The State Department is ignoring, indeed excusing, Palestinians' violation of their central obligation under Phase I of the road map. At the very same time, the State Department is threatening Israel with sanctions over a fence that is nowhere mentioned in the road map.

This kind of amnesia and one-sidedness is not new. We have been here before. It was called Oslo. And we know how it ended.

Reason’s Jacob Sullum on the Schwarzenegger candidacy. He’s enthusiastic, sort of, well for the spectacle, anyway. The article also includes this classic quote from the great man:

"I come from Austria, a socialistic country. There you can hear 18-year-olds talking about their pension. But me, I wanted more. I wanted to be the best. Individualism like that is incompatible with socialism. I felt I had to come to America, where the government wasn't always breathing down your neck or standing on your shoes."

Don’t try saying that in the European parliament, Arnie.

Overly large political shorthand can obscure real targets of opportunity. Raul mentions "pro-life voters." They are just as non-monolithic as are "Hispanic voters." Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Dem-Ohio) can readily target "seamless garment" pro-life, anti-death penalty Catholic voters while President Bush would be wiser to seek pro-life, pro-death penalty conservative Protestant and Catholic voters.

In a long-ago piece for NRO, "Assimilation, not Amnesty", I quoted from a Wall Street Journal story on conflicts in New York City between more established Puerto Rican immigrants and Mexican newcomers: "the nation's Hispanic communities are not a cohesive unit. Often, they are united by little more than Spanish and a Census Bureau definition."

Yet "one size fits all" Hispanic politics led Republican political consultants in the late '90's to decree that the way for the GOP to win the Hispanic vote was to make Puerto Rico our 51st state. Never mind that Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans had little interest in Puerto Rico.

By contrast, the Castro dictatorship is not much of an issue among Hispanics in Texas or California. But Janet Reno's decision to send Elian Gonzalez back to Casto's Cuba caused Florida's Cuban American voters to back Bush in 2000. Elian, not Spanish campaign speeches, made George Bush our President.

Last night’s telecast of “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno,” on which Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy in California’s gubernatorial recall election, achieved the highest “Tonight” metered-market ratings for a Wednesday night in more than four years. The telecast averaged a 6.9 rating, 17 share in 55 local markets metered by Nielsen Media Research.

Can't believe the Schwartzenegger skepticism on the Corner, complaining he's too liberal. Shouldn't folks on the right be happy with the possibility of a (self-described) "economic conservative, social liberal" replacing an "economic liberal, social liberal", i.e., Davis? Isn't anybody excited at the thought of a chiseled-chinned Teutonic grunt dismissing every public sector union's demand?
"Yaw bad-get re-kvests ah irrelefant! I run de stayt like ah mah-sheen!"

I mean, there's no way a pro-lifer of any party is winning the California governorship. Might as well take the best overall, and electible, remaining guy available. Besides the fact that he makes Republicans look hip, glamourous, and tough. And he takes the "Republicans are anti-immigrant" little girly argument and [terminates it].

Jim Boulet's analysis of the CBS News/NY Times poll leads him to a conclusion that is unsupported by the poll itself, every other reliable study of Latino voters and political common sense.

Jim, whom I know and whose work I generally admire, claims that "...there is no such thing as a 'Hispanic vote' -- just voters who are Hispanic." That's akin to saying there are no "pro-life voters," just voters who are pro-life; it's accurate as far as it goes. There are messages, themes, issues and methods that interest and appeal to Hispanic voters more than any other population group. When politicians and strategists speak about "the Hispanic vote," they're employing the same kind of useful and effective targeting they use for every other voter group in the electorate. To say there is no "Hispanic vote" is to say that there is no "labor vote" or no "black vote." Technically, such an assessment may be accurate, but also totally unhelpful.

Jim goes on to say, "A Republican message of hope and opportunity given in English, like the speeches given by Ronald Reagan, will entice far more Hispanic voters than all the politically-correct appeals in Spanish put together." True, Reagan netted 40% of the Hispanic vote (there's that useful term again) in 1980 and 47% in 1984. However, in 1980 there were around 15 million Hispanics in this country. Today, there are 38 million. That jump in population size is largely due to immigration from Spanish-speaking nations. Now you can argue whether or not that's a good thing, but it's a "thing" nonetheless, and it needs to be recognized and dealt with. Reagan dealt with an Hispanic population less than half the size of what it is today, and more likely to be native-born. Bush faces a Latino electorate that is much larger, newer and more likely to communicate and receive news in both English and Spanish. Communicating with people in as many different ways as you can isn't pandering, it's effective campaigning.

All too often, the call to occupy the high moral ground is, in effect, a call to stay out of the fight. Asking Republican elected officials and candidates to communicate with Hispanic voters only in English is akin to asking the AARP to communicate only via e-mail. It just won't do the trick. My own research has shown time and again that even English-dominant Hispanics still watch a large amount of Spanish-language television and listen to Latino radio. Why shouldn't we be reaching them with our messages of hope and opportunity? Why should these young Hispanics be denied the Republican message simply because they tune into Spanish-language radio?

