From the Boston Globe:

Addressing the crowd, Kerry's wife, Teresa, took a swipe at the Bush administration. "You cannot solve problems by throwing stones, and you cannot solve problems by telling lies, and you cannot solve problems by wishing ill to other people," she said. "The only way you solve problems is by holding hands and talking about it, and that's what we want to do in this campaign."

Marie Antoinette in the age of Oprah. Fascinating.

Via Viking Pundit.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar on John Kerry’s record at the Committee, a cornerstone of Kerry’s supposed foreign policy expertise.

“…This has not been an area where he has sought to take leadership. He has been a faithful attender…"

Translation: He showed up at meetings.

Ouch.

Is cigarette smoking a generally dangerous pastime? Of course it is. And there are many good arguments available for those inclined to dissuade people from taking up, or continuing with, this often self-destructive habit.

The problem, alas, is that the anti-tobacco jihad has long ceased to be about health. These days it’s little more than a vehicle for those who wish either to proclaim their own virtue or, quite simply, enjoy bossing people around – or both. This change in motivation has, unsurprisingly, been accompanied by a sharp deterioration in the intellectual quality of the arguments made by those who would stub out the cig forever.

We’ve seen this, for example, in the use made by these zealots of ‘passive smoking’, a junk science first developed by the ethically flawed (passivrauchen was, let it not be forgotten, a concept first dreamt up by scientists in the Third Reich – a regime led by history’s most notorious anti-smoker), then refined by the scientifically inept, and now used by the intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt claque now at the forefront of the war against tobacco.

The latest instance of the degradation of anti-tobacco activism comes from the American Cancer Society, an organization that, when it comes to this topic, has long since turned malignant. Radley Balko (a CATO employee, it should be noted) has the details here, but the essence of the story is that this charity is now resorting to ad hominem, and inaccurate, slurs in its attempt to discredit those who oppose the proposed FDA regulation of tobacco products. The allegations center on whether the CATO Institute, an opponent of the proposals, is influenced by mysterious corporate donations from the likes of Philip Morris. Pointing out that Philip Morris actually supports the proposed extension of authority to the FDA, Radley makes short work of the ACS claims, but this controversy is a reminder of another point.

Organizations such as the American Cancer Society and, more importantly, their paid employees, have a vested interest themselves in maintaining the hysteria over tobacco at an appropriately intense level. It attracts donations – and it pays salaries. That’s something that’s worth remembering the next time you hear about supposed conflicts of interest in this debate.

We hear a lot these days from the current Russian government about the wrongs that Russians suffer at the hands of Ukrainians, Balts and other nations strangely ungrateful for what Moscow did to, oh sorry, for, them in the course of the Twentieth Century, but this story shows just how seriously the world should take those complaints.

It begins with the mass murder by the Soviets of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn in 1940, a crime that was nothing less than an exercise in social and cultural genocide, a savage attempt to decapitate Polish society. Warsaw has long wanted an accounting. Moscow has long responded with lies and evasion. Not enough, it seems, has changed.

”Kieres, head of Poland's Institute for National Remembrance of the War, came to Moscow this week with Polish war crimes prosecutors. He was cruelly disappointed. Russian prosecutors told him that the crimes took place too long ago to be acted upon and refused to even divulge how many of the suspects were still alive. While promising to share some information with Warsaw, the Russians insisted that the crime could not be classified as genocide, a move that would allow prosecutions to go ahead. The Polish side was furious. "This was genocide, whether they want to call it that or not. That is the reality, the painful reality for us and for them," Anna Wolinska, who lost her father and uncle in the massacres, told TV Polonia."

As the Independent points out, this is the second Russian insult to the Poles in as many second weeks. Another of the squalid chapters in the Soviet Union’s very mixed record between 1939 and 1945 was the decision of the nearby Red Army to watch passively as the Germans crushed the Warsaw Rising in 1944. Conveniently for Stalin, the slaughter of yet more of Poland’s best and brightest by the Nazis removed another obstacle to the communist takeover of Poland that he had planned for so long.

Moscow is also refusing to apologize for this betrayal of a supposedly allied country. Russia’s foreign ministry merely contents itself with the comment that it considers " it inappropriate and blasphemous to the memory of the fallen to get into public polemics on this score." In reality, of course, it is the failure of the current Russian leadership to acknowledge the horrors of the Soviet past that is the real blasphemy.

A Soviet Nuremberg remains long overdue. Without it, Russia can never truly become a ‘normal’ country.

We know from the way that Nurse Bloomberg mauled math, statistics and science to justify his smoking ban, that New York City's billionaire mayor has an, uh, flexible way with figures. Now he's at it again. In today's New York Times he's reported as claiming that "the vast majority of New Yorkers by every poll want the games to be here."

