There's an advanced version!

I bet I could still beat Anika at this.

The Dell Interns. Hate, hate, hate.

Just had to get that off my chest.

They're pretty lame. But I'm kind of bummed I didn't make the cut. Notice no Colin Powell.

In the wake of the neocon opus, I've gotten more than a few emails from liberal readers complaining that the word "liberal" is as abused and misleading as the word "neconservative." This echoes a refrain in lots of liberal chatrooms and the like: "liberal" has been demonized, it doesn't mean what conservatives say etc etc etc.

Generally, I think this is nonsense. My point about the abuse of the neocon label is that it's applied to people who aren't neocons in any reasonable sense. Many paleos use the neocon label because they're afraid or unwilling to admit that the conservative movement hasn't been "hijacked." Rather, the conservative movement has left many of them behind. But I have no problem with the label conservative at all.

This liberal complaint is entirely different, it seems to me. They reject the notion that any label can describe them. When they say "I don't believe in labels" they usually do this as a way to dodge the fact that "liberal" has taken on a negative connotation. They pose as if they approach issues without ideology, without bias and have merely followed the facts to their conclusions. I mean we have to call liberals something right?

I saw your comment about Sorenstam and thought I'd raise a point that I think has been overlooked-basic fairness.

Sorenstam was offered an exemption to play in the Colonial, and that's fine. But there is a potential problem in mixing male and female golfers-women are sometimes given an unfair advantage. For example, consider a report about golfer Susan Whaley:

"Connecticut club pro Suzy Whaley has said she will play in the Greater Hartford Open in July. She qualified by winning a PGA of America sectional tournament, even though she was allowed to hit from a shorter set of tees."

In other words, she took a spot from a golfer who had to play a longer course than she did (her course was 10 percent shorter). And this is not unusual.

Recently, a female won the Virginia high school golf title even though she was allowed to play on a course that was 20 percent shorter than the course the boys were required to play. The difference was more than merely nominal, amounting to more than 1,000 yards over the entire tournament: "Suh, 17, won the AAA title at Elizabeth Manor Country Club in Portsmouth. She was the only girl in the tournament, and she played the course at 5,370 yards; the boys played it at 6,462 yards."

Is that fair to the male golfers she beat who were required to cover a thousand more yards than she did? (By the way, as I recall, she won by only one stroke.)

It's all well and good for women to play with men--but only if they are held to the same standard of fair play.

Since the first days after shuttle Columbia's loss, NASA has maintained there is nothing it could have done to save the crew even if they had known the ship's heat protection system was fatally damaged. Now, a different picture has emerged. An internal NASA study done at the request of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board indicates it may have been possible to mount a rescue mission that could have had a chance of saving Columbia astronauts. A senior investigator familiar with the study told Florida Today the plan would have to have been predicated on an immediate post-launch recognition by NASA that the shuttle was so badly crippled it could not make it home. That would have allowed the crew to strictly conserve its life-sustaining supplies, hunker down and wait for the rushed launched of shuttle Atlantis, which was on its way to being ready for liftoff March 1 on another flight. Atlantis' crew then could have rendezvoused with Columbia and tried to bring the crew aboard through a series of daring spacewalks. We'll never know if this Hollywoodesque scenario would have worked. Frankly, it takes a great leap of faith to think it would have. But it was never even considered, because NASA managers failed to thoroughly examine the extent of Columbia's damage.

We need one more "recognized breed" of conservative: TaxonoCons, who are conservatives who spend their spare time identifying subgroups among conservatives and giving them catchy names ending in "-Con."

Poetry and foreign ministers? Why not? This effort by a certain designer weasel, however, may have lost something in translation:

His book " wants to listen to the seed of the terrible voice which cleaves our consciences and feeds our imagination. It affirms its confidence in words, which force open the doors of mystery and give it movement and brightness. Without attaching itself to any school or poet, to a period or coterie, this Praise wants to be a part of every adventure. It weaves along the most diverse paths, along the scarlet crest of the sun, to the darkest underground seam."

I'd like to disagree with the reader that claims that men don't want women to participate in sports to "cast off the domestic shackles for a short time." The reason that men don't want to play sports with women is that they're not that good. That is why Annika's "playing with the boys" is such a media hit, and why movies and television shows alike will always find it ironic to have the girl beat the boy.

Not a single reader responded to my request for thoughts on Sorel's myth of the General Strike. Did you think I was kidding?

I had a near day-long meeting with my editor about my book. The bad news: gonna be a long hail. The good news: we've definitively ruled out a scratch and sniff section.

This is what you'd say to exorcize him. From a reader:

I have included some of your remarks on theory (by which I mean political theory) below and would like to take some time to respond.
One of the key comments you made was the following, "I don't think even the most pragmatic conservative realist in the world would deny the power of theory -- on other people." This seems to me to be an interesting argument, but one which doesn't really grapple with what political theory truly is. You talk of the power of theory in an almost scientific (or positivist) sense in that theories are suppositions or prescriptions for the best political regime. While this is certainly true of political thinkers as Marx, Hegel, and (dare I say) Hitler, this is not the nature of "political theory." The listed thinkers did present political models for a regime, but they were also limited by their own reliance on materialism. Marx presented dialectical materialism as his means of addressing the human problem. He had an "answer" to human affairs. Not in the sense that many think. He didn't prescribe a solution, he merely "observed" an eventuality. For him the communist revolution was an end to history not an answer to the best regime it merely was the last regime (best or not). Radicals -or German Idealists- made this a prescription for the ills of society. This is not a defense of Marx in any way, but understanding how he views the end of history (not the ends which in a sense would be Hegelian) allows one to attack his thought by seeing if his observations are true. Are the conditions of workers in industialized countries continually worsening? etc.
Political theory in the sense that those who study it usually apply it is not about creating the best regime or prescribing specific solutions to the ills of society. Rather the journey is more complex than that. Political theorists ask questions of regimes and strive for "knowledge" not "opinion" of the best regime in the broadest sense. In the Classical piece most likely to be viewed as prescriptive "The Republic," Plato presents the best regime as "The City in Speech." Aristotle and the rest of history attack this "prescription" as unrealistic and unworkable. Aristotle does this carefully, we tend to do it in a knee-jerk Popperesque way. Aristotle attacks the particulars of the regime not the ends, he does the same with "The Laws." But the question of "The Republic" is not what constitutes the best regime at all, rather it asks what is "Justice?" This is the first question one should ask when trying to build a regime, because justice is the ends of the best regime. It is the summum bonum of politics. Does Plato provide us with an answer to the question of Justice? No...he provides us with a method of asking about Justice which may lead us to knowledge rather than mere opinion.
Aristotle does similar things in his "Politics." In it he discusses the best regime, but only with regard to its ends-- Justice. His prescription is to have a mixed regime. How much of a mixing? What type of regime? These questions are not answered specifically because the answer differs depending on the components making up the city. He, like Plato, gives us a method to question the assumptions we have based on our opinions. One of the most useful arguments he presents us with is the difference between a good man and a good citizen. To be a good citizen in a tyranny one only need support the tyranny etc.
So your comparison of theory as prescription or model isn't really an appropriate comparison when talking about theory as a discipline (especially when talking about Mansfield, Bloom, Strauss, etc. more so when talking about Jaffa).
All that being said, your Theory of Theory, "Goldberg's Theory Of Theory: Theory good when explaining things. Theory dangerous when changing things," seems valid. At the same time it seems a tautology. Theory is good when explaining things is what I mean when I use political theory. When changing things is when using theory in the postivistic sense and any prescription is dangerous especially when it hasn't been properly disected which is what "Political Theorists" are for. The difference between Dahl and Strauss is that Dahl's theory of democracy tries to be application and Strauss' seeks to be understanding.