The effectiveness of bilingual communications when targeting Hispanic voters and consumers is incontestable. So the question we face is this: Which party is most likely to push English-language acquisition? If you think it's the Democrats, then by all means don't use Spanish-language communications to reach Latino voters. The Democrats will continue to take the lion's share of these votes and do with the country as they please. However, if you believe the Republican Party is the only way for English to be preserved in this country, then there is no choice but for our party to remain in power. That can only be achieved by increasing our share of the Hispanic vote through effective campaigning, thereby keeping and growing our majorities, and shaping the country in the image we hold dear.

Isn't recognizing that there is a "Hispanic vote" and utilizing Spanish-language campaign ads a small price to pay for keeping our country in the hands of those who care most for its future?

He supports legalized abortion right up to the partial-birth point. He supports government recognition of homosexual marriage as well as homosexual adoptions. He is not a supporter of the Second Amendment, just pushed a massive government expansion, and he thinks the impeachment of [Bill Clinton] was a Republican "disgrace."

Who is the liberal ideologue?

It's "moderate Republican" Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“…if you're asking whether we will no longer suffer a progressive rise with age in our likelihood of death…, I'd say yes, we won't.”

A flourishing human life is not a life lived with an ageless body or untroubled soul, but rather a life lived in rhythmed time, mindful of time’s limits, appreciative of each season and filled first of all with those intimate human relations that are ours only because we are born, age, replace ourselves, decline, and die—and know it. It is a life of aspiration, made possible by and born of experienced lack, of the disproportion between the transcendent longings of the soul and the limited capacities of our bodies and minds. It is a life that stretches towards some fulfillment to which our natural human soul has been oriented, and, unless we extirpate the source, will always be oriented.

One, Gulliver is an Uber-Gulliver. Unique in time and space, he has the largest pile of chips on all significant gaming tables: military-technological, economic and cultural. Second, hard balancing, the anti-hegemonial tool of choice in history, has not set in because this Gulliver, for the time being, is more of an elephant than a T. rex. Third, as the last decade has shown, the international system will exact its revenge, and so, 'soft balancing' and 'balancing-on-the-sly' has already set in, as international relations theory correctly predicted once bipolarity - the mutual stalemating of nos. 1 and 2 - was dead. Now, to my fourth and final point: Can Gulliver go it alone?

The answer is no. Given No. 1's exalted position in the international hierarchy of power, one must assume that he would want to remain what he is - Gulliver forever. If so, he has two, and only, two choices. One would seek to undercut or outmaneuver countervailing coalitions, a latter-day British grand strategy, so to speak. The other is a strategy that would emphasise cooperation over competition, a kind of retake of the Golden Age of American diplomacy of the early postwar decades.

Only in America. And I say that as a good thing. Which reminds me: like all typical examples of American craziness, this will just horrify the Europeans.

"Of course Gray Davis knows how to run a dirty campaign, but he doesn't know how to run a state".

Perfect.

Emory's not the first school to do this. In 1998, Tufts let incoming frosh chat online via some AOL chatroom, and if kids hit it off, they got to room together. By and large, it wasn't much of a disaster -- or nor more so than your typical freshman flameout....There are two reasons:

1) Those who are your typical problem roommates are more likely to use the system, and, being optional, remove themselves from the gene pool. 2) Those who choose their roommate are a bit too stubborn to admit their mistake, and suffer through.

It's funny, because us conservatives would normally hear the story and instantly think that it'd be a Hindenberg in each and every dorm room, and the kids wouldn't take on the responsbility/outfall of their actions. (Personal responsibility is dead, right?) But then pride kicks in, to the same effect. Odd.

Basketball's Charles Barkley once said he wasn't a role model. This is like the president of the United States saying he doesn't want press coverage. Star black athletes have no choice about being role models. The only choice they have is what type of models they choose to be.

On Wednesday, Kobe Bryant appeared in a Colorado court to face the rape charges against him. His innocence, or lack thereof, obviously has important personal consequences for the basketball superstar. But he already is a guilty man when it comes to the damage he has caused in the communities he influences the most. Our nation's black youth idolize Bryant, but the example he sets undermines the very values — family, marital fidelity, sexual responsibility — crucial for their futures.

Dennis Mills, the MP who wants the UN to move to Toronto, is just grandstanding; no need to pay any attention to him. The idea of the UN moving to Toronto is nevertheless an interesting one. Torontonians, the driving force in Canada, would be able to see how futile UN-style diplomacy is. And when all those Egyptian diplomats refuse to pay their parking fines, the US will gain one more real, as opposed to nominal, ally in the War on Terror.

Democracy is not like money, a good to be maximized. Let's assume that having some money is good, having more money is better and having the most money is best. It's not similarly true that maximizing democracy is "best" in the sense of maximizing the quality of government.

"He's on the run. He's moving every three to four hours," Major General Ray Odierno told a news conference at the 4th Infantry Division headquarters in one of Saddam's lavish former palaces by the banks of the River Tigris in Tikrit.

"How can Saudi Arabia be the main country fighting terrorism now and exchanging information that saved lives of people in the United States and at the same time assist terrorism? How is that possible?" Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal asked.
"This is illogical and unacceptable," he told a news conference in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah.
"We have answered many questions, whether on fighting terrorism or funding it... with figures, facts and documents that leave no room for doubt, but it seems some members of the Congress are deaf when it comes to Saudi Arabia."