Well, Nurse, that's not altogether true is it? Yes, one recent poll, the Quinnipiac University Poll, did find that 67 percent of New York City voters said they supported the city's bid to host the summer games (25 percent were opposed), but there's a catch: 55 percent said they would not approve of holding the 2012 Olympics in the city if tax revenues were used (and only 37 percent were in favour). Look at the figure for Manhattan, and the opposition rises still further - to 64 percent.

Send the Olympics where they belong - Paris 2012!

Harold Stassen, eat your heart out.

"He began his political career in 1951 when he attempted to stand against the Prime Minister in the General Election. Unfortunately he stood for the wrong seat, Walthamstow East rather than Attlee's Walthamstow West. He then stood as the ADMIRAL candidate - an acronym that stood for "Association of Democratic Monarchists Representing All Women". He received 174 votes, a startlingly good performance by his later standards. Clearly people were not yet wise to the threat of Boaksism."

Enjoy the whole thing.

From Arianna's Blog, a site that redefines empty boasting:

"I ran into Bobby Kennedy, who was there with the entire Kennedy clan, and he told me that on Tuesday morning at 9:15 am, he'll be on the Today Show to talk about his just-released book, Crimes Against Nature-- the ultimate indictment of the Bush administration's environmental policies. Tune in. "

Well, now there's this...

"ISLAMABAD, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda member Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan e-mailed contacts in Osama bin Laden's network while in custody as part of a sting operation by security agencies, a Pakistani intelligence source said on Friday. A series of arrests in Britain this week resulted from Khan's capture in Pakistan early last month. A high alert for U.S. financial institutions against a possible al Qaeda attack was also prompted by information gathered from the Pakistani computer engineer, according to intelligence and government sources..."

Yes, this story is from an 'unnamed source', so some skepticism is appropriate (and Pakistan's interior minister wouldn't comment either on the story or, even, Khan's very existence) but it's a nice example as to why a week or two's 'delay' could make perfect sense.

I missed this on C-Span, but I'll take this reader's word for it. What dismays me is that none of the college kids asked whether I was getting a raise. Once again the youth disappoint:

Regarding the young conservative group that Rich addressed last night (on CSPAN), I happened to tune in during question and answer session. It was impossible to miss the young female questioners who had fallen under his spell, as if Lowry had exchanged "mojo" with the Hollywood hunk of the week.

Particularly the blonde junior from Furman...Rich tried to squirm out of her question (and her batting eyes) ASAP.

Wait, I've got it....he is the Bono of the young conservative movement!!!

I just returned from Yei, Sudan on Wednesday of this week while conducting a political training session with the SPLM on an International Republican Institute program funded by the State Department. The people of southern Sudan are grateful for the Bush Administrations support in bringing Khartoum to the table. The only way Khartoum will implement the agreed to protocols in the cease-fire and what will eventually become a peace treaty will be with continued pressure from the US, UK AU and UN. The entire country is in a tragic situation, but I admire and respect the southern people's will to fight for their freedom, independence and self determination.

"CARLSON: A lot of entertainers have come out against the war in Iraq. Have you?

"SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

"CARLSON: Do you trust this president?

"SPEARS: Yes, I do."

During the primaries, in a speech to the Arab-American Institute, [Kerry] denounced the fence Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was building on the West Bank. "We don't need another barrier to peace, " he said. Eight months later, with the Democratic nomination safely tucked away, he sang a different tune: "The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense erected in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israeli citizens."

Basic Instinct star Stone, 46, was keen to enjoy an intimate moment with Oscar-winning co-star Halle Berry, but believes a puritanical streak running through the country put an end to any potential girl-on-girl action.

Stone says: "Halle's so beautiful and I wanted to kiss her. I said, 'How can you have us in the movie and not have us kiss? That's such a waste.'

"That's what you get for having George Bush as president."

Not everything in this New York Times editorial is made up of cheap shots and innuendo (for instance, the criticism of the amount of resources dedicated to anti-terror activities in New York is entirely fair - and I'm not saying so just because I live here), but this passage takes some beating:

"Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. "

Oh really?

With the President then (supposedly) pushed onto the defensive, the editorial writer has this to say:

"There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances."

Nothing?

Of course, if there is a list of people to blame for Americans not taking future warnings as seriously as they should, writers at the New York Times will be right near the top (along with crazy Dr. Dean, but he, poor man is, quite clearly, no longer responsible for his actions). For example, let's take a look at this comment from an editorial in the Times on Tuesday, August 3rd:

"The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way. This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain."

Here is what the same paper (admittedly within the context of continuing criticism of the White House's handling of this matter) has to say today, two days later, about that same information:

"The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack."

This link is not for office use and will annoy a great many readers. I would tell you how/why it's annoying but that would spoil the fun. The question is, Can you spot the differences between these photos?

Update Okay, okay. It's more than annoying. But if I told you how much more it would have given it all away. Still, oldsters and those drinking hot beverages should not view the above link.

