If they buy land in Iraq. Things just keep getting cheerier over there.

Several readers have asked why we in the Corner or at NRO aren't talking about the attacks on our troops in Iraq more. It's an interesting question (although I should note there's virtually no editorial collaboration for what goes in the Corner). Speaking solely for myself, I guess the reason I haven't said anything about it is that I don't know what to say. We all knew that the "peace" would be harder than the war. There was consensus on that among hawks and (most) doves alike. Personally, I suspect it's all coordinated and the capture of Saddam and/or a sudden change in Iran might result in the whole "resistance" evaporating. Also, there's a line from the current cover story in the Atlantic which seems relevant. A special forces officer says of those who want to cut and run in circumstances like this -- I'm quoting from memory -- "If some firemen die putting out a fire, should we just let the building burn?"

If we need more troops, let's send more troops. But the consequences of screwing this up or bugging out would be far worse than anything we're seeing now.

We should, I suppose, be grateful that the American Library Association does not actually support the burning of books, but, as Jay has written before now, its shilly-shallying over Cuba’s independent libraries reveals a dismaying tendency amongst its members to put ideological affiliation before freedom of speech. The New York Times has more on this squalid little story today.

Amongst the people interviewed are Mark Rosenzweig, the director of the Reference Center for Marxist Studies, something that is blandly described by the Times' reporter as a ‘research center in New York City’. That’s true so far as it goes, but it might have been helpful to add that this reference center (“the official designated depository of the papers of the CPUSA”) leans, shall we say, somewhat to the left. Reading their newsletter from Winter 2002 we learn that:

“The RCMS [the center] joined with libraries across the country in celebrating "Banned Books Week", an annual event celebrating the '"freedom to read". Our exhibit was unique however, in emphasizing something which has been for the most part expunged from the history of the fight against censorship in the US. That is the role the Communist Party of the United States played from its founding onward in fighting tirelessly against laws meant to stifle free speech, freedom of association and discussion, freedom to publish and read. “

That is, to put it mildly, an interesting spin on the CPUSA - an organization variously dedicated to Lenin, Stalin and other 20th Century butchers. What's more, it's instructive to contrast those fine-sounding words with Rosenzweig’s contemptuous dismissal of the Cuban dissidents as “a ragtag bunch of people who have been involved on the fringes of the dissident movement.”

If Rosenzweig is an important player in this controversy it would be interesting to know why. If not, it raises another question. Why did the Times choose to give quite such prominence to his views?

For another example of how ‘religious toleration’ can mean exactly the opposite, travel to Denmark. The Economist (link requires payment of vast sums of money) is reporting the views of one Thorkild Grosboel. “There’s no heavenly God, there’s no eternal life, and there’s no resurrection.” He is, of course, fully entitled to those opinions, but there’s a catch. Grosboel is the pastor of a small town north of Copenhagen – and he wants to keep his job. The local bishop has, quite correctly, barred Grosboel from the pulpit, but, incredibly (a not inappropriate word), the Economist notes that ‘some liberals within the church urge greater leniency’.

Why?

There’s nothing particularly new – or shocking - about clergymen questioning their faith. The curate with ‘doubts’ is a familiar figure from literature and anecdote, but these are doubts best not shared with parishioners. Grosboel, by contrast, seems to have moved – and moved very publicly - from doubt to certainty, the certainty, presumably, that the rites at which he officiates are nothing more than mumbo-jumbo. To continue to perform them is an insult both to his church and (if it stops to think about the implications) his congregation – post-modernism can only go so far, even in Denmark.

Grosboel should show some manners – and quit.

The UK think-tank Civitas is suggesting (to quote this Daily Telegraph report), “fanatical Islamist religious leaders who preach hatred of Western values should be prevented from coming to work in British mosques”. Quite how one defines “fanatical” is, obviously, far from straightforward, but the current system under which ministers of religion are exempt from the normal visa rules (there are similar arrangements here in the US) seems not only wrong (why should clerics be given this privilege?) but also dangerous.

The West is facing a threat from a totalitarian and murderous ideology that happens to clothe itself in the guise of a religion – or at least a strand of thought within that religion. Somehow the fact that its advocates are always talking about their vision of God has lulled their potential victims into a curious reluctance to defend themselves properly. The reason usually cited? ‘Sensitivity’ to other faiths. This is nonsense. After far too long a wait, religious toleration has, rightly, become a vital part of Western cultural identity – it should not, however, be allowed to become a suicide pact. If, during the Cold War, East Bloc advocates of a violent overthrow of the West had wanted to come here to preach their message or worse, the visa process would have ensured that, at the very least, they were subjected to some serious scrutiny before their admission. The same should be true of clerics who wish upon our civilization destruction no less total than anything ever dreamt up by commissar or gauleiter. Singling out the clergymen of any one particular faith for a special visa regime would be invidious, so the solution is to require all ‘religious workers’ from abroad to go through a proper screening before they are admitted (certification by church, mosque or temple should not, by itself, be enough) here to carry out their work. Those who truly represent a religion of peace would have nothing to fear.

The authors of the Civitas report also note how the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ is being used to damp down debate over Islam. That’s true. If it’s to mean anything religious toleration must be about more than freedom of worship or, for that matter, not to worship. It should also be about the right to criticize and debate the creeds of others (tolerance is not the same as agreement) and the right to proselytize for your own. And if some people find that ‘offensive’, well, that’s just too bad. Freedom sometimes is.

It’s fine in a band, an orchestra or as the prelude to death by firing squad. Otherwise, drumming has a tendency to be dumb, dull or both.