The current guessing game of how long Powell will remain as secretary of state is much less important than the question of whether he and his successors can adapt and be effective in the world shaped by 9/11 and the strategy of military preemption it provoked....Guiding other nations to make difficult but needed changes is the heart and soul of diplomacy. How well Powell and his diplomats can do this in Saudi Arabia is now a crucial test to his still-unformed legacy.

"I emphasise that Iran is totally against any form of weapons of mass destruction and denounce as false and groundless the claims that Iran is producing nuclear weapons," he said.

First thing in the morning for Alaska and halibut and salmon fishing out of Valdez and then, later, a brief sojourn in Denali National Park. This will be the first time I've travelled without a computer in five years -- honeymoon included. I get back in a week and I will then be going to Maine with my computer. But this means I will be out of contact with NRO completely for the first time since NRO became NRO. I'll miss everybody, but since Kathryn's been running the show for real for quite a while, I know things will be in good hands. If get a chance to drop a line I will, otherwise you'll hear from me around the 16th. Feel free to send me email, but I won't read it for at least a week, so please feel free to save the breaking news announcements and the like.

Keep hope alive.

Whichever language they speak, most Hispanics are not looking for the government to provide more translations and services in Spanish than it already does. Almost half of Hispanics -- 48% percent -- think the government is putting the right amount of effort in providing services in Spanish, and just under one-quarter think the government is already providing too much effort in this regard (emphasis added). . . . These sentiments were even the case among those who took the survey in Spanish -- a group that generally rated their own English proficiency as low.

Ah Derb, one day I will have to teach you the art of ATVW -- Active Television Watching. While I agree that watching TV most certainly can be and most often is passive doing-nothingness, some of us take an aggressive approach to watching the tube. Just ask my wife, I'm constantly dissecting what I watch, screaming about how the disposable coffee cups are empty (a personal peeve), how so-and-so was in this or that, wondering out loud why the maker of Hawaii Five-O ever bothered to change Kam Fong's name when they cast him in the role of Chin Ho etc. In fact, I can see less than a minute of most sub-par sitcoms and I can tell you what the story-line is and how the show will end without ever having seen the episode before.

Okay, now that I think about it, maybe it isn't any better than a jigsaw puzzle.

While I think I deserve precisely none of the credit for chasing Springer out of the race, I must say I'm very surprised. I talked to several Ohio journalists and they all seemed convinced he was going to run. Still, it's a very happy surprise.

Rich - I agree with everything in your column , except what you left out. Republican lawmakers have been in on the blame from the beginning. Yes, the deinstitutionalization movement was made up of zealots from the ACLU and followers of Thomas Szasz. Many of the activists bought into the outrageous and outrageously stupid idea that since the Soviet Union had dissidents in their mental hospitals the folks in our mental hospitals must be "dissidents" too. But Republicans caved on the issue of the homeless in the 60s and 70s, choosing to save money by closing mental hospitals rather than paying to improve them and standing up to the left-libertarians. Bush, it seems, is continuing in that tradition. A great book on the subject is Madness in the Streets.

Also, if you think New York City is bad now, you should have seen it when I was a kid growing up in the 1970s. Every Spring, nomadic tribes of the dangerously insanse would wander down Broadway, released from the hospitals the moment it got warm enough for them not to freeze to death. They'd camp out in the middle of the street, screaming at kids, old folks etc. For a while it seemed like Giuliani had made things better on that front. I guess it was a temporary fix.

Just in case no one else has mentioned it to you the address for Olsson's in Arlington is 2111 Wilson Blvd not 211 Wilson Blvd. I would hate to have people driving around the wrong area looking for it when they could be at the event already.
Here's a link to the Olsson's website to confirm that info.

Springer for California Governor?! May it never be...
Thankfully, the California Consistution (Article 5, section 2) says, in part "The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor's election."
We've got enough awful potential candidates without having to deal with the likes of Jerry Springer!
The real question about Springer not running is if Jonah ran him off?

Andrew - I hear what you're saying, and I do agree that there are some rational and decent folks who call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But many of these people are in fact, really moderates. Also, here in Washington I run into people all of the time who are clearly just liberals, but they are eager to sound serious-minded or to sound inoffensive in mixed ideological company. There are still others -- "independents" -- who seem to think that choosing the least offensive middle ground position is somehow intellectually superior. Maybe you're right that my contempt is too broad, but somewhere in the crowd of people, amidst those underserving of my contempt and scorn, there are quite a few who deserve it in spades.

...let me just say I do not recall ever reading a more ignorant, bigoted pile of [profanity] than your post in The Corner this morning. Please leave the Episcopal Church with all due haste. Closed-minded bigots with hearts are full of hatred like yourself are no longer welcome. Don't like it? Tough [same profanity]. However, I know a religious group who would be more than happy to have you: they're called al Quaida. Check 'em out. You already have so much in common!
Most sincerely,
[Name] Episcopalian

John, I don't have the numbers to prove this, but I doubt if drug legalization would involve much in the way of costs. A key element in the case for legalization is that prohibition has significantly worsened the pathologies of drug use. Put another way, it drives people to Moonshine when all they really want is a Bud Lite. Prohibition gives a strong economic incentive for dealers to push a more destructive product range, forces up prices to exorbitant levels (which, of course, causes more crime) and substantially increases the risk that the drugs will be taken under dangerous or unsanitary conditions. Thus I would expect the costs of 'treatment, counselling, and social disorder' to fall substantially compared with present levels.