From a reader:

One of the more interesting things I've learned thus far in college was learnt last summer during my golf class (PSU requires students to take two "gym" classes for any degree). While watching a video on the history of golf, I was amazed to see how the sport was revolutionized during the immediate post-war era. While there were, of course, lots of great players who made the game more easily accessible to more and more people (up to and including Tiger Woods), the biggest change in the game was the availability of cheaper irrigation and ground-repair equipment (namely, tractors). Their near-universal availability following WWII created an explosion in the sport, resulting in an average of one new golf course opening nationwide every single day from 1950-1960. Now, if that isn't an example of technology trickling down wealth, I don't know what is.

From my BRG responding to my syndicated column on Sharpton:

Let me set a few things straight that the mainstream media never appears to get right or bother reporting, black people by and large, but especially middle class and upper income blacks -neither respect nor care what Sharpton or Jesse think or say about anything. Like anything they occasionally say something I may agree with, no one can be wrong 100% of the time. Poor under-educated blacks may but anyone that champions their cause or says that their plight in life is not entirely their fault would be get their attention- some people like to hold the victim blanket tightly and they exploit that. Most of us, think of Sharpton as a witty buffoon and Jesse as a hustler out for himself and his children at all times. However most blacks do have a tendency to avoid attacking other black people (obviously liberals make the exception to attack conservative black people) publicly but that isn't support. Also mainstream papers would not care to report or investigate intra-racial politics- such as how blacks feel about our supposed leaders.

Perhaps its because I spend so much time at work that I missed the last gathering our black folks to elected our leaders, but as far as I know and my friends (most of whom are liberal) -we don't have any black leaders- Sharpton's voice is heard because he is loud and democrats and media pay attention to his antics, ignore him and he would go away ....eventually- there are lots of other prominent black people, but they are frozen out because they don't have Jesse's history or rhyming ability or Sharpton's history and quick wit. Or perhaps the liberal media can only have one or two black "leaders" at a time- quota filled no opening until one of them fades away or dies. I live in Chicago, and Barrak may be my senator this fall, but he is not my leader, he does not speak for me and other blacks any more than any particular white politician or talking-head speaks for you as Jewish white guy. And its really annoying when people act like each year one black man or woman is "elected" who can speak for the race and we listen to that person. I don't think I have ever heard you or anyone else refer to a person as a white leader or Asian leader..why do we blacks have a leader(s). When Jesse Jr.- noted the pressure that will be on Barrak its pressure from the NAACP and liberal groups to be their voice, not the voice of all blacks. Oh- we also by and large don't care about the NAACP either -they have lost their collective mind -at least on the national level and don't represent middle-class or upper income blacks' views (which range).

your black conservative republican guy (if you don't have one)

Checked out the image of the hamburger in question. As an artist/art teacher, I am not too sure this image deserves the press it has been recieving. I took nothing of 9-11 away from the image. Subway has been railing against traditional fast food for years, but I am unsure that this image depicts said meaty-goodness as terrorist. I think people are over-reacting a bit. It is almost as if people are imagining that the marketing folks for Subway sat down and hatched a plot just to offend Americans. I think the image is silly, at best. I think the image says "beware of the burger! It can do harm to you. Eat healthy." Or it could mean, "American's are scum and they deserved 9-11."

K-Lo, you sound crazy on this one. First of all, the first e-mail in that series was "What we're fighting for: security and freedom." They're just continuing the theme.

But do you honestly think this rhetoric is unique to the Kerry campaign? Look around the BC04 web site! A quick search turned up:

"President Names Leader in Global Fight Against AIDS"
"Mrs. Bush Salutes Those Dedicated to Alzheimer's Fight"
"Human trafficking is one of the worst offenses against human dignity. Our nation is determined to fight that crime abroad and at home."
"The fight against domestic violence is a national movement. I urge people to join the movement."
"... recognizing faith-based and community groups as full partners in the fight against poverty ..."

I imagine that amendments declaring marriage to be a one-man, one-woman affair would pass in most states, but I'm not sure how much of a bellwether Missouri is on this issue. I've always had the impression that it was more socially conservative than your median state, and that its Democratic voters (many of them rural) were more socially conservative than their counterparts in many states.

As for whether the FMA will "take off like a rocket," as Stanley suggests: Senator John Cornyn, interestingly, tells Terry Eastland that the FMA will be enacted only when courts make more rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. In particular, he thinks that federal-court decisions that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act or imposed same-sex marriage on a state would cause it to be enacted.

Such decisions, at least if made in the next year or so, would increase the likelihood of enactment. If you were a legal activist working for same-sex marriage, or a judge looking to promote the same cause, the cautious thing to do would be to avoid seeking or issuing those decisions. Concentrate on the state courts, where there have already been successes. Get same-sex marriage imposed on several states and hope that it becomes normalized and opposition softens. Wait a few more years before moving to the federal courts, so that when the federal courts do move there will be less chance of a backlash.

