before the Supreme Court, explained the hospital's dilemma to me:

Legally, the answer is "yes" because E.O. 13166 equates language with national origin and national origin is not a choice. As a practical matter, the answer may well be "no." The Oregon hospital is required to hold up "I speak" cards to enable clients to indicate their language preference. The person points to "Klingon." Do you have to investigate further or just accept it?

Seems they already did. A reader sends me this from The Dallas Morning News:

Back in the House Chamber, Rep. Dianne Delisi, R-Temple, passed around "most-wanted" playing cards like those the military is using to catch Iraqi leaders. In her deck, made on a computer, Fort Worth Rep. Lon Burnam, a Craddick critic, is the ace of clubs. The Democratic Party is the ace of spades.

I would link, but it requires registration and I don't have time.

Am I the first person to suggest the obvious? The Texas GOP or the Governor should issue playing cards with the pictures of the 56 House Democrats -- now 55 -- who've fled the capitol.

Andrew - I have no problem whacking Bloomberg around, but go easy on Marie Antoinnete. She's the victim of a vicious propaganda campaign.

Last Friday, a man who was an advocate supporter of severe gun control and was also an opponent of the war in Iraq perpetrated a mass shooting at Case Western University, in Ohio. Below are some thoughts about this crime from Keith J. Barton, who is director of information and technology at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. His words are excerpted from a private discussion group on firearms law and policy. Mr. Barton gave me permission to post these on The Corner:

I hope you will indulge me in a little discussion of an emotional issue. You see, I was just affected by a mass public shooting. Although I was not in the building with the shooter, I was in the Law School, which is the closest building and literally just a few feet away from the Peter B. Lewis building where a shooting took place Friday. Consequently, I was at first restricted to certain areas of the building, and then later evacuated (certainly not as affected as those in the Peter B. Lewis building).

The first things I thought of (being completely open and honest here - in temporal order) as I learned of the events unfolding next door was 1) to be angry that Ohioans are not allowed to carry concealed firearms, 2) I was grateful the shooter did not choose the Law School, and 3) I was saddened that someone was emotionally disturbed enough to do this. I am not suggesting a non-law enforcement person with a concealed firearm should have searched the building to stop the shooter in this situation. I cannot accurately say what I would have done had I been in the building next door instead of where I was. But I can say I believe the shooter would not have been at large for 7 hours had one or more persons been carrying a concealed firearm and had known how to use it. Many will say, and have said already, in response to this incident that this is the best argument for more restrictive firearm regulations. I realize not everyone is comfortable around firearms. I also realize my experience may be a little different than the average person: I was a primary marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps. I personally believe this is an argument for allowing concealed carry. I would feel much safer knowing I have the tools with which to protect myself and those immediately around me should I ever have the need to do so.

A reader chastises me about mocking the comic cover of the four chaplains. He's right to the extent that the real story of the four chaplains deserves respect from all of us.

I don't particularly care that Katie Couric guest hosted the "Tonight Show" and that Leno hosted the "Today Show," but I would like to know where the hell the journalistic blue noses are on this? I mean ABC News flipped out when Leonardo DiCaprio was going to interview Clinton. What does it say about the blurring of news and entertainment when a respected journalist (that's their claim, not mine) does schtick on a comedy show and a comedian interviews the Secretary of State on a news show? Again, I don't care on the merits but please spare me the next time you want to lecture me about the integrity and professionalism of NBC News.

Superman's a Communist. It's a pretty disgusting irony this comic is coming out at the same time as Anne Applebaum's Gulag.

As we know, the Simpsons' other neighbor has made appearances (please no more email on that). But I thought some of you might enjoy this email from a reader:

Dear Jonah, Funny you should mention the Simpson's lack of neighbors on their left side. I am actually writing my master's paper at the University of Chicago on the subject. I thought you might find it interesting. Below is an exact copy of the abstract that was submitted and approved by the Political Science department. "I plan to use Foucalt's notion of the nexus of power/knowledge to explain why the other next door neighbors of the Simpsons have never appeared in 13 years. Specifically I will assert that Homer Simpson -- the prototypical yellow/white male -- uses the Springfieldian lack of knowledge about their existence to maintain a marginalizing power structure that delegitimizes their place in the natural Whole and consequently consoldiates Homer's position as a Nietzschean Ubermenschen existing in a fundamentally nihilistic community. This explanation of the neighbor as "The Other" will be useful in further justification of massive redistributions of wealth and the legitimation of sundry forms of hatred of white people. Note that I will not actually do this. Rather, I will only write my thesis statement clearly; the rest of the essay will be an incoherent jumble of words that will surely make William Strunk rise from his grave to commit mass carnage ala Night of the Living Dead. You, being the non-philosophical type, will be intimidated by both my vocabulary and sentence structures, instantly assuming that it is your inadequate reading skills that explain your confusion, and will therefore assume that I have proven my point. This, of course, will be irrelevant once the Strunkian zombie -- with his horde of brain-gobbling legions -- devours all humanity in a raid notable for both its clarity and efficiency."

The worst This just gets better and better.

The worst comic book covers of all time. Black Lois Lane and Chaplains at war are particularly strong. The rifleman cover is strangely disturbing.

Thanks to TimesWatch for this item:

Melissa Block, a host of the National Public Radio program “All Things Considered,” interviewed Times executive editor Howell Raines on the Blair fiasco--and challenged Raines with a rather incriminating blast from Raines’ past:

“Mr. Raines, you spoke to a convention of the National Association of Black Journalists in 2001, and you specifically mentioned Jayson Blair as an example of the Times spotting and hiring the best and brightest reporters on their way up. You said, 'This campaign has made our staff better and, more importantly, more diverse.' And I wonder now, looking back, if you see this as something of a cautionary tale, that maybe Jayson Blair was given less scrutiny or more of a pass on the corrections to his stories that you had to print because the paper had an interest in cultivating a young, black reporter.”

Raines’ defensive reply: “No, I do not see it as illustrating that point. I see it as illustrating a tragedy for Jayson Blair, that here was a person who under the conditions in which other journalists perform adequately decided to fabricate information and mislead colleagues. And it is--you know, I don't want to demonize Jayson, but this is a tragedy of failure on his part.”

Joe Klein has written a cover story for Time on “How to Build a Better Democrat,” i.e., one who can win the next presidential election. (Time did something similar for the Republicans in 1996. Right?) One test I always apply to such articles is whether the author’s political advice lines up too neatly with his policy views. I try to avoid this myself. I’m perfectly willing to concede that President Bush had to back away from his party’s opposition to Department of Education to win in 2000, for example, even though I would love to see the department disappear. Klein seems to be arguing that the Democrats will succeed if they just adopt his views, which seems awfully convenient.

Klein’s specific advice isn’t all that compelling. Democrats are supposed to embrace “nuclear fusion, wind power, digital interstate highways (a computer chip in your car locks you in at 70 m.p.h. a safe distance from the cars in front of and behind you). Whatever. The key is to have at least one issue on which the candidate is free to dream, think big, tap the national spirit of adventure in a way that doesn’t involve Abrams tanks. My guess is that enthusiasm is contagious.” I’m guessing that it isn’t. I mean, really: wind power?

Klein also comes out for candidates' standing up to the pollsters and consultants. Just once, I'd like to read an article where a journalist longs for a candidate who does nothing but slavishly follow the focus groups, if only for the sake of variety.

I'm not sure I agree with this list. -- but then again I'm most a Marvel guy. I know I have the Silver Surfer -- or at least I used to. But I'm not sure about the Captain America.

Strauss also claims a large, if rather clubbish, following in the academy, especially among scholars of political theory and American constitutional history. And yet even those academics who know Strauss's work best often sharply disagree about its fundamental meaning. There are East Coast Straussians, West Coast Straussians, and even some Straussian Democrats. Clifford Orwin, a professor at the University of Toronto strongly influenced by Strauss, describes him as a wise teacher who counseled prudence and moderation. But Shadia Drury, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and the author of ''Leo Strauss and the American Right,'' completely disagrees. For her, Strauss was nothing less than ''a Jewish Nazi'' whose pretense of American patriotism and piety hid a cynical and extremist antidemocratic ideology.