That's not to deny that a decision to legalize drugs would bring no costs in its wake. Would the legalized use of currently banned substances be associated with some social disorder? Sure, just as drinking is today. On the whole, I suspect that the police would prefer to deal with, say, rowdy pot smokers (do they exist?) than a bunch of drunks. As to treatment and counselling costs, yes there would be some, just as there are many human activities, but, in the circumstances of a regulated, legal market rather than the unregulated mayhem now imposed on society by the drug warriors, they are unlikely to be extraordinary and would, I assume, be more than defrayed by the (modest) taxes that should be imposed on legalized drugs. It should be remembered that most people are not self-destructive : in late Victorian England almost all drugs were legal and society seemed, somehow, to survive and (a reactionary like me would argue) flourish

Now, who's taken my opium?

Derb - I too have a long-standing contempt for the socially liberal, fiscally conservative line. It's always struck me as so much people-pleasing and conflict-avoidance. Besides, it seems to me that if you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative, you're saying you're too cheap to live up to your convictions. I'm not referring here to libertarians who are, in fact, socially libertarian and fiscally conservative. I'm talking about the liberals who, for example, defend welfare in principle but not in practice. How is that a morally or intellectually serious position?

Dear Mr. Derbyshire,
I am not Episcopalian, but as a Christian who was victimized by a "gay" ex-husband, I commend you on your insight that this "bishop's" real crime was what he did to his children.
After 16 years of marriage, my husband abandoned me with 3 children, the oldest severely disabled, the youngest 3 weeks old, to run off with a food editor in what he said was a "lifetime commitment." That one lasted a couple months.
Put aside my emotional trauma (although 22 years have passed and I have been remarried for 15 I have NEVER recovered from his betrayal), my girls have suffered a sure and steady form of abuse, just by having to live through this. I made a conscious decision not to poison them against their father's lifestyle, thus raised them not to be intolerant of gays, but intolerant of people who lie, cheat and betray. I allowed him visitation until he started putting posters of naked men in his bathroom, and moved a guy in. From then it went to dinners only. But the damage continued. Their struggle with a sexually active gay father, and what it means regarding their own sexuality, their angst with their peers (which continues today) to say nothing of what they must think of me for loving such a man ...well, it's too complex to explore in this venue. Only our mutual sense of humor has kept us afloat.
As my middle daughter prepares for her wedding, the crisis rears its head again. "Daddy" wants to bring his partner.... most friends and family have not seen this man for 20 years, which means if he comes, the wedding will be "all about HIM," which has always been the case. The other daughter has had dreams of him showing up at her wedding in a Speedo. It will never end. Someday we'll have to explain "Gay Paw Paw" and his young friend.
We laugh, but we cry. For 20 years, we've heard the mantra from him that he deserves his "personal happiness," and that I'd better "deal" with the social/political issues of the gay world because, as he says, "we're queer and we're here!" He's never been an activist, but he is on the "circuit" and has chided us for years about the evils of the organized churches and how the gays would make these inroads. It's the only thing, sadly, he's been right about.
One other point. When my ex, a kind, churched midwest farm boy who made it big in the film business, traveled a lot, and often hung his hat in Hollywood and NY, "came out," he had a lot of help in leaving me. Don't be naive about recruitment (as I surely was). Even in 1981, there were "groups" who helped him "ease out" of his marriage and responsibilities. I did everything I could..... therapy (even found him a gay shrink who thought he should stay married) but to no avail. The pressures from the gay community to "be honest" and admit he was "gay," not an acting-out bi-sexual, won.
His sin, like Robinson's, was breaking his vows and shattering the emotional health of his daughters, not only by abandonment, but by forcing them to deal with issues beyond their psychological maturation skills. I believe God says something about not forgiving a person unless they ask for forgivness...... so I'm comfortable never forgiving this man. I left the United Church of Christ 10 years ago for their similar stance. Now with the Episcopals following suit, at least my ex will have plenty of places to pray. Trouble is, he's too busy shopping and following the party circuit (at age 60) to take the time.
If you'd like to reference any of my comments, feel free, but keep me anonymous for my girls' sakes.
Today, pray for that church, and for all the women and children who have been damaged by the gay community.

Sorry K-Lo. I was out of the "office" all day yesterday.

TBS keeps running promos for some "Jaws" rip-off movie starring Lou "My Career Has Fallen and it Can't Get Up" Diamond Phillips. The commercial keeps calling sharks "perfectly evolved killing machines" -- a line echoed in all sorts of documentaries and "Jaws" too. Excuse me, but if sharks are "perfectly evolved killing machines" how come they keep losing in fights with humans?

I think a "perfectly" evolved killing machine would be really smart, and have something like lasers coming out of its eyes and a Howitzer for a right arm.

"Episcopal Church Appoints First Openly-Muslim Bishop." From Scrappleface. (link via G-Philes).

I've gotten lots of email from readers asking what happened to my regular Sunday show gig on CNN. The short answer is that it's gone. "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" has been cut back to two hours and our panel "The Final Round" was cut with it. I think they're revamping the show for the Fall. I don't have a lot of details, but I think it's safe to say you'll still be seeing me on CNN pretty regularly. Thanks for the concern and thanks especially to those who've written to CNN complaining (that sort of thing never hurts). But, I'm still on contract with them and happily so.