Writing in a recent issue of New York Press, J R Taylor’s review of a 'Scream Out' (against the crimes of the evil Bush administration) begins as follows:

“"Could we get some drumming going?"

And there it is–the international symbol of the dopey performance art event. Karen Finley makes the call for the only cliche missing here at St. Mark’s Church in the Bowery, where Finley–best known for promoting herself as a worthy use of our taxes–has organized today’s big Scream Out. “

Send that man some chocolate.

Annoyed by that scam spam from various African bureaucrats, princesses, despots, victims of despots, and relatives of victims of despots all offering you a share in a fortune? Well, here’s a possible solution.

Here's an extract from a letter published last week in the Financial Times. The author is a professor at the University of California’s Graduate School of Management in Irvine, California:

“Sir, The photo of 14 white males sitting round a conference table which accompanied your article about the new American boardroom tells it all…These men not only look alike, they even have their hands folded the same way: no doubt they think alike also…”

That the woman who wrote that insulting trash is a professor there tells you all you need to know about the University of California’s Graduate School of Management in Irvine, California.

Or am I being unfair to suggest that all professors “think alike?”

When it comes to the engineering, British cars are more cautionary tale than glorious legend, but there’s an ad running over in the UK for the new Rover 75 that’s making great play of the fact that this was a car that had outranked new Renault and VW models in a recent survey.

The slogan: “Usual story: France behind Germany. Britain out on its own.”

I don't know who wrote that copy, but I do know that it wasn't Chris Patten.

Speaking of countries that aren’t likely to be around for long, here’s an entertaining (if you like that sort of thing) list (via Reason’s blog) of ‘ephemeral nations.’ It’s a pity that the compiler couldn’t include one of the best such countries (for the perfectly good reason, of course, that it was fictional) - the reborn ‘Burgundy’ from Passport to Pimlico (1949), a movie that’s worth watching both in its own right (it’s very funny) and as a historical document: the ‘Burgundians’ may have finally chosen to rejoin Clement Atlee's Britain, but the film was, nevertheless, an early – and gentle - sign of discontent with the hairshirt socialism of the Labour government that the UK so foolishly elected in the waning days of World War II.

Best line from the movie (from a policeman who discovers that he is Burgundian):

“Blimey, I’m a foreigner.”

That’s a problem that all Brits may face if the EU ‘constitution’ goes through.

There's more to being a salesman than the horrors of Glengarry Glen Ross, and it must have been a truly inspired PR consultant who was able to persuade the 'Saudi' embassy in London (there’s no other conceivable explanation) to produce this remarkable Q&A on the state of human rights in the ‘Kingdom’.

Here's a sample:

“Q: Is this evolution [in Saudi politics] leading, eventually, to a western type democracy?

A: No. it could lead to more popular participation in all levels, but it is unlikely to culminate in a Western democracy. In democracy, the elected parliament ranks supreme. It can make anything legal illegal, and vice-versa. In Islam what God specified as Haram (illegal), or Halal (legal), cannot be changed by any parliament, or even by the whole population. These imperatives of right and wrong in Islam are unchangeable.”

And in that one word ‘unchangeable’ you have the essence of totalitarian rule – “a boot,” as Orwell once put it, “stamping on a human face – forever.”

But don’t worry too much. As the embassy explains:

“The State protects human rights in accordance with Islamic Sharia.”

So that’s OK then.

Via Oxblog

An LA Times story ( reg. req'd) on how the Supreme Court has struck down a California molestation law has this non-seqitur in the middle of the story:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent. Three of the dissenters — Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas — were raised as Catholics.

I've gotten several emails along these lines. I largely siuspected this was the case anyway:

Jonah,

As a fellow carnivore I agree with your sentiment. But soybean meal is the primary protein component of farm animal rations. The vast majority of that soybean crop will be used to feed all those chickens, pigs and cattle that you, Cosmo and I enjoy to consume.

[Name withheld]
P.S. If the spot of "Ag Guy" isn't taken, I'll volunteer.

The Brazillian rainforest is being destroyed to make room for rapidly expanding soy farms. Damn those vegans.

Dognoses.com

From a reader:

The most depressing CNN news summary (I don't know what else to call those little one-sentence takes above the crawl) in history came up this morning: "Judge rules gag order does not apply to Gloria Allred." Dammit.

In the Rachel Corrie case.

I think John Miller makes all the important points about Strom below. But on the lighter side, how long do you think his obit has been lying around the Washington Post? Since the 1980s? I bet Len Downie wrote the first draft as an intern.

I don't mean any disrespect, it's just that 100 is a great age to depart this mortal coil. Love him or hate him no one can deny he lived a full life. He should be memorialized, but I find it hard to see this as a moment of great tragedy. For example, I remember when I was in college and Martha Graham died at the premature age of 96, retiring from the stage at 75 and gvving up choreography -- I think in her late 80s. Because my school had a big dance program, the place was festooned with weeping, inconsolable girls who couldn't cope with the enormity of the tragedy. My response, which earned me few friends was "Well, when did you wanther to die?"

Tapped establishes my "still an idiot" tagline as the bipartisan bumper-sticker for Cynthia McKinney (though I get no credit). They link to the WyethWire which debunks the latest rank revisionism in defense of McKinney. Of course, you could have heard it here first.