I spent 12 years in the Navy, and I can tell you, +nothing+ infuriates men in the military more than discussions of "non-deployable" women. Women fill many billets, and if they can't deploy, that means some poor man must deploy to take her place, thus +increasing+ the overall deployment time for men, and +decreasing+ the overall deployment time for women. Men have to spend more time away, and women get to spend more time a Why is the family time of single female parents more valuable that the family time of (responsible) married men? Another consideration -- women who want to avoid deployment can get pregnant and thus get out of it. Men have no such option. The issue boils under the surface of the whole military, and bills in Congress to limit the deployability of women make the blood boil of military men who really can't do or say much about it, except get out, as I did.

14 excellent questions for The New York Times.

Got this e-mail from a Naval officer friend, commenting on the Commander-in-Chief's controversial (among Democrats and the media) visit to the aircraft carrier:

The Dems are claiming that Bush could have taken a helo out, and arrived in a helo; but instead arrived in an S-3. Here's the real story.

Then there was the NYT hysteria about the pilot catching the 4th arresting cable. The 4th???!!! Why, the pilot almost missed and they would have plunged into the sea. What the NYT didn't realise is that there are 4 arresting cables, and they are numbered in reverse order. The 4th cable is actually the first one. I hate it when journalists don't know what they're talking about.

John - You're right about the WSJ editorial page. In fact I don't think the Times even comes in second or even third on that score. I find the Washington Post's -- even without Michael Kelly -- far superior to the Times. But as a total operation, it's still hard to beat the Times.

I'll be awol for a little while this AM, but I wanted to get a plac-holder in on this Jayson Blair story. Andrew Sullivan has lots of great stuff on this story as he is fast becoming the I.F. Stone of anti-Times muckraking. My only objection with Andrew's approach is that he concentrates almost all of his ire on Howell Raines, his white whale. One gets the sense that if Raines quit, Sullivan would be content. That's cool, it's nice to set reasonable goals. But the trouble with the Times is bigger than just one man. Let me also say that the Times is the best paper in the country and it's silly to deny that. But, as can happen with all successful institutions, it is a maddening hothouse of biases, obsessions and, most of all, arrogance. Howell Raines may be steering the ship but, from my perspective, the course is set. The Blair swell could knock Raines overboard, but I would be shocked if a new skipper changed the direction dramatically. The idea, for example, that the Times will come out of this with anything but a "renewed committment to diversity" is unfathomable to me (indeed, I predict right now that if not those exact words then something extremely close will be the result of their "lessons learned" commission.). Anyway, I have more to say, but I've got to finish this other thing. Here's what I had to say on CNN yesterday about the whole thing:

Look, well, first of all, this 7,000-word phone book of an apology is a pinata. You can bash it from any angle and bear some reward. But I'll pick one.

They say that this is the low point in their 154-year history. Some guy making up quotes, you know, is a bad story, but this is the newspaper that put the Holocaust on the jump pages. This is the newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for a guy who said that Stalin didn't do anything wrong in the 1930s and '40s.

This is a newspaper that -- this apology is so self-serving, it is like a serial killer getting caught stealing a loaf of bread and saying it's the worst thing they've ever done.

And they're trying to put all the blame on this one guy and exempt all the executives for the culture that they've bred over there. It is an outrage.

Mental hospital needs Klingon interpreter.

Weird.

Those Sulawesi crested macaques have a supporter in Ohio, who writes:

“You will note that despite the small sample size (only 6 simians), and despite the short length of time (only 30 days), the monkeys in question made remarkable progress toward typing out the complete works of the Bard by focusing on the first letter of his name: "S"."

The EU’s proposed new constitution looms ever closer, and it seems that Tony Blair will seek to impose it on the UK without a referendum. The Tories, apparently, believe that there should be a referendum first. They are right, but who knew that was their policy? The Sunday Telegraph takes up the story:

“Having set out [their policy], [the Tories] have done almost nothing to bring it to public attention. Michael Ancram [the shadow foreign secretary] is a civilized and charming man, but his torpor on this issue is typical of what is wrong with much of the Opposition front bench. It is not enough to put out a press release then sit back. They must be prepared to work night and day to capture people’s imaginations.”

Indeed they must, but will they?