Tim Noah thinks I can't be trusted with Bill Buckley's gun.

Peanut Butter Jelly Time.

Little Green Footballs stumbles on some serious nastiness.

On the Pryor/anti-Catholic mess. If you're too bored with the subject: I'm basically in Ramesh's camp.

Remember my military guys? This is from one of them:

Jonah - about the time of the 'end of major combat operations' and Army Secretary White's resignation I sent you a note predicting Rumsfeld was planning
a "Night of the Long Knives" purge of the Army.

The game is afoot. By putting the Secretary of the Air Force in as the new SECARMY Rummy is remaking the Army in his image and removing the 'unreliable elements', and this just seals the deal.

No, it doesn't really equate to the Roehm purge - but the effect on the senior
leadership will be similar, if less spectacular. Most particularly the punitive aspect of canning these guys before they can retire in grade. That is sending a clear message - Screw with Me, pay for it (literally) the rest of your life. Some perspective on that: A 4 star has a nominal pay of $153,950 a year for retirement purposes. They are actually limited to Level V of the Executive Schedule, which drops their actual pay to $142,488 plus allowances. To put that in perspective - Anita Hill was a Level V appointee. A 3 Star makes $135,835. Not being able to retire in grade is, over a 25 year retirement period (with no index for inflation)equals a $317,000 loss in pay. Since there are cost of living raises to that pay, it's actually greater.

Now these guys aren't going to be poor, a 3 star is still pulling in $95K a year in retirement, vice a 4 star's $108K.

All that said - I support the right of the Secretary to be able to do it, whether he's right or wrong, because it's important sometimes to remind the wielders of the "state's right to legitimate violence" and the tools thereof who the Constitution put in charge, like it or not.

Almost everyone expects Arnold Schwarzenegger to use his appearance tonight on "The Tonight Show" to explain why he isn't seeking the governorship and then to tout the candidacy of former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan. But what if Arnold makes a last-minute decision to join the race? Those who know his Hollywood negotiating tactics tell journalists he often keeps producers on hold until the last minute and then jumps in with a "total commitment." The Western Political Report concluded yesterday that "Schwarzenegger is not out of the running and Riordan is not a sure thing to jump in." His campaign aides say they honestly don't know what he will do. Apparently, the 73-year-old Riordan would strongly prefer his close friend Mr. Schwarzenegger to run instead.

Behind the breathless 24/7 reports and the images of burned cars and blown-out windows, the encouraging fact is that the bombing in Indonesia was the best the terrorists could do: They can't defeat America, so they killed some folks having lunch.
The terrorists dream of destroying the United States and bringing down Western civilization, of purifying their own societies and imposing their degenerate version of Islam on all of humankind. So they marshal their resources - and blow up a hotel lobby.
It doesn't sound as if they're making much progress.

The current controversy in the Episcopalian church is really the business of members of that denomination and for them alone. Nevertheless, it’s revealing to see that these, apparently, were the principal allegations against Gene Robinson:

“Robinson placed one hand on Lewis' arm and the other on Lewis' upper back. The exchange took place in full view of the public, and Lewis acknowledged that many who saw it would not have judged it inappropriate. He said Robinson answered his question and didn't say anything offensive.

In the second exchange, Robinson placed his hands on Lewis' forearm and back and responded to a comment Lewis made with a comment of his own.

Lewis said the exchanges made him feel that Robinson ``presumed a far greater familiarity or intimacy than was the case'' between the two men.”

That this non-event even raised a question is a pretty dismal reflection on the state of this debate.

Are your standards of truth any higher than Michael Moore's or Ann Coulter's. Please explain how the following comment of yours is not a lie through misrepresentation:
"Great. First, Clinton (Bill, that is) speaks at Georgetown (where I went undergrad) to blame September 11th on slavery"
You will not find anywhere a statement by Bill Clinton that blames 9-11 on slavery. Nowhere. Why do you believe it's fine to make up derogatory falsehoods in pursuit of your conservative political agenda? Do you consider this an example of intellectual honesty? If so, then shame on you.

As an avid reader and father of four, I like to think that the presence of my personal library in the home communicates, in some way, a persistent reminder of my priorities. Someone once said that if you look at most folks' bookshelves all you will really learn about them is what courses they took in college! All too often this is true. But from my library my children not only know that I read a lot (they see that) but also what I read. What example does it set for my children to see that their father spends a significant amount of his free time reading: religion and theology, science, history, and classical fiction? I hope that sets a good example. We most often do our most powerful teaching through our actions, not our words. I hope that my library represents a concrete positive example to my children.

I wonder if the delay in the Supreme Judicial Court decision on gay marriage is a sign that the court will not, in the end, decide to go for it but rather opt for civil unions or some other muddled outcome. It seems like the smart move from a tactical standpoint. Public opposition has been rising, social conservatives are beginning to mobilize, and a gay-marriage decision may prompt the president to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. (I think he almost certainly would endorse it.) The amendment might fail, as most proposed amendments do, but why take the risk?