Patrick Kennedy says it all (from Lloyd Grove, Via Drudge):

• As sometimes happens with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), he let his mouth race ahead of his brain Wednesday night at a gathering of Young Democrats at the Washington nightspot Acropolis. After presidential candidate Howard Dean spoke, Kennedy delivered an impassioned peroration against President Bush's tax cut. We hear that Kennedy told the crowd: "I don't need Bush's tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." With that he got the audience's attention -- the dropping-jaws kind. "He droned on and on, frequently mentioning how much better the candidates would sound the more we drank," a witness told us. "Finally, he had to be stopped by a DNC volunteer." Kennedy's spokesman, Ernesto Anguilla, told us yesterday: "He was talking to the crowd; it was a rally-the-troops kind of speech about the tax cut. He was energizing the crowd and got caught up in it and used an unfortunate word, which he regrets using. . . . And no one pulled him off the stage."

From a reader:

Mr.Goldberg

I must take issue with your description of Alan Dershowitz as the world's most obnoxious Jew. While Mr.Dershowitz successfully defended that title for many years, the torch has been passed to a new generation.

Al Franken is now the world's most obnoxious Jew.

[Name withheld]

Sarah writes, "Some conservatives have argued that sodomy laws and marijuana laws should be struck down because 'we shouldn't have laws on the books that we don't enforce.' I.e., it's hypocritical to have laws and then not enforce them. Well, that argument can just as easily be used to defend a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. . . ." I think the argument is better rendered as "we shouldn't have laws that we can't, or shouldn't, enforce." With the understanding that an inability to enforce a law 100 percent of the time does not mean that the law can't be enforced.

So it is entirely possible to oppose amnesty because the immigration laws can and should be better enforced, while opposing laws against pot and sodomy because those laws shouldn't be.

Calls me a coward and capitulationist. Frankly, I think this one is simply intellectually and factually dishonest about what I wrote and have written and reads to me like a piece of direct mail fundraising propaganda more than an argument. All I will say on the issue of my alleged cowardice is this: considering where my bread is buttered, it seems to me I have a lot more to risk by taking this position than I have to gain. I've also found that people who shout the word coward in situations like this tend to be saying a lot more about their own intellectual insecurities than the intestinal fortitude of their opponents. I've got no problem with people saying I'm wrong or even very wrong, but I can do without the beer muscles from people like this guy. I'm not intimidated.

In response to my column on gay marriage, a number of readers as well as Derb, Robert Knight and others have noted -- rightly -- that simply because conservatives are losing a fight doesn't mean conservatives should necessarily give up a fight. Many of them have invoked abortion as an example. Just because pro-lifers have not won that many victories doesn't mean they should throw in the towel. In principle I absolutely agree.

Also, I think the comparison to abortion is more than a little strained since pro-lifers generally believe they are fighting murder or something very close to it. And I'm aware of no morally compelling argument which says that you should turn your back on what you consider genocide simply because the killers are especially successful. Gay marriage may be bad, but I think most rational people understand the two scenarios are apples and oranges.

But what about the drug war? As I've written several times, when I asked some of the editors whether NR would be opposed to the drug war if they thought it was winnable, they said "Hmmmm, great question. I'm not sure." In other words, the conservative-libertarian case against the drug war is not that the intent of the drug war is immoral but that the costs of the drug war are immoral compared to the benefits.

Now I don't think the two things -- gay rights and the drug war -- are all that similar. But for those of you who believe that "giving up" or compromising is always wrong, you might think about this a bit.

And one folks like Andrew Sullivan might consider, from a reader:

Jonah:

As one of those social-cons dismayed at The Corner's sodomy law bashing, I can see the point. Here is another in your favor: Had we Neanderthals pushed our legislature to repeal the sodomy law we would have avoided writing the right to sodomize into the Constitution altogether. In essence, we played into their hands by overreaching and established a new right that will be used to justify and support all sorts of other rights to come in the future. Crap.

My response: This captures a big part of my argument about gay marriage and the all-or-nothing opposition. If conservatives don't provide an alternative arrangement -- civil unions of some kind -- then they are in effect gambling that in 5 years or 10 or at any other time in the future the courts or congress won't recognize gay marriage entirely. A compromise on the issue would/could preclude losing the argument entirely and having same-sex marriages as the law of the land. Such a compromise might also have the added benefit of doing the right thing.

First: Yes this is self-indulgent but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Second: The guys at G-Philes.com have alerted me to an even more extensive list of Me-quotes than the one provided by RightwingNews.com. It's at the blog Fort Awesome.

Derb, you're probably rght in terms of politie company. Though a quick websearch for websites containing the "s" word reveals it may be with us for a while longer. But I DO NOT RECOMMEND anyone try to verify this.

When several Cornerites expressed the opinion that sodomy laws didn't make much sense (even if they might be constitutional), quite a few socially conservative readers were dismayed. Well, Justice Thomas is one of us too. Here's how he begins his separate opinion in the sodomy case:

I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is...uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Also, those -- like Robert Knight -- who think I'm nuts for believing gays have largely won the culture war may direct their criticisms in the future to Justice Thomas.

Actually, I just finished Byron York's very useful piece on the whole WMD/Bush lied thing. Byron addresses the New Republic's broadside (narrowside?) against the Bush Administration. As Byron notes, TNR's gripe boils down to their belief that Bush hyped/lied/over-emphasized the nuclear threat from Iraq. I think it's too soon to tell whether this is true, but it's certainly a reasonable argument for liberals who supported the war to make.

But I think TNR has a fairly unique problem. They took the editorial position that the war was justified in order to stop Iraq from getting nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons only. Sure, they made the moral and strategic arguments, but they hinged everything on the nuclear threat. Moreover, they rejected the idea that chemical and biological weapons even counted as real WMDs. They still think the war was morally justified, but they're peeved that the realpolitik argument wasn't as strong as they believed it was.