I think that would be the most prudent strategy. But then, I thought last fall that the Massachusetts court would better advance the cause of same-sex marriage by settling for civil unions for the moment. I'm less confident of that judgment now, but in any case it did not help to predict what the court would actually do.

From the Washington Post:

"Paul Brown, deputy commissioner for public affairs at the New York Police Department, said Commissioner Ray Kelly learned about the emerging information late Friday. Brown said the details were alarming. "It doesn't take a genius to know that bin Laden would like to hit Wall Street," Brown said, referring to Osama bin Laden, leader of the al Qaeda network. "Now we go to last Friday. We hear very good reconnaissance, and we put it together with what we know and our past experience, and I'd say that our response was rational from our point of view."

Brown, of course, is 'just' a cop. Doubtless the New York Times and Howard Dean think that they know better.

HANNITY: All right. Let's start with one. First of all, you start with, in your book, page 193, you talk about, "communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. My American Heritage dictionary defines fascism as a system of government that exercises dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of the state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism. Sound familiar?" Are you accusing this president of being -- and this administration of being fascist like, Nazi-like?

KENNEDY: No, what I -- the point is that if you read that in context, is that Americans have to understand that there's a huge difference between free market capitalism, which is great for a democracy, which democratizes our country, that brings efficiencies, and the corporate crony capitalism that has been embraced by this administration, which is as antithetical to democracy in America as it is in Nigeria. Today, you have polluters running the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. The second in command at EPA is a Monsanto lobbyist. The head of the air division at the EPA is a -- is a utility lobbyist.

HANNITY: I...

KENNEDY: Let me finish.

HANNITY: Go ahead. Go ahead.

KENNEDY: Who for his lifetime has been defending the worst polluters in America. The head of the public lands now, Sean, is a mining industry lobbyist. The head of forest service a timber industry lobbyist, and on and on and on.

HANNITY: I understand your point.

KENNEDY: These people did not enter government for public service. They entered to undermine and subvert the very laws that they're charged with enforcing.

HANNITY: This is fundamental. Because I say the left today, your leadership, including your uncle, uncle Ted, or Ted Kennedy, have said irresponsible things about our president and about our country. And I find it here.

Now I'm going to read a very long paragraph for the sake of our audience, because I don't want to take it out of context, and I want to make sure I get the full context in here. OK? This is from your book.

KENNEDY: Sure.

HANNITY: You said, "these elected governments use the provocation of terrorist attacks, continued wars" -- you're talking about Nazism and fascism on page 193, OK?

KENNEDY: No, no, no now you're...

HANNITY: Wait a minute, right here I have it in the book, 193 and 194, and you talk about Spain, Germany and Italy reacting to the economic crises.

KENNEDY: Sure.

HANNITY: And then you say the following: "These governments use provocation of terrorist attacks, continual wars, invocations of patriotism and homeland security to privatize the commons, tame the press, muzzle criticism by opponents, turn the government over to corporate control.

'It's always a simple matter to drag people along,' noted Hitler's sidekick Herman Goering, whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and expose the country to danger -- and exposing the country to danger. And it works the same in any country," is what you say.

Then you go on to say -- you're talking about fascism and Nazism -- and the next line in this book of yours says, the White House has clearly grasped this lesson. That is disgraceful to make that comparison.

KENNEDY: Well, you know, Sean in this -- you know, look at the comparisons. Look at our -- what is -- look at the terror alert, for example, that we -- that was...

HANNITY: Nazism and fascism? That we're using the tactics of fascists and Nazists? That's what you're saying about your president? You can't disagree without being that obnoxious?

KENNEDY: We can disagree with each other, Sean, and that's something that we ought to be able to do without calling each other names.

HANNITY: You're the one calling them fascists and Nazis, comparing them to fascists and Nazis.

KENNEDY: Well, I never called the president a fascist or a Nazi.

HANNITY: You found a nice round-about way to compare his tactics to the fascists and the Nazis.

KENNEDY: And the point that I'm making, which is very clear in that book, is that control of government by corporations is as dangerous as control of government by communism.

HANNITY: That is unbelievable.”

OSCAR WILDE: “One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.”

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP), August 1, 2004: “A small cruise ship catering to eco-tourists was seriously damaged after running aground in the Aleutian Islands. Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer Roddy Corr said about 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel spilled from the ruptured tank, as was some waste water…”

…on Dr. Dean, Intelligence Czar:

“Given the recent spate of arrests in Pakistan, does it not occur to Howard Dean that maybe, just maybe, the administration held this information close to the vest just long enough to allow the CIA and Pakistani authorities to chase down leads that developed from the same seized computer?”

“Does anyone know how long it takes to analyze this type of information? I don't, but I would have to believe that the tapes and other details would need to be sent somewhere (back to the US?). Then wouldn't it need to be translated, verified, cross-checked, and analyzed? How much information was there? I don't know, but in the grand scheme of things 3 weeks does not seem like too terribly long a time.”