I'd like to disagree with the e-mailer's statement about Annika being a man's dream because she's a Swedish golfer. As a life-long golfer, I can attest that being AWAY from women is part of the attraction. There's a reason that it's called the Old Boys Club. Furthermore, a local sports station held a survey recently and discovered that contrary to popular belief, men don't want their women interested in sports at all. Its an escape for most men. Its offers a chance for men to reconnect with their manliness(or boyishness) with other men, and cast off the domestic shackles for a short time, and to have the women come along can be a burden at times.

She's a Swede and she plays golf - talk about a two-fer fantasy for a LOT of guys out there.

That is great! It is why our side wins the "flyover country" so solidly. Most of America doesn't have time for such theories or beliefs. That is why as soon as the advocates for the left-wing (not nessacerily the candidates, but the intellectuals and pundits and academics) start talking, most of America stops listening. Oh, if you have too much education for your own good or wish you did, you love this kind of stuff...but most of America with a high school diploma and some college or a degree has no interest in this. Two things to turn off middle America the quickest are making too much of obscure symbolism in trivial things, and trying to sound important by making complex arguments and using big words, and the best thing is that the LIBERALS DON'T KNOW THIS/CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT! That is why conservative networks like Fox News and the conservative talk radio shows will always blow liberal ones out of the water...

I was deployed over for Enduring Freedom in the "stans" area of the world. We had limited TVs to watch the Armed Forces Network on. It was 2 or 3 AM local time when they broadcasted Bush's landing on the USS Lincoln and the room was full of folks who had gotten up to come out and watch it. We wanted to see the Commander in Chief land on the carrier. Sure, it was part machismo, but an overt part - the landing on the carrier...that wasn't hidden, and the military folks loved him for it.

From an e-mailer:

K-Lo,
The cat's out of the bag! (ClicheCons) It seems different conservatives have different viewpoints! (DiffCons) There are as many conservative subsets as there are conservatives.
Have conspiracy theories? You're a ConCon.
Love the arts? Consider yourself a CultCon.
Married? Ball&ChainCons
From Naples? NeopoliCon
Annoying? Sorry, you're still a liberal.

Derb, I have the reverse problem. I find it hard to read novels. When I’m forced to, I enjoy the classics. I even think I can take in a good novel in a deep way--but only under pressure. For some reason, I like to take in the world through non-fiction. (Except classic theater, which I love.) I consider that a failing, and I feel guilty about it. I wish I read more novels, Derb, and I wish I could write like you. I can’t, though.

My real concern in this mini debate is simply that young conservatives should not leave with the impression that they should avoid political or social theory. Of course, most of what passes for theory now is truly awful, even if filled with a perverse sort of insight. But theory makes you powerful. It’s no coincidence that Bill Kristol and Andrew Sullivan have Ph.D.’s in political philosophy--both taken under Harvey Mansfield at Harvard. You won’t find two tougher political infighters than Kristol and Sullivan, yet each is made vastly stronger by their grasp of theory. Of course, the media has begun to pick up on the theory background of many powerful conservatives and has converted that fact into a ludicrous conspiracy theory. But the real lesson is that theory makes conservatives--and conservatism--powerful.

In my recent “Democratic Imperialism” piece, I talk about Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. Each was a great political philosopher in his own right, yet each led a school of British Imperial administrative thought--and action! It’s amazing, when you think about it, how powerful theory allowed both Burke and Mill to be as practical politicians.

Yes, political and social theory in today’s academy has become the appalling preserve of politically correct commissars. To me, that’s a tragedy. One reason that the whole “neocon” idea has lost its focus is that many neocons used to have a background in classic social theory (as I do). But now that the academy has been taken over by a bunch of nuts, it’s almost impossible to train a “neocon” in the ideas that made neocon thought powerful in the first place. Rather than write the academy off, I’d like to see us take it back. And it’s worthwhile for conservatives to master even the postmodern, neo-Marxist, and radical feminist and queer theory that now rules the academy. Only because I know that stuff--and its many weaknesses--can I do the work that I do. But where are the teachers who can bring all this home to students? They have been killed off by the academic left. That saddens me, and it weakens conservatism.

Stan - Maybe I misread Derb, but I didn't think he was saying philosophy was useless so much as he has no use for philosophy. If you are right -- and I don't think you are -- that there are conservatives out there denying the power of theory, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the necessary shellacking that shall be required. But I see no need to shellack a straw man. I don't think even the most pragmatic conservative realist in the world would deny the power of theory -- on other people. One need not scour the twentieth century for the positive examples of theory, The Closing of the American Mind for example, when there are so many obvious and huge instances of theory's negative consequences. Uh: Communism, Nazism, Maoism, Southwest Airlines. Surely no one would disagree with Richard Weaver who argued in his book Ideas Have Consequences that, well, ideas have consequences.

But, Stan, I think you forget that one of the central principles of conservatism is to be deeply, deeply suspicious of theory. Russell Kirk, quoting H.S. Hughes, was found of saying that conservatism is the "negation of ideology." I warn you that your dark master, theory, can lead you astray. Remember Goldberg's Theory Of Theory: Theory good when explaining things. Theory dangerous when changing things.

I just made that up.

The Chicks were nominated for several awards. When their names were announced for nominations pre-performance, the audience clapped for them.

It was only AFTER the performance, when whatsherface wore the "F*** You Toby Keith" shirt, and their name was read for "Entertainer of the Year," that the audience booed. And, poetically, Toby Keith beat them out for that award.

People might have started to forgive them for the anti-Bush remarks. But picking a fight with reigning country badass Toby Keith has just gotten them totally ostracized from the country community.