Well, this raises an important question: Who cares? I don't mean this in the dismissive sense since I respect -- i.e. care about -- the New Republic's opinions. But if TNR believes the war was morally justified even without the nuclear justification, then their argument boils down to wanting to have it both ways. They want the war to be right and Bush to be wrong. This is intellectually defensible, but not exactly an argument which will rally many adherents on the right or the left. Those who are passionate about the "Bush lied" argument will sail right past TNR and rally to the Nation or Mother Jones. Those who are passionate about defending the war, will sail past TNR going the other direction. In order words, TNR may be right for taking what they see as the middle-of-the-road position (war right, Bush wrong), but the traffic will keep whizzing by them in both the North-bound and South-bound lanes.

TNR has another "Who cares?" problem. When I made the point the other week that I wan't overly troubled by the failure to find WMD (yet) because I never made the argument that WMD was the only justification for war, a reader tartly noted "Who cares?" The country didn't go to war based upon your argument for war, we went to war because of what the President said, he argued. The reader was right of course. And this point cuts both ways. The New Republic only cared about the nuclear threat, but the American people cared about the biological and chemical weapon threat too. They aslo cared about the President's other arguments as well: Saddam is an irredeemable enemy of the US, sanctions don't work, the region needs democracy etc etc. As Byron notes, the Administration invoked those arguments too. If the New Republic rejected those arguments, well, that's the New Republic's problem not Bush's.

Two views from Readers:

Dear Jonah I think that they ruin their argument by the casual inclusion of the Alan Dershowitz quote. There are all sorts of people out there saying all kinds of nitwittery. Are they saying that torture is a function of big government? - or that that's the way we're headed? If so, it's ludicrous. I read the original article and that particular sentence struck a really sour note. Like many conservatives, I too worry about the growth in government but as the Irish would say, we live in interesting times.

As far as so called neo-cons are concerned, I agree with you that the essential activist views of the neo-cons are probably shared by an awful lot of people. Hey why not? We have for years had subtle approval in the media for "activist" lefties, what about a few cheers for the activist right.

And:

I don't want to delve too deeply into the debate over neo-cons, paleo-cons, and libertarians. However, I do agree with Crane and Niskanen's concern about the absence of limited government supporters in Washington. In an attempt to neutralize left-wing issues, the Bush Administration wants to dramatically expand the role of the federal government. The president and far too many Republicans support a new prescription drug entitlement and tax credits for individuals who do not pay income taxes. Without leadership from the president, the debate over reducing the size of government appears to be dead.

I agree with the Niskanen and Crane that government is getting too big under Bush. I think they're wrong, for the most part, on the national security stuff. I even wrote a syndicated column not too long ago critizing Bush for being a Big Spender.

Under no circumstances should an American be held captive in the US indefinitely, with no charges filed and no legal representation afforded. Yet this has happened under the Patriot Act. And now there is talk of a Patriot II. James Buchanan, the Nobel laureate, argues that governments will acquire more power when the opportunity arises. History shows this to be true, and the Patriot law reflects it. Today, with the war on terrorism, the opportunities for the state to expand are ubiquitous. Both liberals and conservatives are turning a blind eye to unnecessary usurpations of power, if not openly calling for them. Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, has mooted the idea of "torture warrants", by which courts could authorise the use of torture to elicit information. The neo-conservative agenda is a particular threat to liberty - perhaps greater than the ideologically spent ideas of left-liberalism. Always a movement of bright intellectual leaders, neo-conservatism has mostly been a movement with a head but no body. One rarely runs into a neo-con on the street. Underlying neo-conservatism is a desire to reshape America and the world through the efforts of a robust federal government. For years The Weekly Standard, the neo-conservative magazine, has pushed for initiatives to reinforce US international power. Merely living in a free society appears to be insufficient for neo-conservatives.

Since nobody is posting for some bizarre reason (or maybe because NRODT goes to bed every other Wednesday), I thought this email was interesting:

As an archaeologist, I have at least a professional interest in what terms to use.

Native American -- journalists love this. One journalist from Pennsylvania even told me that I should use the term "Native American" even if a tribal member specifically asks to be called "American Indian". Some groups explicitly reject the term Native American; others don't care.

Under federal regulations, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Native Pacific Islanders of the U.S. trust territories are all called "Native Americans."

Also, I've read that "Native American" refers to a social or political group while "American Indian" refers to a biological or racial group. I don't think that is a rule than anyone normally follows.

In Canada, ther term of choice is First Nations. There are no Native Americans or American Indians north of the border.

At a workshop in Idaho a couple of years ago, the academics preferred the term "First Peoples". It hasn't caught on as far as I know.

The best advice I've heard -- on NPR of all places -- is that if you are refering to an individual or to a specific group, then you should always use the tribal name -- Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute, Cherokee, Mescalero Apache, Pima, Barbareno Chumash, etc. If you are making a general statement, as in "American Indian treaty rights" or "Native American gaming," then either Native American or American Indian is okay.

Using the specific tribal name works very well in my case because the tribes differ so much in their traditions, political positions, treaty rights, religious beliefs, etc. that in most cases it simply doesn't make sense to lump them all under one designation.

Important info from a reader:

I am a Swiss-German-Irish-Norwegian-English-American. Most of us don't mind being called Swiss-German-Irish-English-Norwegian-Americans, but "German-Swiss-Irish-English-Norwegian-American" and "Swiss-German-English-Irish-Norwegian-American" are generally considered offensive.

I just thought you'd like to know.

I don't normally read Maureen Dowd any more. Everything she writes feels forced and old. It's like she doesn't realize she was a hot commodity once because back then the zeitgeist rewarded mood and atmospherics and all around trivial thinking and now that the culture has moved on she tries too hard to get a reaction by performing the same old schtick twice as hard (it kind of reminds me of Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day when he tries to force the spontaneity of the snowball fight the third or fourth time).