Gainer's decision Monday to close a major thoroughfare and impose 14 vehicle checkpoints on Capitol Hill was one piece of a much larger security strategy, which has included intensive training with Israeli counterterrorism experts and bomb technicians.

Glenn Reynolds's post about how it has become a lightning rod for the administration, with critics of unrelated administration policies blaming the act for whatever it is upsets them, reminds me of an odd comment I read the other day in the August Reason.

John Perry Barlow was being interviewed, with much of the discussion concerning his turn away from the Republicans. He said: ". . . in the past I found it most effective to be inside the Republican Party acting as a libertarian. But I've switched. One of the things going on in my mind when I wrote that note [announcing the decision to embrace political activism over lifestyle libertarianism] was that I'd just been busted for having a really trivial amount of marijuana in a checked bag under a PATRIOT Act search. I was arrested,
hauled off in irons, an ugly experience. At San Francisco airport, for, like, three
joints' worth of dope. Before the plane took off, Delta employees came on and said, Mr. Barlow, you have to step off the plane, and bring your personal effects. Then San Francisco cops arrested me. I spent the day in Redwood City in jail. It was a chilling experience. It's happening, and happening a lot. The Transportation Security Administration is now routinely searching checked bags. They are not just looking for explosives. . . ."

The Transportation Security Administration is doing more intensive bag searches than we used to have, and when they find illegal substances they are not ignoring them. You can wish that marijuana were legal, or that the TSA were prohibited from enforcing the law in this way. But what any of this has to do with Patriot is beyond me.

Kerry doesn't let an appearance go by without noting that People magazine once named Edwards the sexiest politician in the country. Between Edwards and Affleck, he said in Wheeling, "I kind of feel like that SAT question: 'Which one of these is different?' "

MATTHEWS: Well, we have Governor Dean joining us right now.

Governor Dean, how do you see the administration playing this, do you believe they jacked it up to create some heat, to cause a rally-around-the-flag mentality in the country?

DEAN: Well, here's what happened, in the middle of June, in the middle of July, two operatives from al Qaeda were captured. With the second capture, which happened almost three weeks ago, some information was released which then became public because of Tom Ridge and the president.

The buildings were then sealed and so forth and so on and highly guarded. The truth is that these buildings -- this information was three years old. These buildings were identified three years ago, not anything new.

Now I don't think for a second that there's no terrorist threat in the United States. There is a terrorist threat and it's a serious one. And I think this warning was a good warning in that it is specific. In the past it has just been , watch out, watch out, watch out. Which I find totally unhelpful.

Here's what deeply concerns me. If this information was three years old and if this al Qaeda operative, the most recent capture was on July 13, that means that this administration knew about this at least three weeks ago, that the information was three years old, that they could have chosen any date they wanted to to reveal this to the public.

Isn't it unusual they might choose two days after the Democratic National Convention when John Kerry was in the middle of his bounce. They -- this information is important information. It is three years old and the administration has known about it for three weeks.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you this, according to your statement the other day over the weekend, you said, "I'm concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, I assume you're referring to the Democratic Convention, he plays this trump card which is terrorism." Are you saying he timed it after the Democrats to kill the bounce?

DEAN: There's no way that we can know that, but the president has made it clear that he's going to run as a wartime president. And unfortunately since that is his one really strong point with the American people -- we know from the polls that every time terrorism is mentioned and put in the front issue, President Bush's numbers go up a little bit.

I find that since this information is three years olds, since the administration has known about it for three weeks, that it's a very peculiar coincidence suddenly after three years of information and three weeks of knowledge that the barriers go up around Citicorp and the Federal Reserve and so forth.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let's put you in a winning position. Suppose, Governor, you were president now and you had this information and you knew the climate right now, politically as well as -- just in terms of a sense of national security, and you found these tapes that show that they were casing these financial centers.

And you also saw that in the tape was an updated bit of information, as recently of January of this year. So you know it was an ongoing effort to case these particular financial centers. If you hadn't told the public, wouldn't you feel like you'd let them down if something did happen in those places?

DEAN: I think I would have been inclined to tell the public as soon as I got that information, which was in mid-July. Probably I would not have waited until this particular moment.

MATTHEWS: So you think it's timing?

DEAN: The timing bothers me deeply. This wouldn't be such a problem if the president was credible. …

MORALES: Well, this book stems from an article of the same title that you wrote in--for the Rolling Stone in November of 2003. And a lot of critics, of course, came out on that one. Jonathan Adler from the conservative publication, the National Review, wrote if this--of your essay at the time, "It is riddled with misstatements, gross exaggerations and outright falsehoods combined with repeated ad hominem attacks on administration officials. "Crimes Against Nature" paints a shocking--that is--shockingly inaccurate picture of Bush environmental policy." How do you respond to that?