I agree with K-Lo in that I think Derb deprecates too much! Still it's possible he can't read philosophy. That doesn't mean he can't understand it. I have a close friend who's sort of like that. He's extremely intelligent, has a near photographic memory and one of the best educations of anybody I know (like Derb, he knows poetry and stuff). But he conceptualizes everything in the form of stories, particularly military history. Ask him what the French Revolution was about and he'll talk about Danton and Robespierre and, eventually Napoleon (more war stuff there) and their intrigues. It simply won't occur to him to talk about the philosophy. I've long said he's the only intellectual I know who doesn't care about ideas.

Anyway, this all reminded me of a great little passage in James Q. Wilson's review of David Frum's book in a recent issue of Commentary. He writes of the different sorts of intelligence and their relative value to temperment:

Of course, intelligence is important. A candidate must understand the issues, be able to connect facts and concepts, and express his understanding well to other people. But I suspected that what my friend meant by "intelligence" was something more akin to what we encounter in college: verbal facility, a lucid memory, and skill at quick give-and-take.

I have met many chief executive officers of private companies and have been struck by how much they vary in this sort of intelligence. I am not old enough to have known William Knudsen, the one-time head of General Motors, who, when asked by the government to evaluate some new program, thought about it and finally said, "It won't work." When asked what he meant, he repeated: "It won't work." He was right. I have also known some CEO's of high verbal facility who are excellent at quick give-and-take. What the two varieties of executives have had in common is not the same sort of intelligence but the same temperament.

I watched the CMA last night, including the Chix performance at their Austin safehouse, and noticed that one of them was wearing a shirt with "FUTK" on the front. Is this supposed to be clever?

It reminds of when we went to a taping of Nashville Live when the guests were Riders in the Sky and Arlo Guthrie. The Riders were great, of course, but Arlo sung a song about "what if the doors to heaven were closed?" The audience was flabbergasted. You might as well said "what if black were white." It simply didn't compute, and that burned-out old hippie got what my daughters call a "courtesy applause."

In response to our brief discussion here yesterday on conservative writing, several readers have made the point that serious philosophy shouldn't be easy reading. I almost agree with that. I have a problem with the "shouldn't" part. I flatly do not believe that there is merit in making writing more complicated for its own sake. In fact, as a general principle I think that if something can be said plainly it should be said plainly (let's leave entertainment out of it for the moment). The Ten Commandments, for example, has no big words or complicated sentences but lots of big concepts. Still, I'm perfectly willing to grant that some ideas cannot be properly communicated easily and simply. But that doesn't excuse complicating simple ideas so as to seem like you've grasped something no one else can.

As I'm sure many of you know, this is a huge problem in academia today. I know for a fact that in many fields, at many schools, to say something is "well written" is considered a put-down. I went into much of this in my column "Orwell's Orphans" (one of my better ones, if you ask me).

[W]hen the leaders of the Class of 2003 assemble in the Long Island high school's fluorescent-lit meeting rooms, most of [the] boys are nowhere to be seen. The senior class president? A girl. The vice-president? Girl. Head of student government? Girl. Captain of the math team, chief of the yearbook, and editor of the newspaper? Girls.

It's not that the girls of the Class of 2003 aren't willing to give the guys a chance. Last year, the juniors elected a boy as class president. But after taking office, he swiftly instructed his all-female slate that they were his cabinet and that he was going to be calling all the shots. The girls looked around and realized they had the votes, says Tufts University-bound Casey Vaughn, an Intel finalist and one of the alpha femmes of the graduating class. "So they impeached him and took over.

A reader nicely chastizes:

Jonah, a) I would agree that Oakeshott isn't easy going, but isn't that more a function of the subject than the writer. Serious philosophy isn't generally a breeze to read. b) I'd credit him with some great, penetrating phrases which completely resonate: "the politics of the felt need" along with "making politics as the crow flies" are two examples. And the paragraph that states that "in political activity men sail a boundless ocean with neither starting point nor destination..." is to my mind as good as it gets. c) It took a long time to get through, but reading and rereading his Rationalism in Politics, was the intellectual highlight of my college days.

From a reader:

Jonah, On that Eric Alterman whine-fest, at the bottom is the quote "On The Nation cruise, which is fast selling out, they tell me, you not only get the editors and columnists - no Stalinists this time - you also get Frank McCourt, Bud Trillin, Molly Ivins and Amos Elon," Now remind me, what level of Dante's hell is that?

If you really have a great grasp of Sorel's idea of the Myth of the General Strike and feel like sharing your views on it, please drop me a line. I've got the basics, but if there's an expert or two out there, I'd love to hear from you. I'm particularly interested in how the early syndicalists-Fascists-Marxists viewed the role of "myth" in social organization.

Ah, I remember when my guide to fleet week was a little scummy dude who hung out on tenth avenue.

It appears to this senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises," Byrd said.

There is ample evidence that the horrific events of Sept. 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, who masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not.

Just got this e-mail from a Dutch friend:

Last weekend we stayed at Eurodisney with the kids. And we're not ashamed to admit that we had a great time! So every now and then it feels really good to walk around in a fantasy world where everything is fake, but beautiful and peaceful.

But boy, did we have fun... .

Eric Alterman -- who left quite a bit to be desired as a landlord -- says I had to forfeit my security deposit when I rented his apartment years ago. If that's the case, I'll take his word for it. Personally, I don't remember. Of course, it makes sense that he would remember considering how important money seemed to him then and now. I don't just mean his public whining about late payments from NRO (it's the first I've heard about it to be honest). I mean, for example, his trying to bully me into buying his old DC metro fare-cards from him ("What? You conservatives don't take public transportation? You must take cabs everywhere."etc. etc.).

Eric says he won't call me names -- in what he must think is an example of taking the high road, and for him it is. So, I won't call him names either. But he says my article is "full of it" -- and that "that goes without saying." And, in fairly typical fashion, he doesn't offer any arguments or facts to back up the assertion (except to name a few lefties to his left). So, I guess I should say that I think his book is full of it too. But then again I actually back up my opinions. My review of his book will be in the next issue of The American Enterprise. I wrote it last week.

From another reader:

Good to see that Staussians are "mainstream conservatives" but Mel Bradford wasn't. I'm glad that it's okay to be part of a gnostic cult glorifying deception, hedonism, and atheism, but unforgivable to have supported George Wallace in 1968. I only wish someone would have explained that to Ronald Reagan, who courted the Wallace voters assiduously and won the White House in 1980 in part because many of them (included Bradford) voted for Reagan. It's amazing the things I learn at NRO.

A reader corrects me re yesterday's column:

Mr Goldberg,

A correction or clarification regarding your mention of Mel Bradford...

First, Bradford was not a historian. He was an English professor. He knew a lot about a lot, but if I recall correctly, his specialties were English Renaissance poetry (he was very fine on Ben Jonson) and the literature of the recent American South (the Fugitives, Faulkner, et al.). He knew a lot about history, and some of what he knew -- or thought -- about history, especially American history circa 1861-65, gave him some notoriety. But he wasn't a historian.