If the court imposes civil unions, on the other hand, Bush is much less likely to endorse an amendment. (I doubt he would under that circumstance.) Support for civil unions is well on its way to becoming the "moderate" position among opinion elites. Purist supporters of full-fledged gay marriage would be disappointed, but a civil union decision will nonetheless be a step forward for them, culturally and politically. In two or three years, it might very well be safe to go ahead with gay marriage.

So I guess the question is whether the judges would rather go down in history for bringing the first-ever gay marriages to the U.S. or would rather promote the cause of gay rights long-term. (Abiding by the law as written doesn't appear to be an option.)

The 'Partnership for a Drug-Free America' has long been a rather repellent organization, but for sheer stupidity a full page advertisement that it is running in today's New York Times takes some beating. The advertisement is dominated by a blown-up copy of the death certificate of a young woman. The cause of death is given as "acute drug intoxication (MDMA)" . This, readers are told, should be the starting point for discussing Ecstasy "with [their] kids."

Do the prohibitionists never learn?

There are, certainly, dangers associated with Ecstasy, not least the profoundly disturbing possibility that it might be associated with Parkinson's disease, but, given its popularity and the circumstances in which it is supplied (there's no quality control for an illegal drug, after all), mortality rates appear to be very low. Now, any death as a result of drug use is a tragedy, but to suggest that parents' first discussion with their children on the topic of Ecstasy should begin with a highly unrepresentative disaster is to suggest that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America prefers crude scaremongering to reasoned discussion.

Wait a minute. What am I saying? Of course that's what they prefer. They are drug warriors.

You guys are treading on dangerous ground!

Isn't it odd to see a bunch of authors, potential authors and sundry writers, whose income is dependent on having as many people buy--not read, buy--their work as possible, discussing whether it is better to stop wasting money on purchasing books? It is especially odd to see it on a website which is free to anyone who wants to view it, but which encourages people to donate to support it. A discussion of whether books are too expensive, and whether it is better to get things free at the library, could easily be extended to the supporters of your site!

(Written as I sip out of my NRO mug, while wearing my "Making Al Gore regret inventing the internet" T-shirt.)

Emily Canellos-Simms always prided herself in never having an overdue library book. That's why the Kewanee native now living in Peoria was astonished when her daughter-in-law called from Texas to tell her that one of the old books she had sent her for a decorating project was overdue from the Kewanee Public Library -- 47 years past due, to be exact… Emily's son, Carl Soderstrom… insisted his mother return the book -- mainly because he had been reminded by her to do so many times. Soderstrom went one step further. He calculated the number of days since the book was due -- 17,257, including leap years -- and instructed his mother to write out a check for the amount due -- $345.14, and pay up.

It would be an astonishing achievement of cultural transformation if a functioning Iraqi democracy could be established in a mere 30 years, or even 60.

"All those precision weapons and gadgets and gizmos and stealth fighters . . . are not going to make it possible to re-conquer Kuwait without many thousands of casualties."

Mr. Luttwak later claimed he had merely been trying to stimulate more innovative thinking on the part of the U.S. military…

I was interviewed by the national host of "All things Considered" (forget her name) in the immediate aftermath of our Iraqi Freedom victory. Of course, instead of speaking about the brilliant military victory, the only subject she wanted to discuss was the "disgraceful" failure of the military to prevent looting. I spoke to her for almost 20 minutes (while being recorded for her program) trying to explain how preventing looting was not foremost in US military commanders' minds as active military operations were still ongoing. However, I also explained how Civil Affairs units, MPs, etc would soon be in place to take care of any looting. Of course, subsequent events proved me right, but she wanted no part of it and tried to get me to say that the military had failed. She assured me that our interview would be aired that evening on her broadcast. However, it was not only not aired, but the only "experts" she had on the program were folks who argued that the military failed, that the "looting" was a US war crime. . .
So much for NPR's objectivity and "open-minded and urbane [discussions], with a preference for empirical inquiry over dogmatic conclusion-mongering." Ha!

Listening to NPR this morning on a story re: the vote to confirm the gay Episcopalian bishop. Evidently, accusations arose yesterday involving "homosexual harassment" and "improper touching" by the nominee, which delayed the confirmation vote. Not only did the NPR reporter not attempt to shield the alleged victim's identity, she went out of her way to mention the accuser's name -- several times.
Although it is not a case of alleged rape, it is certainly alleged sexual misconduct and an interesting line to draw. Not surprisingly, she not only mentioned the man's name, she openly questioned the "timing" (and thereby the veracity) of his accusation -- something apparently acceptable if a gay bishop or a Democratic president is accused of sexual misconduct.

Schulz and Derbyshire are absolutely right on target.
About the only thing I liked from the movie "American President" is a line Michael Douglas' character uses when the (caricature) opposition starts attacking him.
"We don't respond. They are trying to get us to swing at a pitch in the dirt."
This issue is the same - most "regular Americans" don't want to talk about it, don't want to think about it, and resent the fact that is keeps getting thrown in their face.
The problem with benign neglect is, so the activist line goes, without vigilent opposition, states like Vermont and Massachusetts will drive the public agenda. Without vocal opposition, the 3% becomes a way of life for us all.