Mr. KENNEDY: That not a single inaccuracy has ever been pointed out in that article. This book was scrupulously fact-checked.

Of concern to political activists involved in America’s culture wars is how new registrants approach abortion. Twenty-one percent of voters entering the rolls feel that abortion should be legal and generally available. Twenty-three percent believe that regulation of abortion is necessary, but that abortion should remain legal in many circumstances. Yet, the overwhelming plurality of first-time voters (41%) report that abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, rape, or incest. Another 13% say abortion should be outlawed entirely. Adding these percentages, one could conclude that 44% of first-time voters are pro-choice and 54% are pro-life.

Latinos are among the most pro-life cohorts examined; only about a third (34%) leans pro-choice next to 61% who lean pro-life. Black first-time voters also are more pro-life (59%) than pro-choice (42%), as are self-described moderates, who lean pro-life (52% to 45%). In fact, a plurality of new independent voters (36%), undecided voters (35%), and Kerry voters (34%) think abortion should be legal only in extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, rape, or incest. Of course, a significant number of Kerry voters (31%) and undecided voters (22%) believe that abortion should be legal and generally available.

Kathryn, the depths to which the New York Times has sunk are worth reproducing here. Here are possibly the worst two sentences from this morning's editorial:

"The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way. This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain."

Perhaps the Times would like to explain to its readers - many of whom, including this one, live in New York City, in my case just a couple of blocks from the Citicorp building - how old a plan has to be before it ceases to be of relevance, particularly when one considers the long lead times associated with al Qaeda's spectaculars. Perhaps too the Times, the paper of Jayson Blair, would like to explain its criteria for determining whether evidence is sufficiently 'concrete' to take seriously.

In the end, of course, we can be sure of only one thing. So far as the Times is concerned, almost anything that this administration does is wrong. That wouldn't matter were there not a cost to this grandstanding. But there is. As your e-mailer notes, "Suggesting that this is a political ploy allows folks to diminish the importance of the war we're fighting. [This]... contributes to complacency and complacency will get us killed." That's very true. What's more, human nature being what it is, the likelihood of a hostile response from the Times - and its fellow travelers (yes, Dr. Dean, that means you) may weigh on the administration before deciding whether to issue some future warning, and, that too, could get people killed.

In conclusion, when it comes to this sort of thing, I'd rather have too much information than too little. How strange that a newspaper feels differently.

...from David Brooks in today's New York Times:

"My own instinct is that we need an ambitious national service program to demystify the military for the next generation of Americans."

I'm no enthusiast for any "national service" schemes - for any number of reasons - but if what Brooks is talking about is obligatory national service (and I think he is), he could not be more wrong. Americans are not the property of their government. It's that simple. Period.

"The Iranians play a double game," said a top French law enforcement official who, like others interviewed, asked to remain anonymous. "Everything they can do to trouble the Americans, without going too far, they do it. They have arrested important Al Qaeda people, but they have permitted other important Al Qaeda people to operate. It is a classic Iranian style of ambiguity, deception, manipulation."

It's the NYT hopping on the Howard Dean bandwagon and nothing more.

So the information was old. New information gathered in the Khan arrest in Pakistan may have helped analysts see the old information in a new light. Remember that planning and surveillance for the 9/11 operation went on for 2 years (according to the 9/11 commission report). Ditto for the embassy bombings in Africa. What isn't highlighted in the NYT piece - but is mentioned in passing - is a DHS official saying the old information "may have been updated as recently as January."

Suggesting that this is a political ploy allows folks to diminish the importance of the war we're fighting. Continued dimunition of its significance contributes to complacency and complacency will get us killed.

Charlie in Nyack writes of my suggestion that CM is an epicurean:

"Epicurean?" My God, Jonah, how could you possibly imply that Cookie Monster would reject the notion of an afterlife? Granted, it's tough to imagine a more pathologically hedonistic character (oh, I dunno, maybe Pepe LePew?), but in your heart of hearts, you know that those googly-eyes of his are filled with visions of a chocolate chip-strewn heaven. "Me got the Spirit in me!"

I referred to the tornado warning as a hurrican warning in today's G-File. This is what happens when you write anything after having been woken up by a knock aty the door at 4 in the morning. My apologies.

By the way, we're in Bozeman, Montana.

It had to happen, I suppose, but my local supermarket, a branch of Food Emporium, has now succumbed to the curse of Elizabeth Dole. It has instituted a mandatory carding policy for anyone, regardless of age, who wants to buy some beer. Adding insult to injury, the birth date of the suds-buying Methuselah has to be noted down before the sale can be rung up. Now, you'd think that this policy is dumb and demeaning enough for the Food Emporium's fun police without any added refinements. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. A loathsome little sign boasts (I hope I have written this down correctly - a red mist of rage was beginning to obscure my vision) that this insolent imposition was part of the company's commitment to "our community" and, wait for it, you know what's coming, "its children". Bah!

Where is the ACLU when you need it?