Second, Reagan was quite right to pass over Bradford as secretary of education. Had Bradford been nominated, the confirmation hearings would have been a circus. Bradford was not a mainstream conservative, by which I mean he wasn't in the Nixon/Rockefeller camp (definitely), he wasn't in the Goldwater camp, he certainly wasn't a Straussian (he was at sixes and sevens with the Straussians at UD all the time). He was the Dallas county head of the George Wallace presidential run in (scratching head here....) 1968. I don't doubt that he was a segregationist, except that it's important to note that Bradford was too young to have his birth date as an excuse for that particular mistake. He was in his late '30s in the early 1970s when I was his student, although he gave the impression of being much older. Bradford lived in his fantasies of the noble old south more than anybody I ever knew -- and I've known a number of people who lived in these fantasies.

Bradford was a brilliant reader of poetry, a criminally irresponsible teacher, an amateur historian who looked good because he had a flypaper memory and was a charming raconteur. In politics, however, he was a nut case. I am not the only person who knew him who thought that his name must have been mentioned in 1981 as a joke.

I also said that I know many conservatives disagree with me about Kirk. I'm just not a big fan of Gothic, allusive, semi-colin-ridden writing. I never disputed Kirk's importance or his brilliance.

Well, Rod, it seems to me that if you're going to address that point, you should at least consider a few things. One: It's not necessarily true. Hong Kong is certainly free-market and hence non-lefty. And, many people -- let's start with Jefferson -- think cities in general are terrible. Two: many cities become great because they aren't liberal and become liberal as the rent-seekers and second-generation professionals take over. As with the West generally, liberal lifestyles are luxuries which can be afforded only after great wealth is accumulated. Three: Please don't forget the hypocrisy and crypto-racism of many crunchy-liberal locales. See this column by Tom Sowell for instance. Four: Maybe these places are great because, well, they are great and, like many other things, liberals make them worse than they could be. Or, at least, they don't always make them better.

From a reader:

Jonah, I have been reading with interest your analysis of the "neocon" phenomenon. I re-read your thoughts on Africa, and it hit me like a ton of bricks. In it I think you accurately described the essence of what I understand to be neo-conservatism in that article. It is the idea that the social experiment called America is mankind's best hope, and therefore, it must be exported by the most efficient means possible (including invasion when a threat is present) to the ultimate betterment of mankind. Yes it has its warts, but it is self-correcting as no other system is. Lefties and postmodernists attack this approach as empire building, neo-colonialism, and worse (yeah, like their heroes the Soviets never tried to forcefully export their ideas to the world). Paleo-cons differ in that they don't want to export this system. Not their job. (If the rest of the world discovers it, great. If not, the heck with 'em.) The fact that the first neos were ex-lefties is clear evidence to me of this distinction. They truly wanted to make the world a better place (I still believe there is a measure of altruism, however grossly misguided, in Leftist thought). They just finally realized that any degree of socialism wasn't the answer. The answer was literally right under their feet!

I think the "good point" fellow meant "meritorious." At least I hope he did.

From a reader:

Jonah –

One other point the liberals miss: their legacy-vs.-affirmative-action argument amounts to what George Will would call a “crashing non-sequitur.” It makes no sense to balance affirmative action against the “legacy” programs that offer scholarships to wealthy offspring of alumni. Affirmative action policies don’t take spots away from “legacies” (who are generally wealthy enough to get in regardless of affirmative action), they take them away from poor and middle-class applicants who would otherwise have gotten in on merit alone. Affirmative action doesn’t level the “legacy” playing field, it merely punishes meretricious applicants who happen to be neither minorities nor legacies.

Ramesh has a very good piece on homosexuals and the Right. He addresses one of my longstanding peeves: thee myth that there's no such thing as a gay agenda. Apparently David Horowitz complains about the term because it suggests that the lefty gay rights groups speak for all gays. Fine, fine if that's your beef. But as Ramesh notes, it's usually liberals who complain about the phrase for strategic reasons one of which is to make conservatives who talk about the gay agenda sound paranoid and homophobic. Here's an excerpt from a piece I did on the subject for the now-defunct Brill's Content:

Take the gay agenda. Not “the so-called” gay agenda or “what some people refer to as the gay-agenda,” but the real thing. Time and again, journalists relentlessly yet subtly ridicule the notion that an agenda exists. “That concern plays to the arguments of those who believe there is a ‘gay agenda’ …” writes a typical reporter for USA Today. The authors of an article about parents seeking to ban a gay club at their local high school write, “In so doing, the trustees dodged a lawsuit threat from a group of parents opposed to what they call the ‘gay agenda’ in public schools.”

As always, NY Times editorialist Brent Staples serves the purpose of saying outright what more wimpy liberals only imply. “Republicans began … demonizing homosexuals for political gain. But in the race for 2000, the most prominent candidates … say that they would hire gay workers as long as they refrained from pressing ‘a gay agenda’ -- a code phrase for keeping quiet about issues of same-sex intimacy, up to and including marriage.”

There’s only one problem. “Gay agenda,” unlike “alternative lifestyle,” is not a code phrase. It means pretty much exactly what the dictionary says it should. “Gay” refers to organized, political homosexuals and the people they aim to represent. “Agenda” means – you guessed it – the stuff they want: gay marriage and adoption, hate crime laws, open service in the military etc. Gay writers and journalists seem far more likely to be honest about this fact. In books and periodicals, they have open, honest discussions about what gays should be fighting for. The only people who think using this plain language is an ominous “code phrase” are straight liberals in the media who are terrified of sounding “homophobic.”

One of your closest friends Instant Messages you:

"dude you're inner geek is really coming out in these neocon articles. no guy with this much to say about the term 'neocon' ever got laid at the sky bar."

At the bottom of Cornel West's website it says:

His presence is a mainstay in the American media. So much so that he has virtually become a household word. His dedication to enhancing the lives of ordinary people and people of color is in the tradition of the freedom fighters of the past.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear him spout the cliche about how there is no black race or white race just the "human race."

Derb - I agree that conservatives have an advantage in that they are operating closer to the ground than liberals. But realism is a particular advantage in times when realism is highly valued. Liberals moan terribly about the advantage conservative columnists have today as if there's a conspiracy among liberal newspaper editors to hire conservative writers. Well, until the early 1970s there were almost no conservative columnists in major American newspapers (People forget the debt we owe to Spiro Agnew for putting pressure on the media to hire conservatives). James Kilpatrick was a pioneer, starting in 1964 with his "A Conservative View" column. Safire came a little later. I've always thought that one of the advantages liberal columnists had is that in times of ignorance or, to be more charitable, innocence liberals can appeal to utopian aspirations without seeming unserious. Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" seemed like a reasonable book at the time, for example. If you wrote that book today, you'd be laughed at. Anyway, I think the realism of conservative writing has grown to be more valued in part because realism itself is more valued. If readers didn't want conservative columnists I'm sure liberal editors would be delighted not to carry them.