Anyway, I had no idea she wrote a column today until Andrew Sullivan linked to it. Sullivan's rightly appalled. I doubt the Times will ever be able to come to grips with the fact that Dowd's column gives off the same vibe as watching your parents trying to dance or listening to Al Gore try to speak jive.

From another reader I didn't know was an Indian:

Some other stuff you may not have run into:

(1) the preferred pronunciation (out here at least) is two syllables: in-din.

(2) "Nation" is preferable to "tribe" -- when my Grandfather was born in the Choctaw Nation, "Indian Territory" was known by the residents as "the Nations".

(3) by a large majority, we *don't* object to names like "Washington Redskins". Indians organize a lot of life around "tomtems", symbolic representations.
For example, I'm a member of Raven Clan. If white people want to make Indians symbolic representations of power and courage and objects of veneration, that's okay. Sort of a shame it didn't happen earlier, but hell -- make it up to us, visit a casino.

Regards

[Name withheld]
(of the Choctaw Nation)

I'm cleaning up my cave and I found this metal sign I used to have hanging in my kitchen when I was a single man. It reads:

WANTED: GOOD WOMAN Must Be Able To Clean, Cook, Sew, Dig Worms And Clean Fish.

Must Have Boat and Motor.

Please send picture of boat and motor.

From a longtime reader who happens to be an American Indian:

Don't call us Native Americans.

We are American Indians.

Actually the preferred (non-NY Times) way is Tribal Name (Lakota, Ponca, etc), American Indian, Indian.

Even the founding members of American Indian Movement are against the use of
the term Native American.

the court is confused if it thinks that a subjective judgment full of unquantifiable factors is obviously fairer than a straightforward formula. But confusion seems to be a purposeful strategy. The court's message to universities and other selective, government-financed institutions is: We have fudged this dangerous issue. You should do the same.

Lots of readers sending me their favorite Jonah-quotes. Modesty precludes me from posting them here. However, one reader sent me this one from the Derb which I like a great deal:

"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."

They're miffed about my syndicated column on income inequality.

RightwingNews has undertaken the immensely flattering task of compiling the best quotes by me in the last year. It makes for some very interesting reading for me -- how interesting it is for you I have no idea. Personally, I was surprised by how top-heavy with foreign policy stuff it is. I was also struck by how few one-liners there were. I can think of a few columns or quotes I'd have put on the list, but then again I didn't make the list. Still one has to wonder why the the guys at NRO's stalker site -- the G-Philes -- didn't think of doing this. Maybe the suits will come up with a little "Collected Wisdom of NRO" book one day. I think it'd sell pretty well. Anyway, many thanks to RightWingNews and if any readers actually have favorite quotes, I'd be curious to know what they are for purely self-indulgent reasons.

I liked this letter:

Jonah,

I know, I know, you only wanted folks whose hearts and minds were won over by Mr. Kemp's statement, but I was just wondering if I was the only one shaking my head (making that funny 'waugle-waugle' sound) trying to figure out if there were some paragraphs missing along about grafs 4 and 5? What purpose does it serve for Mr. Kemp to jump from college admissions equity to the practice of red-lining (actually banned by 1975's Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and really, really banned in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act-- when Congress was seriously in the business of banning things they already banned).

From red-lining, Mr. Kemp's jumps to the 1992 FRB Boston study purporting to show a disparity of denials between blacks and whites (17% for blacks vs. 11% for whites). However, George Benston, writing for the CATO Institute in 1999, showed that the 1992 FRB Boston study was flawed. Benston writes:

"...FDIC economist David Horn in 1997 reviewed that [1992 Federal Reserve Bank Boston} study and, in addition to finding mistakes in the data, concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history, such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders' credit standards, explained the difference between lending levels to blacks and whites. In fact, 49 of the 70 banks studied did not reject any minority applicants. Two of the remaining 21 were responsible for half of the denials of black applicants. One of those banks was minority-owned, and the other had extensive minority outreach programs."

You can read Benston's article on-line at: http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-28-99.html

Dont' get me wrong. I'm not writing to bash Mr. Kemp. So then, what's the point of all this? First, I guess it's hard enough to debunk liberal misinformation and outdated study results without having conservative leaders like Mr. Kemp perpetuating bad data as facts. Second, the whole jump just seems like a reach, the sort of "feel-your-pain me-tooism" that a lot of liberal lip-biters engage in.

Well I feel better now. Thanks.

[Name withheld]
Dallas, Texas

A reader defends my whack at Harry:

Jonah,

In your G-file today you wrote:

Being a Democrat from Missouri, and being Dick Gephardt, it's not that surprising Gephardt would cater his comments to whatever the politics demand of him. The last president from Missouri had a similar predilection for telling people what they wanted to hear. H. L. Mencken said of Gephardt's hero: "If there had been any formidable body of cannibals in the country, Harry Truman would have promised to provide them with free missionaries fattened at the taxpayer's expense."
I have to disagree. If Harry Truman had focused on public opinion polls he would not have de-segregated the armed forces which opened the door for the Civil Rights Movement. In 1948 Democrats opposed desegregation. He also would not have recognized the State of Israel. He would not have sacked Douglas MacArthur, as he would have acquiesced to MacArthur's judgment on the conduct of the Korean War. He would not have broken the rail road workers strike.