Can't we get a little love for Rick Brookhiser? This weekend C-Span re-aired a 13 year old interview of Brookhiser on his book the "Way of the Wasp."

Great interview. My only question is whether Rick still considers Jack Kemp to be one of the future stars of the GOP.

Aug. 2, 2004 - U.S. News and World Report (8/9, Bedard) reports in its "Washington Whispers" column, "Reporters, beware: The Democratic Party is revamping its lovey-dovey approach and telling campaign press secretaries to come down like a ton of bricks if you screw up or slip in a little attitude. 'When it comes to the media,' suggests Democratic strategist James Carville, 'intimidation works.' He offers a tactic: 'Send E-mails to the press. They do respond to pressure.' That message was part of the training new campaign press secretaries were given in Boston last week during the party's convention." Press secretaries were urged to "bully the reporter and cow the newsie into tossing you a bone, or hit hard and scare him into changing his tone and coverage."

There’s pressure now in Germany for a referendum on the draft EU ‘constitution’. Germany’s history (and it’s own constitution) make this a more complex issue than it may at first appear, but this response from the deputy-head of the governing Social Democrats’ parliamentary party is too good not to repeat:

"Sometimes the electorate has to be protected from making the wrong decisions."

What is it about the voters that the EU establishment hate so much?

No real surprise but the London Observer (sister paper of the Guardian) has endorsed John Kerry. Here’s the newspaper’s carefully, uh, nuanced analysis of America today:

“The US has hardened into two virulently opposed ideological and cultural camps that are almost equal in numbers. On the two seaboards, around the Great Lakes, in the north east and some cities of the south, the Democrats have their base: mildly progressive, multilateralist, tolerant and fair-minded. In the south, the Rocky Mountains and the plains lie the Republican base: religious fundamentalists, fervent believers in America's unilateralist destiny and culturally conservative.”

Looks like the Observer could do with a bit of fair-mindedness itself.

Artist David Hockney on the British government’s possible plans to ban smoking in public places:

“I don't believe the stuff about second-hand smoke…I don't believe a lot of stuff from medical people." Well, generally speaking, the second part of that comment is the sort of unscientific nonsense one usually hears from homeopaths, faith-healers and other dispensers of gibberish, and can, and should, be ignored. Check out, however, the response from the BMA (like the AMA, only worse):

"What David Hockney says flies in the face of virtually all medical research, which conclusively states that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory infections."

That is, I am afraid, so meaningless a statement (is there a dangerous dose, and what is it?) as to be utterly misleading. No, let’s use a different, more accurate, word. It’s dishonest.

We should expect better from doctors.

From the Daily Telegraph:

“...drinking half a bottle of wine a day can make your brain work better, especially if you are a woman. Research to be published tomorrow by academics at University College London has found that those who even drink only one glass of wine a week have significantly sharper thought processes than teetotallers.”

More here.

Suggesting that the latest terror warnings may be at least partly a matter of politics…

Am I glad the mad doctor is not the Dems' nominee? Yes.

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

Liberals complained in 2000 that Mr. Bush got off easy because he was better than Al Gore at charming reporters. So we tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others.

"Bush's religious streak,'' one Florida correspondent said, "would drive me nuts on a desert island."

From the New York Times :

“At a breakfast with Florida delegates, the actor Ben Affleck got into specifics, explaining that the Bush tax cuts had provided him with $1 million last year that he didn't need.”

Leaving aside the predictable point that, if he feels that way, perhaps Affleck should give extra to the Feds (his response: "I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself"] it’s interesting to note what that comment has to say about Affleck’s “needs”. I’m no CPA, but if the Bush tax cuts really did save Affleck the Doctor-Evil-like sum of one million dollars, his pre-tax income must have been truly formidable. If he really “needed” all but a million dollars of it, and losing that million would have been “martyrdom” that might suggest that Red Ben is rather less the man of the people than he would have the rest of us believe.

What a surprise.

OK, this is rather sad (try and ignore the inevitable anti-globalization, anti-‘corporate’ subtext). Any Corner reader planning on visiting the UK should go to one of these places while there is still time.

Recommended meal: Bacon, sausages, fried egg, fried tomatoes, fried bread. A nice sweet cup of tea is good for washing down your Lipitor afterwards.

‘The war on obesity’ reaches the land of foie gras. Notice the food groups that are singled out – and those that are not included:

“Snack food and soft drink manufacturers [in France]…will have the option of including health warnings on televised advertisements or paying a tax that amounts to 1.5 percent of their ad budget.The tax is projected to reap $15.7 million a year, with the money going to a national health institute that will handle awareness campaigns on healthy eating.”

What nonsense, particularly given this study published only a month or so ago:

“A pair of French nutritionists have given a spirited oui to McDonald's traditional "Big Mac" and classic cheeseburger, declaring the American fare more healthy to eat than scandalously rich quiche and other traditional French dishes. In a new guide to the eateries, food brands and markets of France, dietary researchers Jean-Michel Cohen and Patrick Serog observed, "Strangely enough, the products which are the most demonised are not necessarily the worst."