You could also say, as many do, that it's not realism so much as ideas that makes for good writing. Since liberalism doesn't have good ideas anymore their writing often seems to be cranky defenses of the status quo or continuation of old discredited policies. My only problem with this formulation is that it concedes that liberals had the good ideas in the first place.

From an (angry) reader re my syndicated column (linked below):

OK, so blacks are hypocrites for not acknowleding the hypocrisy of defending AA while denouncing legacy admits. But all that doesn't explain why a principled man such as yourself would accept an internship you hadn't earned. What's that all about Jonah? You do the same thing you accuse the Martins of the world of doing -- chicken and egg hypocrisy about PREFERENCE.

You and Andrew Sullivan (how many chances did he give Ruthie Shalit again? and why?) don't have a leg to stand on between you in this argument.

Also to say that minority journalists hired through AA programs are hired "just because they're black, or whatever" is utterly disingenuous. Most of them (like most legacies) are hired because they are people of color AND qualified. These things are not mutually exclusive. Until you can show me that the other dozens of minority reporters who were hired through the program are somehow less qualified than their "regularly" hired counterparts, you are arguing without evidence. Those programs are designed to give them opportunities not "breaks" -- you know just like the opportunities you had -- and geez, were you qualified Jonah?

My quick response -- because I've really got to go: Blair never graduated from college and he screwed up -- a lot -- and got promoted for it. Yes, I've had opportunities because of my background, I don't deny it nor am I ashamed of it. But every such opportunity I've received I felt like I was "on probation." I didn't feel like I was entitled to it. If a kid named Goldberg showed up drunk for work and behaved as reprehensibly as Blair did on the job he would have been fired. At least that's my reasonable conclusion. And -- for the umpteenth time -- I never said this story was all about race. My objection is with those who refuse to see that it has anything to do with race.

Cornell West's website

Derb -- Well, my neocon opus gets as close to dreary poli sci as I can manage. But you raise an interesting and in a sense taboo subject among conservatives: the quality of writing among our founding fathers. You mention Kirk, and I must confess that I do not like The Conservative Mind either. Oh, I think much of the content is fascinating but the style leaves me cold. I know that many conservatives disagree and I wouldn't actually put Kirk in the bad writer category. It's just not my cup of tea. Nonetheless I must confess that I find Eric Voegelin, Michael Oakeshott and, of course, Leo Strauss some of the slowest, least enjoyable reading I've ever encountered. I think Strauss gets something of a pass, since he intended his writing to be inaccessible to everyone but the annointed. Anyway, I though this might be an amusing way to start a rainy day discussion about writing on the Right (and the Left). I'm off to have lunch. But I'll be back.

Sorry about that. It's a good piece too.

The report from Nature about overfishing and depleted fisheries may or may not be exaggerated, but even it is an exaggeration it's exaggerating a real and growing problem. While most environmental gloom and doom is nonsense, the worry about the oceans is well-placed. My friend Ron Bailey has a good piece on the subject.

Derb - Look what you've started.

Well, I did once -- twice actually -- raise the idea of invading the place. Here's part two. This was pre-9/11 and I've re-thought some of it. But the moral argument still strikes me as sound as ever.

Today's is the last installment of the neocon trilogy. It should be up soon.

One of the most annoying arguments from defenders of race-based preferences for college admissions is the "legacy" argument. Children of donors and alumni get special treatment, the quota-mongers say, so why shouldn't minorities. As far as moral arguments go, this has always struck me as particularly lame, the equivalent of "two wrongs make a right." After all these people don't say that special treatment for the rich and well-connected is good, they say it's bad. And since one bad thing exists you shouldn't take away another bad thing that helps the people I care about.

The same thing is going on with the Blair case. Last weekend Michel Martin declared on ABC News that if we're going to get rid of affirmative action for blacks we should get rid of affirmative action for women in short skirts. Now, except for the fields of prostitution and modeling, I generally thought we as a society were trying to do exactly that. Ms. Martin certainly doesn't think that preferences for leggy women are a good thing. Indeed, a host of black journalists have made similar arguments, saying that nepotism and the old boy network are still at work so we should have affirmative action. You can make that argument if you want, but don't tell me affirmative action is noble and wonderful if at the same time the only things you compare it to are things you think are bad.

Oh, by the way, this is the subject of my syndicated column.

From a reader:

When I graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1995 Bill Clinton gave our commencement speech. Most of us weren’t all that thrilled with the prospect of receiving our diplomas from him, but I hoped he’d give a pleasant speech commending us for our dedication and commitment and such. Instead he gave some droning foreign policy speech with little, if any, content tailored towards us other than the fact that the military had a role in his foreign policy. I thought it showed how little respect he had for us that he would come and use our graduation as a venue for his canned speech rather than congratulate us on a job well done or to exhort us to be prepared for the future.

I think the same thing can be said for Chris Hedges. It’s selfish and arrogant to use someone’s graduation as a venue for your own agenda and I think he deserved the boos and hisses. Other forums are fine and dandy for self-aggrandizement, but graduation is for the graduates, not the speaker. If they cared to, the university could discourage bad behavior by making known the consequences such behavior would incur. For example, I doubt any hissers would have received their diplomas or commissions at my graduation, and anyone who charged the stage would likely have ended up looking like Swiss cheese. As a result, we were a remarkably polite audience (I remember hearing many times how we weren’t supposed to utter contemptuous words about the president during his tenure yet no one felt the need to issue similar warnings once Bush took over…odd isn’t it?).

Maybe you should try having snipers behind the crowd when you give speeches, I bet people would be much more polite…

Isikoff's excellent review seals it. After reading Andrew Sullivan's review I was still mildly interested in reading the Blumenthal book. But Isikoff demonstrates exactly why I won't. Sure, if I had a copy sitting here, I'd leaf through the index to see what he says about things and people I know, but ultimately I served my time on that front and don't want any more to do with it.

As many know, I had more than a passing involvement with all of that. I have no apologies and few regrets about any of it, but I'm also sick of it. It has no appeal to me. I consider Blumenthal an irredeemable liar -- much like his deities, the Clintons. The idea of plowing through 800 pages of spin and self-congratulation, even to debunk it, gives me the (slick) willies.

A bunch of people keep asking me why I didn't write anything about the last episode of Buffy. The reason is I don't watch Buffy in first-run. I only watch it on FX in repeats. So I'm like a season behind. But I did watch last night's series finale. I was a little in the dark about some of it. But I have to say I'm sorry I did. The feminist empowerment stuff at the end left me totally cold. And now a whole string of plot lines have been spoiled for me. Generally, I still think it's a great show.