Harry Truman was a leader first. Like President Bush he relied heavily on his faith, he put great stock in the value of his word and he didn't tolerate liars. Dick Gephardts only common trait with Harry S Truman is that of party affiliation, but remember that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat when Harry Truman was President. Harry Truman was born in the previous century, went to war at the age 33, married and experienced a significant financial setback by age 38, when he held his first elected office. Reagan also came to politics late in life, but Gephardt has been a politician all his life, aside from a 6 year stint as an Attorney in the Air National Guard, probably as a dodge against being drafted for Vietnam.

No, Jonah, I think you missed the mark on this reference. Harry Truman was not as conservative as we might like, but he does not deserve to be disgraced by being associated with Gephardt. And frankly, it is too late for Gephardt to use Truman as a role model, because Gephardt has chosen Clinton as his lodestone.

Jack Kemp Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action June 24, 2003

I was pleased with the Supreme Court landmark opinion yesterday in Grutter v. Bollinger that higher education institutions may use race as a factor in admission decisions to achieve diversity. Also, President Bush’s statement applauding the decision is highly commendable. But we must not lose sight of the reality that the effort to create a more open and more just society continues today and in the foreseeable future.

Some of my conservative friends are disappointed with Justice O’Conner and the Supreme Court’s decision, as they hoped the Supreme Court would take a strong stand and rule, categorically, that race could never be a consideration, under any circumstance. In his most recent column George Will cited Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent, who quoted an 1865 Frederick Douglass address: "The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. . . . Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. . . . All I ask is, give [the Negro] a chance to stand on his own legs. Let him alone!" But the problem is that the “negro” was not left alone. People of color were denied their 14th Amendment rights.

While I agree that ultimately a color blind society should be our goal, we certainly are not there yet. Blacks were removed from the mainstream economy, denied access to education, job opportunities and access to capital and ownership. Thus, African-Americans have long been denied their full measure of justice under the law and while great progress has been made, we have a long way to go.

Race relations in the United States have also come a long way from the times of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow. However, the goal of affirmative action was meant not only to remedy the past discrimination associated with slavery, but the legacy of systemic racist practices such as “red lining.” Red lining was a practice, officially outlawed in 1968, whereby banks literally drew a red line on a map around certain areas, and if you lived inside the red line your loan application was automatically rejected.

As recently as 1992, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston published a landmark study showing why black mortgage applicants were rejected more often than white applicants were. Without access to capital it is near impossible to accumulate wealth. Franklin Raines, President and CEO of Fannie Mae, noted during a speech at Howard University, “Without wealth, it’s hard to send your kids to college. Without college, it’s hard to get a good job. Without a good job, it’s hard to earn a good income. Without a good income, it’s hard to obtain property. And, without property and the capital to leverage it, it’s hard to create wealth to send your kids to college. And the chain of denial continues.”

Within this context I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision and, as an American, I know that factoring diversity into these decisions can make our country stronger while continuing our progress in remedying past unequal treatment of African-Americans as well as other people of color.

Okay maybe it's not a big victory in the strict, rational, factually correct sense. But considering how pretty much anything called censorship these days is doomed, I'll take my victories where I can.

Jon - I think it's an interesting exchange too. But as I note in my G-File, Lithwick makes a strange statement, especially for someone touting her intellectual honesty. She writes: "I was terrified that today might have seen a thick dark cloud blot out all the good that affirmative action programs have achieved over the decades."

Can someone explain that to me? If the Federal Government became colorblind tomorrow, would the millions of blacks who've entered the middle and upper classes suddenly be reduced to poverty? Would all of the blacks with degrees from Ivy League colleges and law schools have to give back their diplomas? Would the Congressional Black Caucus vanish and be replaced with pro-Jim Crow congressmen?

Of course not. In fact, most schools (and corporations) would still do everything they could to pursue diversity, because the ideology has sunk in.

I think this view is very widespread among liberals today. They do not believe any social program can outlive its usefullness, especially on the issue of race. This is why I'm so skeptical and disappointed with O'Connor's waffle that maybe in 25 years we won't need affirmative action any more. The left will never, ever abandon their faith in preferences, especially if -- like Lithwick -- they believe that the repeal of state sanctioned benign discrimination will also result in the repeal of all the progress (real or perceived) such discrimination has achieved.

Indeed, the logic of the diversity argument should reject any suggestion that in 25 years or in 2,500 diversity will ever be less useful. Unlike affirmative action which was framed as a temporary remedy, diversity is forever.

As one of the only pro-censorship conservatives out of the closet these days, let me say that I think that yesterday's decision on libraries was a huge win. Yes, yes, there are some legitimate federalism issues that we can argue about, but the basic notion that the government is still capable of healthy censorship has been reaffirmed and that's good news.

The American Library Association considers it an "unseemly burden" to have to disable the filters for specific patrons who want access to adult material in public libraries. Well, less than a decade ago most libraries didn't even have internet access. Was it an unseemly burden to have to ask librarians to order medical books or, more likely, hardcore porn from other libraries? Convenience and liberty aren't the same thing. If it's a little harder for library patrons to log onto BigButts.com I will sleep just fine.

Jonah Goldberg

The G-File is about to go up and today is a day when there are more pressing issues in the news, so I'll stop posting gay marriage letters with these two. But I should say I am still against gay marriage. I am in favor of some compromise position -- civil unions or some other private contract which is not marriage -- in part because I think it's probably the right policy given the world we live in today, but also because I simply fear that conservatives will lose everything if they continue an all-or-nothing policy when it comes to homosexuality in America. If a compromise isn't found, the courts will eventually snatch the issue out of the democratic process entirely. Anyway, this argument will continue. The two last letters for now:

Jonah -- I am a "Religious Right" Christian, (though I do have a number of libertarian tendencies). I am growing more concerned every day about what "gay marriage" will do to our society. I thought the comments by Scott Lively were way overdone, but I must say that, while I am a +very+ big fan of yours, and don't want to have any part of "burning-the-apostate", I was +very+ disappointed that you've apparently thrown in the towel on the issue of gay marriage. I think that even if we lose the battle, we must engage the enemy. I'd like to think that you haven't raised the white flag on this, but what other conclusion could I draw? Your devoted fan, [Name withheld] St. Paul

And...