Indeed. This campaign is nothing more than junk science and, given the barely concealed protectionism that will, undoubtedly, be a part of its motivation (we're talking France here), junk economics too.

….or something very close to it:

"The Caneman's hugging workshop broke down all the doors of resistance to letting others in. Absolutely phenomenal!"

They are usually sensible folk, the Dutch, and even, I am glad to say, beginning to be a touch more doubtful about the benefits of the EU they have helped bankroll for so long. Unfortunately, the fact that it’s now Holland’s turn to take up the EU presidency (it’s a six monthly rotating appointment, somewhat like being J-Lo’s significant other), has gone to those once stolid Dutch heads.

Their prime minister, Harry Potter, has decided to hold a conference dedicated to “European Values”. Yup, that’s right. This conference (scheduled for September 7th) is designed to “initiate a discussion about the underlying principles of the European union, about what values the European Union represents and about what these values mean to the citizens of the EU.”

Since those values mean absolutely nothing to the EU’s unfortunate ‘citizens’, you would think that this conference could be over in about five minutes.

Alas no.

”The conference on 7 September is the first of a series, meant to bridge the gap between those who are engaged in shaping Europe on a day-to-day basis and intellectuals who reflect, from a distance, on Europe as it develops. The series will culminate in an intellectual summit, called “A citizen of Europe” on the eve of the European Council in December, with the participation of prominent thinkers and politically and socially influential figures.”

Words fail me. The same, unfortunately, will not be true of the "prominent thinkers".

Via blogger Terrance Coyle

In yesterday’s New York Times , David Brooks takes another, somewhat jaundiced, look at Kerry’s speech. This passage, in particular, makes an important point:

”And it all brings back the memories of Kerry the senator. For though convention viewers may not be aware of it, Kerry has actually had a career since his four months in Vietnam - mostly in the Senate. It's not true that Kerry is a flaming lefty (he's a genuine budget hawk and he voted for welfare reform), but he was wrong about just about every major foreign policy judgment of the last two decades. He voted against the first gulf war, against many major weapons systems. He fought to reduce the defense budget. He opposed the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in the early 1980's. He supported the nuclear freeze. His decision to authorize war in Iraq but vote against financing the occupation is the least intellectually coherent position of all possible alternatives.”

Put another way, when it comes to foreign policy, Kerry has no judgment. None at all.

While we’re on this topic, think for a moment of the emphasis that Kerry has placed on the need for America to find itself foreign allies. In a way that is a statement of the obvious. Of course it is preferable that the US should not act alone (and let’s repeat again for those who seem unaware of this fact, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US did not), but what Kerry appears to have forgotten is that, if it is to have any meaning, an alliance must be for (or against) something. It must have a purpose. Kerry, by contrast, seems to have elevated the notion of ‘alliance’ into a policy objective in and of itself.

Worse, by stressing again and again the importance he attaches to the need for international approval, Kerry has ensured that, as president he would be in deep domestic political trouble if he fails to find himself a few foreign chums. Potential partners overseas will be aware of this and as a result, President Kerry would find that their price for their support has become even more expensive.

You haven't been very smart, John.

This is slightly old news, but it shouldn’t be and it’s worth noting anyway. Just over a week ago, the EU’s ‘parliament’ voted itself a new president (that’s a role roughly analogous – I think – to the speaker of the US House) and, well, I’ll leave it to the bloggers at EurSoc to take up the story:

“For once, the choice was interesting. Would MEPs go for a true statesman of outstanding moral authority, who had worked to lead his country from occupation and repression to liberty - or would they cook up another dodgy deal to install one of their own time-serving hacks in the job?”

The choice was between an obscure Spanish socialist and a founder of Solidarity.

I thinkyou know how this tale is going to end.

There’s not much, I suspect, if anything, that makes it onto Cuban prime-time TV without the dictatorship’s approval, so this is sort of revealing:

“ HAVANA -- American director Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" was shown on prime-time Cuban state-run television after playing to packed cinemas for a week. In a country with a deep-seated distrust of U.S. governments, the film has generated widespread public interest and added to a recent barrage of official criticism of President Bush.”

You'll note in the article you posted about trying Osama in US Courts that the Kerry campaign stopped to eat at Wendy's. You'll also probably remember that Elizabeth Edwards made a point of telling that DNC that she and John celebrate their anniversaries at Wendy's.

So why the sudden affection for the #3 burger joint? It's an Ohio institution, and founder Dave Thomas is beloved in that state...By trying to identify themselves with Wendy's, they hope to endear themselves to OH voters.

If you thought it sounded fishy that a multi-millionaire and his wife would celebrate anniversaries at a fast food joint, now you have even more reason to be skeptical.