If The Clinton Wars has any central point it is that the scandals that beset the Clinton presidency—from Whitewater to campaign finance to Lewinsky to Marc Rich—were each and every one of them entirely concocted, from start to finish. This is patently absurd. It is, of course, true that many of Clinton's critics made wild, unsubstantiated charges and that Starr's prosecutors overreached. But Blumenthal's blanket whitewash is close to ludicrous—and sustainable only by erasing huge chunks of the historical record.

Despite their unhappiness with the current situation, Iraqis acknowledge that nothing could be worse than living under Saddam and expect that things can only get better from here.

If Mr. Blair’s instincts as a journalist are shaky, his skills as a self-promoter appear to be solid: On Monday, he issued a statement to CNN that said, "I hope to have the opportunity to write and share my story so that it can help others to heal."

Mr. Vigliano, meanwhile, is working hard—and fast—to turn the 27-year-old into Jayson Blair Inc. It’s a story that he believes could be worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in film and book royalties.

But unlike Mr. Blair’s career-suicide doppelgänger, Stephen Glass—who has said he spent five years in therapy before publishing a work of fiction about his fabrications in The New Republic—the former Times reporter isn’t waiting around to get his head straight. He’s diving right in, not slowed down at all by the gummy ethical issues involved in exploiting his own bad behavior for personal profit. The memoir that Mr. Blair wants to write will either justify his actions or further damn them. Above all, the proposal claims, the book will have something to teach others: "I want to offer my experience as a lesson," Mr. Blair writes, "for the precipice from which I plunged is one on which many young, ambitious, well-educated and accomplished African Americans and other ‘minorities’ teeter, though most, of course, do manage to pull back from the brink. That precipice overhangs America’s racial divide; and the winds sucking us down into the chasm (cultural isolation, professional mistrust, and the external and internal imperatives to succeed, at all costs, to name a few) can be too strong for the troubled and unprepared—as I was—to withstand.

I'm going to be delivering the graduation speech at my old high school this weekend. I have the fondest memories of the place, so it'll be a real honor. I've been thinking about what I'm going to say. I keep thinking what I would want to tell my 18-year-old self sitting there in a mortarboard, about the things I've learned in the 18 years since. A couple of things come to mind.

First, I wish I had studied more in college, and done more of the reading. I find myself often wishing I'd read that Nietzsche, or paid more attention in economics class. Dr. Cecil Eubanks' political theory class at LSU was the best college course I had, and I missed his final lecture because I had been out too late the night before partying. I still regret it. I don't think many people wish they had drunk more beer in college.

Also, I wish I had had more of a sense back then of how easy it is to blow it. When I graduated from this high school, which was a kind of magnet school, all of us were bowed-up and certain that the world was going to open up for us and treat us like the happy, deserving little geniuses we thought we were. It didn't work out that way. There were plenty of casualties among my classmates since 1985's graduation: drugs, booze, bad choices of all kinds that diminished and even botched the future we thought was assured. Nothing is ever assured, and only the vain and deluded believe the future belongs to the intelligent. When I think about how close I came to screwing it all up for myself and for my mom and dad, who had sacrificed so much for me, it's humbling and even scary. You should take nothing for granted.

Of course the kids won't believe a word of it. I wouldn't have at that age. That's normal, I guess.

Has revamped their website. It looks great.

Now this is a dog.

As I suspected, the neocon columns have brought out every flavor of protest. Lots of complaints that this is too dull for words and I should drop it. Fair enough on that score, that's partly my point. These distinctions are incredibly inside-baseball and people who claim to understand what neocons are and use the word glibly to describe everyone from Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich to Irving Kristol and Ramesh Ponnuru usually reflect their own ignorance or their own agendas.

But let me also say in my own defense that you asked for it. When I asked readers for FAQ-questions "explain neoconservatism" was one of the most popular queries.

It's also bleached the scummiest anti-Semites out of the woodwork. I always think about revisiting my policy of posting email addresses whenever I get this sort of thing. But I think I have to have the policy for everyone.

Three emails covering the spectrum, though the majority think I'm all wet (view #3).

Back on the lab steak thing again huh? By the way, lets not call them that. Makes the pooch nervous. How about laboratory steaks.

Anyhow, this is an interesting topic. Problem with your thinking lies on the economics side of things more than the biological/technical challenge. Most of the beef we eat is available because cattle are very adept at converting grass (something humans don't digest well) into protein and fat (which you and me obviously do digest well). Contrary to general perception, cattle attain most of their weight not by being fed corn in a feedlot, but by grazing on ground which is, generally speaking, not arable (i.e. farmable). They are fed in feedlots only during their, shall we say, golden months. The industry works this way because it utilizes resources (range grass) that are renewable, cheap, and not otherwise useful. The feedlot part of the cycle illustrates the irony that faces cattlemen. Wholly grass fed beef is lean and nutritious. But what fat there is, is brownish in color and doesn't taste all that great. By contrast, corn fed beef shows nice white colored fat layers that look wholesome (but are no more so) to the shopper down at the Piggly Wiggly. Ultimately, the undeniable truth that screams from the marketplace is...people like the taste of fat! They say they want lean and healthy, but they absolutely don't. And they won't buy it. So the industry gives them exactly what they want.

Thus, cattle are grown for the most part on grass that grows in inaccessible, non-farmable rangeland up until about three months before dinner. At that point, they go to the feedlot to fatten up with nice white layers of corn induced heart attack. A good and decent system if you ask me.

Now, back to laboratory steaks. If science could deliver meat grown without
the requirement of an actual whole cow, it would still require raw materials. Unfortunately, it would be hard to imagine a method of harvesting the raw material (grass) that makes meat on any kind of scale that would be nearly as efficient as the good ole cow scrounging for grass between the rocks, cactus and brush of the western range. Something after all, is being loaded into the back end of the replicator down on the engineering deck, and I don't think any of us want to know what it is.

And finally, what does everyone have against cows anyway?

I have over a hundred emails about commencement addresses to wade through. I think that'll do me for now. Thanks!

I forgot to consult this.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

With the wife and child away, I knew today would be a day for in depth corner postings on topics of great importance. With Cosmo as your only company, I should have known the subject would be meat.

I'm giving one at Hillsdale Academy. What makes a great High School commencement address? I have no idea. I don't think I've ever heard a good one. If anyone knows of one -- especially if the text is online -- I'd love to hear about it.

Many thanks for The Corner! (I subscribe, buy books and stuff and donate, so the only thing you can do is pat me on the head - :-). Well, I might consider chocolates for the staff for Christmas.