Jonah,

I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and would be described by many as socially conservative in my opinions and attitudes.

Sadly, I have to admit that Mr. Lively's screed against you, and against homosexuals in general, displays not the least bit of Christian charity we are commanded to exemplify in our lives. Homosexuals are NOT Nazis, and we should not be treating them like an enemy to be defeated in battle.

If Christians are going to demand followers of Islam to speak out against the radical Islamists among their ranks, then we must speak out against the radical elements in our own ranks. Scott Lively has no place among the followers of Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,
[Name withheld]
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

Dear Jonah, I'm a convservative Catholic in the fullest sense of the term--both theologically and poitically. As such, I agree with the Magisterium that sodomy is a sin. However, I don't see that position as necessitating opposition to gay marriage as it does implicate resistance to legalized abortion. In an e-mail you posted on the Corner, one of your readers likened your acquiesence to gay marriage to National Review's (hypothetical) throwing in the towel on abortion because Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. The two cases are hardly parallel, however, because abortion involves a right whereas homoexuality, even if you think it is a sin, only involves consensual decisions (remarkably poor decisions that lead the agent into sin, but not the violation of a right). You don't see Catholics actively seeking the criminalization of divorce, and so should it be with gay marriage. If we had our way, everyone would be Catholic and the law of the land would be the Magisterium's teaching, but that's not going to happen. Better to just teach your kids it's a sin and spend political capital on more important (and more feasible) goals such as the crimilization of abortion. Given a choice between a pro-life, pro-gay marriage and a pro-choice, anti-gay marriage candidate, I'd go with the former in a heartbeat.

I don't get it. Andrew Sullivan is vexed by my reprinting a letter from a reader which contained the following observation:

"Many social conservatives in America believe there is a God and a Holy Spirit and a Bible that condemns homosexuality as an abomination, and they will not be defeated."

And then Andrew asks, "Can you imagine Jonah quoting a fundamentalist Muslim who simply asserted that 'many social conservatives in America believe there is one God who is Allah and a Koran that says that women have no right to vote.'"

Um, I can. In fact, I've quoted letters from all sorts of readers I disagree with on one level or another. But I don't even disagree with either the real or even the hypothetical quotes above. I mean: Aren't they both statements of fact? Many religious conservatives do believe there's a God and a Holy Spirit and that homosexuality is an abomination and many Muslims do believe there is only one God who is Allah etc etc. Andrew may or may not be right that simply quoting scripture or the Koran isn't an effective argument in this day and age, but simply because Andrew feels that way doesn't mean that perspective should be permanently barred from the debate, does it? Just speaking personally, I think it makes the Corner a better and more interesting place when I quote letters from readers who disagree with me.

I've been listening to quite a bit of NPR on the Michigan decisions. It's fairly shocking how nearly universal the unanimity is on the conventional wisdom that this was a "huge victory" for affirmative action. I think it's pretty clear it was a victory and it may even be a huge one. But I can't help but get the sense that the liberals have some talking points here since so few of them could have possibly read and digested all of the details already. I mean, prior to the decision any suggestion that the undergraduate quota system was unconstitutional was considered outrageous sacrilege. Now, the President of the University of Michigan won't say an even vaguely critical word on the court's conclusion that UM was unconstitutionally discriminating against non-preferred-minority students. Plus, they keep saying things like, "the court has issued a clear message" and "a solid majority of the court supports affirmative action" etc etc. Well, I could swear that when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush V. Gore it was a "narrow," "bitterly divided" and "highly partisan" decision. I guess decisiveness is more subjective than I thought.

I think the strategy here is for the pro-preferences crowd to declare this is a much larger, much more clear cut, much bigger victory than the decision actually is so that they can stifle any future debate on the subject. Or, maybe it is a huge victory, but those who are saying so aren't taking the time to confirm that before saying so. The more they say this is an unequivocable triumph, the easier it will be to say, "The Supreme Court has spoken" and "this is settled law." And, I'm afraid, it will be a very successful strategy.

I'm at the VW dealership in Northern Virginia getting my two year service check up on my car. They provide free high speed internet access so I'm hanging with you from out here. Kind of cool.

This gibberish is from another reader under the header "Your use of French...":

c'est abominable! John Kerry m'a dit a vous parlez que le phrase propre sera "La Revue National, c'est moi!"

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

I am a Christian. Most would say I'm a conservative Christian. I think I'm barely a Christian at all, but I'm a priest in the Episcopal Church where that doesn't really matter anymore. In any event, how Mr. Lively can interpret your considered and clearly expressed comments on homosexual civil unions the way he does is beyond me. I don't understand the more militant wing of the gay lobby. Apparently, I understand their counterparts on the "pro-family" side even less. I think I understand Andrew Sullivan. I think I understand the dialogue which you and your colleagues have on this subject in The Corner. I think I even understand "Derb" sometimes, but the weed has to be really sweet. (To appreciate the English and their approach to philosophy one need only consider their use of the term "nonsense.") What I don't understand is Scott Lively.

These guys are vexed with me as well.

For the record, I do not enjoy nor do I seek to have religious conservatives mad at me. I've never tried to score points off what some call "theocons" -- a few good-natured jokes notwithstanding. It would be nice if these guys didn't fall prey to the burn-the-apostate thinking the left is so prone to. We'll see.