There is no real liberal or even just noncon counterpart to the radiocons, as we might as well call them. On (mostly) the FM dial, National Public Radio is an alternative but not an equivalent. NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” like “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” are carried on some six hundred stations, and their audience is roughly the size of El Rushbo’s—somewhere around fifteen million people per week. But these NPR programs are news-feature broadcasts; they adhere to the practices of journalistic professionalism, including the aspirational ideal of objectivity. Their sensibility may fairly be said to be “liberal” in the sense that liberal education is liberal—that is, open-minded and urbane, with a preference for empirical inquiry over dogmatic conclusion-mongering—but what little overt political commentary they offer hovers around the moderate middle. NPR’s local talk-show hosts tend to be more overtly liberal, but they are always polite about it. In contrast, Limbaugh and his scores of national and local imitators aggressively propagandize on behalf of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and the domestic and foreign policies of the Bush Administration, with a stream of faxes and e-mails from conservative think tanks and the Republican National Committee keeping the troops firmly on message. Neither NPR nor anyone else ever performed any such services for the Clinton Administration, and no one is doing so today on behalf of the beleaguered Democratic opposition.

"All those who came to power after [the death in 1989 of] my grandfather exploited his name and that of Islam to continue their unfair rule."

Pretty funny, rated G

Q. During the debate in Vermont on civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, which you supported, did you have to wear a bulletproof vest?

A. Sometimes.

Q. Would gun control laws in Vermont have made that unnecessary?

A. No, because in Vermont gun control laws would have no effect whatsoever. They certainly don't seem to have much effect in New York. Although my position is New Yorkers can have as much (gun control) as they want.

[People] want to figure out the system, break the code of their child's sex through Internet checklists, Chinese lunar calendars, "pee tests" and stargazing. It might make nine months of waiting more fun, but ultimately the odds are 50-50. It's not what one would call a remarkable feat to guess right. If there were 10 possible sexes to choose from, people might find themselves a little less inclined to count calories, pounds or zits and more inclined to book time with a sonographer.

As I mentioned in Friday's G-File, and my latest
syndicated , Arabs have a funny way of talking about democracy. They use the language of elections and representation even though they don't have actual democracy, in part because even in these tyrannical states democracy is recognized as the only legitimate source of political authority. Here's another good example. In a recent interview with the Washington Post Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas matter-of-factly claimed that he'd been elected:

I said that the armed intifada is useless and we should stop it. For that, the Palestinians elected me prime minister and for that Arafat nominated me to be prime minister. And I accepted, according to my ideas.

Did I miss the election night coverage or something?

A first cousin to crankiness is New England flintiness, and this Howard Dean has. As with Jed Bartlet, the president from New Hampshire on NBC's "The West Wing," Dean's flintiness may derive from his sheer cognitive processing power and an impatience with those who aren't as quick. "He is extremely intelligent," says Joyce Davis, a Manhattan dermatologist who was Dean's lab partner in medical school. "I noticed that about him right away."

It's the dream of every insurgent candidate to confound the experts, catch fire at the right moment, wow the world by winning the New Hampshire primary and making the cover of Time and Newsweek.

July 22, 2003
Maura Harty Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Department of State Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Harty:

It was interesting to meet with you in Washington, D.C. at the Government Reform Committee hearing room prior to the July 9, 2003 hearing, “Internationnal Child Abduction: The Absence of Rights for American Citizens in Saudi Arabia.”As you know, I had expressed many concerns about your nomination to the position of assistant secretary of State for consular affairs but I had sincerely hoped that once you entered that office, you would genuinely work for the return of not only my daughters but of America’s children taken abroad.

Prior to your confirmation last year you had woed members of Congress and the press as “an agent of change” after your predecessor, Mary Ryan was fired mostly because her extreme case of “clientitis” towards the Saudis. As we know, she refused to shut down the Visa Express program even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred.

It was brought to my attention prior to the Government Reform hearings last year after subpoenaed documents from the Department of State were made public, that Mary Ryan, even though she had refused to help bring my daughters home, continually wrote memos containing derogatory statements about me and attached them to my file. I know you and Ms. Ryan worked very closely for many years and I had hoped that you would somehow, have a different attitude.

When you introduced yourself to me prior to the hearing, I politely asked if you would be willing to open a dialog with the Saudi government concerning my American citizen daughters who have been held in Saudi Arabia for almost twenty years to come home to America. Instead of agreeing to work with me on this and offering me and my family a closure to this tragedy, you reiterated the Saudi position that was taken last year after they abused my daughters and forced them to disavow their country and mother in a hotel room in London.

Adel Jubeir had asked for the cooperation of the State Department in this Stalinist show trial after I had gone to Mr. Burton and the intense pressure of the hearings had caused a great light to be shone on the collaboration between the U.S. State Department, the Saudi government and the PR firms that the Saudis hire.

The Department of State knew the girls were going to be taken out of Saudi Arabia and flown to England – their first time ever out of Saudi Arabia since they were kidnapped from me as little girls. Yet no one informed me that my daughters would be in England and they just happened to be “on vacation” in London during the same weekend a Congressional delegation was in Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudi princes for their release.

You told me in that hearing room that my daughters do not want to come home to America or see their mother. You repeated the Saudi position - that of Prince Bandar, Prince Saud bin Faisal and Adel Jubeir - that they could speak freely in that Saudi controlled, PR controlled “hothouse” in a London hotel. What you should have said was, “Ms. Roush, I will do everything I can to bring your daughters and their children to America to see you in the U.S. I am truly sorry for all the pain and suffering you and your family have had to endure all these years.” If you were really an “agent of change” you would have taken that opportunity to really make a difference. Instead you took the Saudi line and refused to sit down with me and work out the details of an amicable arrangement to bring my daughters home.