Derb - Yeah, I seem to recall this is a device in a lot of sci-fi. In the Dune series they grow slig meat -- a mixture of pig and slug -- which supposedly tastes delicious. I think this sort of conjecture about the future makes so much more sense than the folks who predict that we will eat a single pill which will satisfy all of our nutritional needs. I can't think of a good example of this -- all I can remember is an episode of the old Planet of the Apes TV series, an episode of Star Trek, and I think a couple of the Ray Bradbury stores. That sort of thing.

But you know what I'm talking about. It's of a piece with the depictions of the future as antiseptic and sterile. For some reason many people believe that as technology liberates us, relieves more and more of man's estate (to borrow from Bacon) we will deny our natures more and more. I know lots of people believe technology alienates us and it does. But we don't want it to. The richer we get the more we surround ourselves with trees and plants. Our meals become more lavish. Our leisure time becomes more important. We move to or visit areas where technology seems less visible -- even though we use advanced technology to get there. I believe that in the far-flung future we will live in houses full of woods (real or synthetic) and greens and eat increasingly luxurious meals. We won't live in THX-1138 style pods with bright track lighting and steel floors the way so many people expect. And to get back to growing meat in a lab, we'll have a lot more land for people to do that.

I've long thought that meat will eventually be grown on farms or giant labs. I know this is icky to some, but I actually think it will be a huge boon to humanity. Anyway, once again Weekly World News is ahead of the curve.

"Of course, from a female perspective, a bride might love the idea of her groom having a best gal, given this bachelor-party point...."

[GROOM]: "Um, Bride-to-Be, I hope you don't mind, but you know how I've asked my/our friend Mary to be my "Best Man"? Well, she's throwing this little bachelor party thing for me. You know...some drinks, some dancing, music...late night...Are you okay with that?"

SHHHHHWWTHONK!!!!!! [sound of beautifully balanced battle ax falling]

[GROOM]: Medic!

Lange went on to condemn the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies. She likened the war in Iraq to Richard Nixon’s “ruthless” bombing of Vietnam. She said executive orders and judicial appointments were eroding women’s rights.

Bob Herbert laments the fixation Jayson Blair's race. He writes: "Now this would be a juicy story under any circumstances. But Mr. Blair is black, so there is the additional spice of race, to which so many Americans are terminally addicted."

I'm sorry. This is simply not a charge Bob Herbert gets to make. He writes about race whenever it suits his purposes. He cannot say that anyone else who takes an interest in race has an unhealthy addiction. If that were the case, Herbert's addiction would have killed him a hundred times over already. Indeed, if race-talk is a drug, he's a dealer.

This trend is to be discouraged. I had been ashamed to admit it until now, but I was the "man of honor" at my sister's wedding last year. It was hell for all concerned. Staying up late decorating was bad enough but the worst part was that it put a woman, my brother-in-laws' sister, in charge of planning the bachelor party. I hope we've heard the last of this.

Numerous readers have informed me that they, too, were scared by "The Ring." Several say the original Japanese film is even scarier. Anyway, this seemed like the best email on this score to post:

The Ring is TERRIFYING!! My wife (www.patriciacaicedo.com, a good candidate for site of the day or a shout out in The Corner, no? she is a soprano specializing in Latin American classical music and --if you put her up-- I will give NRODT to five people who are having June birthdays!) and I watched it at a theater and --after each scary moment-- the audience would laugh with relief. It became a shared experience which made it a lot of fun.

Still, seriously, seriously, scary movie.

Now, if you think you can handle it, go rent "The Gift" and buy some Depends!

Barney? If they really want to make them talk, they should put them in an endless look of It's a Small World at Disney World. I was on the ride when it broke down...not the singing dolls, just the chain that pulled the boat. I was just about ready to walk out when it started moving again. But think of the terrorists on the ride: not only would they have the insipid, repetitive music, but also the message, in many languages, that it is a small world. On the other hand, there is the Geneva Convention...

From a reader:

Dear Jonah:
The current Scientific American has a story on alternate universes, and alternate Earths. Seems there is a Cosmo Clone only 2x10 118 power meters from here. I only comprehend some of the concepts, but it provides justification for a lot of Trek episodes. Not to mention that somewhere Al Gore is President.

Before she left, the missus and I watched
"The Ring" on pay-per-view. Now I have a confession to make. I get scared by scary movies. Of all my friends, I think I'm the only one to have been rattled by "The Blair Witch Project." I don't hide under my blanket or put my hands over my eyes or suffer from bladder control problems or anything like that. But they do get to me. Anyway, I've got to say that "The Ring" was one of the scariest movies I've seen in a while. I'm reluctant to make statements like this because whenever I do I get inundated with email from people saying "you're a big wuss" or "that movie was so stupid!" etc. So let me concede that I'm a big wuss and yes parts of the movie were stupid. But, if you're looking for a scary movie this one gets my recommendation.

I caught some of "Next of Kin" last night. Wow, not a good movie. But a very impressive cast: Patrick Swayze, Liam Neeson, Helen Hunt, Adam Baldwin, Ben Stiller. Some questions: Why does Swayze's career seem cursed? Second, does Chicago really treat its hillbilly population as second class citizens? Do "rednecks" really pour down from "the hills" to work grunt jobs of the Windy Do the hillbillies of "Next of Kin" -- with their attachment to nature, their love of family, their sense of justice etc -- constitute the Ur-Crunchy Cons?

My lovely bride and daughter are in Alaska committing mischief, so Cosmo and I are here holding the fort on our own. In fact, we're holding two forts. The house and the fort we've made from books and pillows in the middle of the living room. It is amazing how quickly the world falls apart once the civilizing influences of the fairer sex are removed. I know, I know, there are disciplined, tidy, responsible men out there who do not need the company of women to resist their more barbarian instincts. And, yeah, I'm sure that if I were left alone long enough I would build-up the necessary psychological muscles to avoid a total Lord of the Flies scene. But, man, they're gone for a couple hours and Coz and I are filthy, walking around the kitchen trying to figure out how food "happens."

It kind of reminds me of a documentary I saw about Rikers prison in NYC. The male prisoners are kept under a microscope. The guards search for ball point pens, the wire from those garbage bag ties, sharp lint -- whatever the men can forge into a weapon. Meanwhile, in the women's facility the female inmates have open doors to their cells and are allowed to use and keep irons.

Thanks to the reader who pointed out another terrific review of that book on the King James Bible – this time by Jonathan Yardley in the Washington Post. The conclusion?

“The New English Bible, as T.S. Eliot wrote when it appeared, “astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic.” The King James Bible, by contrast, astonishes in its combination of the majestic, the singular and the exalting. That it has been replaced in most English-speaking Christian congregations by “modern” translations of surpassing mediocrity is one of the outrages of the age and one that says all too much about the age itself.”

Indeed it does, and to this long-lapsed member of the C of E, today’s tawdry texts are yet another reminder of how that once great national church has been reduced to slush, and to mush and to gush, as its ragbag collection of down at heel Bishops preside over a clergy of whom the defining characteristics are incoherence, sentimental piety, and pointless erudition.