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

I whole-heartedly agree with Scott Lively's article about conservatives (like you) throwing in the towel on the homosexual agenda issue. This is a large black-eye for National Review, as it is akin to saying, on the heels of Roe v. Wade, "abortion is the law of the land, so we might as well learn to live with it".

Many politically active Christian conservatives feel we have been given the short shrift by Marc Racicot and the RNC on this, and would really like to see National Review lay their cards down on the table regarding this issue. Even if you don't believe that the Bible is the unerring Word of God, surely you can see the utility of that World-View.

If need be, we will fight this abomination without the RNC, and without NR, but fight it we shall.

My response: I don't see how my comments in the Corner and in my syndicated column constitute a large black eye for National Review. National Review, let's recall, ran a huge cover story in defense of a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. Its editorial position has not changed on that. And it has laid its cards on the table many times on this issue -- in the social conservatives' favor. And I don't think it's even fair to say that anything close to the bulk of NRO's discussion of the subject has been as this reader or the lively Mr. Lively would like people to believe.

As for the substance, I've laid out my position several times and will several times more I suspect. But let me just say here I don't think the Roe comparison is particularly apt, even from the pro-life position since this view holds that abortion amount to murder and therefor the victims of abortion are far more concrete and the victimization far more acute than anything predicted on the downsides of gay marriage.

The following letter appeared in yesterday's Washington Times. I would link to it, but I can't find it on their website (I got it from Nexis). Anyway, I thought folks around here would be interested to know that I'm a muddle brained liberal Frenchman:

In an online Commentary published Friday in The Washington Times ["Time to face facts, gays gain victory"], National Review writer Jonah Goldberg says that the homosexuals have all but won the culture war and that it is time for social conservatives to make the best of what they consider a bad situation.

Mr. Goldberg is, indeed, not a social conservative or any kind of conservative at all since [in my opinion] conservatism is associated with clear logical thinking. No clear-thinking person believes that the homosexual sexual ethic and that of the family-based society can peacefully coexist. The opposing presuppositions about sexuality, marriage, family and culture inherent in these world views are contradictory and mutually exclusive. One must prevail at the expense of the other.

Mr. Goldberg, therefore, is not a well-intentioned Neville Chamberlain seeking to placate the implacable. At best, he is one of the traitorous Vichy French, sympathetic to the conquering invader. At worst, he is Tokyo Rose, an enemy feigning friendship and sympathy to better undermine the morale of our troops.

Mr. Goldberg's own banner is not the white flag of surrender, but the rainbow flag of multiculturalism. The homosexual movement has, indeed, made great gains in the recent past and expects even greater victories in the near future. Things look grim for the natural family in America.

Yet, capitulation to a new pan-social homosexual mind-set would be cultural suicide. The homosexual movement in a society is analogous to the AIDS virus in the human body: It is not benign but destructive; it thrives at the expense of the host, and you're most likely to get it by saying yes to sodomy. The best way to avoid it is through abstinence until lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Mr. Goldberg wants us all to say yes to sodomy, much as the French said yes to Nazism and for the same unprincipled reason the desire to be on the winning side. I, for one, would rather go down fighting for what is right namely, the protection of the critically important unit on which our society, and all societies, are built the natural family.

Viva la resistance.

SCOTT LIVELY

President

Pro-Family Law Center

Sacramento, Calif.

Update: I now see Andrew Sullivan quotes the same letter this morning.

Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Supreme Court's Decision in the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Case

The Court's decision is a resounding vindication for the fundamental principle that affirmative action can be used in education to promote equality of opportunity for all students and encourage interaction among students of diverse backgrounds. Our country has made extraordinary progress over the past half century toward equality of opportunity in all aspects of our society, and affirmative action has been an indispensable part of that success. The entire nation is fortunate that the Supreme Court, even if by the narrowest of margins, has again refused to slam the door on that progress.

Oh, we got another one, just like the other ones
Another bad ass, another trouble-maker
I'm scared, ain't you boys scared?
I wonder if he's gonna show us what bad is?
Boys, we got a man with a dog collar on
You think we oughta throw ol' Spike a bone?

I've gotten huge piles of email on my post yesterday about unemployment. The gist seems to be that unemployment anecdotes, like unemployment data, are extremely variable based upon regional factors. From my unscientific scanning of an unscientific sample, I think I can authoritatively declare that the job market in the Pacific Northwest sucks eggs. But it sounds like things in the Atlanta area aren't that bad.

Spike Lee won a temporary court injunction to prevent Viacom from renaming the cable network TNN "Spike TV." Lee claims that people will associate the network with his name (as if that would be such a huge marketing boost). Frankly I am stunned that any court would even consider Lee's complaint let alone grant him even a temporary victory. Spike Lee is hardly the first "Spike." There's Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there's Snoopy's cousin Spike, there was a Spike on Happy Days, a leading volleyball player's named Spike, etc etc. And, oh yeah, there's the word "spike."

UPDATE: And: Before 8 billion readers point it out, there's also Spike Jones.

I just got back from doing my CNN Sunday gig (I'm sure you were all watching -- and the really attentive people noticed I was wearing a Heritage Foundation tie). Anyway, Star Wars Episode Two: Attack of the Clones is on HBO. And, I've got to say, contrary to whatever I may have said in the past, it really is scandalously disappointing. It's just badly written. With the exception of young Anakin Skywalker, the acting is fine, the special effects are fine, the cinematography is fine, it's just really terribly written. Perhaps it's not as bad as Episode One, but what a tragedy it is to even have to make that comparison.