I have no knowledge of the whereabouts of my daughters. I have no knowledge of any details about their lives. I don’t know how many children they have or who married them. I have no pictures of them – none for almost twenty years. What changes have occurred since you took office? None. And your statement only shows that you don’t intend to change.

What kind of power over peoples’ lives do you possess, Ms. Harty? Is there no way to hold you responsible for your obligation to fulfill your responsibilities to the American people? It made me quite uneasy at the hearing when you portrayed yourself as a “public servant for twenty-three years.”

At the hearing you stated, “Not a day goes by that we don’t think about these cases.” When Mr. Burton asked you about my case you replied, “There are few things I would like more than to see that happen. I have raised it on several trips to Saudi Arabia and will continue to raise it.”

Is it not a bit hypocritical to have one conversation with me prior to the hearing and then to answer Mr. Burton’s question with another totally opposite point of view? I truly wonder how you cope with yourself at night when the lights are off and how when your earthly life is ended and you stand face to face with the Most High, what fate will await you.

You and the Saudis have an excellent opportunity now to bring my family home to America. If my daughters truly don’t want to stay here or be with their American family, then they can get on a plane and go back to Saudi Arabia. We don’t hold people in this country against their will. Ask Sarah Saga. Tell your Saudi friends that bringing my daughters home would bring them more goodwill with the American people than any PR stunt they pay millions for.

Very truly yours, Patricia Roush

To be honest, I thought the "anti-Catholic" charge against Schumer et al was overblown. But I've been re-thinking that, in part after reading Peter Beinart's angry denunciation of the Republicans making the accusation. Beinart writes, "A three-year-old could see the logical fallacy here." He continues, "Democrats dislike Pryor's views on abortion and gay rights--they don't care whether he came to those views through Catholicism, Judaism, or by reading Edmund Burke. As it happens, almost half the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who voted against Pryor's nomination are themselves Catholic."

Well, I must be 2 1/2 years old, because I think there's merit to the logic. Imagine if the Agriculture Committee announced that no nominee for a senior position in the Dept of Agriculture could get the job if he holds "very, very deeply held views" against the mixing of milk and meat or on the eating of pork. Now this prohibition could be based in totally secular rationales. But it would still result in barring anyone who's kosher from getting the job. In short, no Jews (or Muslims) need apply. And this is what Schumer is in effect saying because he does not believe that someone with such "deeply, deeply held views" could enforce a law he does not agree with in his private life.

Now, someone might say in defense of the policy, "Well, not all Jews are Kosher." And that would be true. But it's also true that the test would bar devout and observant Jews. In other words, it would prevent sincere adherents of their faith from serving in public office. That's a particular no-no in the United States of America.

But you can take religion out of it. What if we amend the Constitution on gay marriage? Will this mean that gay, particularly ones with "deeply, deeply held views," need not apply? My guess is that a conservative who said gays cannot serve in public office because they cannot separate their private lives from the professional duties would get in quite a bit of trouble (just look at the screeching over boy scouts). The relevant question is whether Pryor or anybody else can do the job, not whether they dislike the job they might have to do.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: From David Brooks' essay on the tendency to self-segregate in the latest Atlantic Monthly (not yet online): What we are looking at here is human nature. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. It's likely that hiring committees would subtly -- even unconsciously -- screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown, so they don't even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool. (emphasis added)

Sweeney said no matter what happens on the question of endorsing a candidate in the Democratic primaries, labor will be united next year against Bush. "I don't believe there will be any major splintering of unions," he said. "I think we're going to do our damnedest to have a solid labor movement and a solid political program all across the country."

Sherlock Holmes, apparently:

“It is always a joy to meet an American, Mr. Moulton, for I am one of those who believe that the folly of a monarch and the blundering of a minister in far-gone years will not prevent our children from being some day citizens of the same world-wide country under a flag which shall be a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes.”

(From The Noble Bachelor)

Thanks to the reader in New Jersey who sent this in.

Unfortunately, the reflexive rejection in the public debate of the use of force against North Korea has begun to undermine U.S. ability both to influence China to act and to take the preparatory steps necessary for effectiveness if force should be needed. The U.S. and South Korea must instead come together and begin to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime.

It is not reasonable to limit the use of force to a surgical strike destroying Yongbyon. Although the facility would need to be destroyed, the possible existence of another plutonium reprocessing plant or of uranium-enrichment facilities, or of plutonium hidden elsewhere, makes it infeasible to limit the use of force to such a single objective. Moreover, military action against North Korea must protect South Korea from certain attack (particularly from artillery just north of the DMZ that can reach Seoul). In short, we must be prepared to win a war, not execute a strike.

Travelers from all but 27 nations, most of them in Europe, will be subject to the new rules, which will require United States visas even for the briefest of layovers. The Department of Homeland Security announced this weekend that it was suspending two programs that waived visa requirements for foreign travelers making connections at American airports — one known as Transit Without Visa, the other as International to International — because of intelligence reports suggesting terrorists might take advantage of the programs.