An indignant reader writes to complain that the Wodehouse quote is incorrect. It should, he says, read as follows:

From Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit: (Perennial Library edition, 1983):

"...And he shrinks, no doubt, from the prospect of being addressed for the remainder of his life as Sir Lemuel."

"His name's not Lemuel?"

"I fear so, sir."

"Couldn't he use his second name?"

"His second name is Gengulphus."

"Golly, Jeeves," I said, thinking of old Uncle Tom Portarlington, "there's some raw work pulled at the font from time to time, is there not?"

"There is indeed, sir."

Are best at reading humans according to a new study. Cosmo could have told them that.

“Left-wing Belgian lawyer” – the very words conjure up an image that is petty, pedantic and yet somehow rather sinister. Well, one of these creatures is now trying to arrange for the prosecution of General Franks for “war crimes” in Iraq. The Sunday Telegraph has the background:

“A Brussels-based diplomat told The Telegraph that it would be "clearly unwise" for Gen Franks to visit the alliance's headquarters while he faces the possibility of a war crimes prosecution.”

So is it time to move NATO headquarters from Brussels? Without the various international organizations to which it plays host, Brussels would be nothing more than a splendid, but bankrupt restaurant. So, it’s time to at least make the threat, even if it seems a little premature. Belgium needs to understand that there’s a price to be paid for its posing – and the prospect of all those departures from its capital city might concentrate its mind most wonderfully.

Where could NATO go? Well, over in New Europe, the Poles would probably be glad to oblige – Warsaw’s weirdly attractive Palace of Culture would be a suitably ironic location.

The idea that ‘passive smoking’ could be a serious risk to non-smokers first originated in 1930s Germany (Hitler was a dedicated anti-smoker). Perhaps it’s only a coincidence, but ever since, the defenders of this junk ‘science’ have reacted with almost totalitarian indignation to any suggestion that the evidence behind it is seriously flawed. Today’s Sunday Telegraph has an interesting story on the response of the anti-tobacco vigilantes to new findings that attack the validity of the passive smoking hypothesis.

Check this out for example:

“Within hours of publication, he and his co-author Dr Geoffrey Kabat, of the State University of New York, came under attack by the very organisation that had set up his study: the American Cancer Society. "We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems," said a spokesman, adding that the study was "neither reliable nor independent". But, Prof Enstrom said, the speed of the society's response to the negative findings is particularly revealing. "They wrote the complaint before they even saw the paper," he said.”"

It seems clear that the American Cancer Society puts it political agenda before the task of saving lives. What a disgrace.

More comments from the Telegraph here. Over at Reason Jacob Sullum, always a reliable source of commonsense on this topic, notes that “Tobaccophobes such as Michael Bloomberg …are determined to eliminate smoking from bars and restaurants regardless of what the evidence shows. But those of us who have more respect for the truth should not let them banish skepticism along with cigarette smoke.”

Sullum's quite right, of course, but Nurse Bloomberg will do nothing in response, of course. With his city trapped in a deepening economic crisis, he’s too busy fiddling while the cigarettes don’t burn.

The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that a senior British policeman has called for the decriminalization of hard drugs.

“Chief Supt Anthony Wills, the borough commander of Hammersmith and Fulham in London, said that as the state could not control the criminal trade in drugs, it should take it over instead.

"I would have no problems with decriminalising drugs full stop," said Mr Wills. "There have to be very stringent measures over the production and supply of drugs and we have got to remove the drug market from criminals. I do not want people to take drugs but if they are going to, I want them to take them safely, with a degree of purity and in a controlled way."”

He makes a strong case – and one that is at least worthy of serious debate. Needless to say, Britain’s hapless Conservatives respond with bluster and blather. As the Telegraph reports:

“Last night his decision to air his views caused a row. Senior Conservatives said he would encourage young people to think that taking drugs was supported by the police and called on him to issue a retraction.

Ann Widdecombe, the former shadow home secretary, said: "When young people read views like this from a senior policeman they get the impression that taking drugs is okay - well it isn't. Hard drugs kill people and cannabis is proven scientifically to be harmful."”

What is it about individual responsibility that the Tories do not understand?

Notorious free-thinker and urban sophisticate John Derbyshire has recently outed himself as a Metro-Con. For another example of metropolitan (if not conservative) bias in the media take a look at this article from today’s New York Times. It’s a story describing how Wal-Mart “has bent American popular culture towards the tastes of their relatively traditionalist customers.”

Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another is simply to acknowledge that Wal-Mart is not shaping popular culture, but responding to it. The store is merely reacting to the signals it receives from its customer base in red–state America and if that includes, sigh, banning Maxim and stocking didactic vegetable videos and novels about the Rapture, so be it. If they’ve got it wrong, somebody else will emerge to satisfy the market that Wal-Mart is ignoring.

Here’s a helpful summary of the British relationship with ‘Saudi’ Arabia. Note that the arms deal that the writer discusses took place in the 1980s. Bad though it looks today, it’s worth remembering that it was a transaction of the Cold War era: strategic considerations were very different then. That was then, this is now. A key tragedy of US (and British) policy in the years that followed was the failure to understand that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, those strategic considerations changed – the Saudi ally had become something altogether more complex – and dangerous.

It was a failure that led directly to 9/11.

And here’s more on the Saudi connection – this time from the Independent

A reader writes in with the context:

“Jeeves is explaining to Bertie why L. G. Trotter has declined a knighthood. He dreads being called Sir Lemuel. Bertie says he could use his second name.

Jeeves: "His second name is Glengolfus, sir."

Bertie: "There's raw work pulled at the font sometimes Jeeves." “

PG Wodehouse - genius.

George Orwell is, these days, remembered as a secular saint, a voice of rationalism in a world gone mad. He was a wonderful, shrewd and perceptive writer, but his belief in a rather primitive form of socialist economics was always difficult to reconcile with the notion of his much vaunted commonsense. Well, here’s another blow to that image. Black magic?

Steven Runciman, the source of this story, was by all accounts a fascinating individual. A friend of mine was at a dinner party a few years ago where the then aged Runciman presided. An evening of uninhibited namedropping (he knew everybody, my dear) and hours of tawdry, but fascinating gossip about the vaguely famous of half a century ago (King Carol of Roumania! Max Beerbohm!) then followed. In particular, after hearing some tales of this evening, I’ve never been able to listen to anything written by Sibelius without bursting into laughter. That’s a response that tends to shock Finns. They are a rather solemn people and Sibelius is a revered figure up North, but when I explain my reasons they laugh too. Finns laughing? Yes really (definition of a Finnish extrovert – someone who looks at your shoes when he’s talking to you), they do. This is a family-oriented web-site, so, alas, I cannot say why.