Paper-thin characterization, laughable dialog, wooden acting, lotsa slime, Spud from Trainspotting, hoky mythologizing, sub-Tomb Raider sets, a weird X-Files reference (oh yes), interesting details for Alien completists, Frank Black, and great, great creature punch-ups, this movie has it all, except, disappointingly, gratuitous nudity (that pesky PG-13, I suppose).

Two (severed) thumbs up.

"It totally ignores the historical, intellectual and cultural context, and amounts to a tendentious diatribe… I object to the way in which this film presents our country."

The “historical, intellectual and cultural context” of genocide?

Louis Michel will now be the EU’s Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid.

No further comment necessary.

The morality of killing Muslims who work for the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq has long been debated on Islamic extremist Web sites, but generally it has been considered justifiable. . . .

Opinions have been mixed on taking Muslims hostage and beheading them, with some saying "fellow Muslims" should be spared and others saying they should be killed to deter Muslims from becoming "allied with the devil."

The alleged spiritual leader of Tawhid and Jihad, Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami, posted an audio tape on the Internet on July 28 in which he defended the killing of Muslims who work for "infidels" without opposition.

Not true. We're very prepared here in Florida. As is the nation. Governor Bush called it a "6 year hurricane amnesia", but EM services have been drilling in and out for this sort of thing. Emphasis on terror has been a main focus of Homeland Security, but Florida has some of the finest, if not the finest first responders in the nation. Response and recovery will be strong.

The problem, the BIG problem with this hurricane is its trajectory over the "population belt" of Florida (Ft. Myers, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville). For a state with over 15 million people, 2 million now evacuated to shelters, and a bulk (somewhere around 8 million) being in that strip, I'd be worried about life before property loss. You can mitigate for disasters, but you cannot change their course.

(Sorry to flood your box, but it seems like no one in this country thinks Florida is capable of anything after 2000. We may have a problem with hanging chads, but you might wait to question our ability to react, recover, and respond in emergency situations. We are the best.)

[The Washington Post, December 21, 1996] He won the 1976 Democratic primary and was neck and neck with Republican Newton Steers until a controversy erupted over the portrayal of Davis's academic record in a campaign brochure. Davis claimed he had graduated from Yale Law School cum laude -- a designation the school didn't award in 1970, the year he finished.

After he narrowly lost a 1976 House race, Davis, 51, began evangelizing for the motivational door-to-door distribution company, which markets everything from toothpaste to telephone service. A prominent Maryland lawyer-lobbyist, who refused to speak for attribution, recalled that Davis once invited him to lunch to discuss a "business opportunity."

"We didn't order yet when he started talking, and it was like a switch went on," the lobbyist recounted. "He asked, 'Are you interested in making more money?' Well, what lawyer isn't? 'Do you want to be in control of your destiny?' And I go, 'Wait a minute, Lanny -- is this an Amway pitch?'

Report from a reader:

JG:

Not to clutter your inbox, but I almost drove off the road today listening to BBC "News of the World" interview the dutch guy who headed the oil for food program 1999-2000:

His three most important points:

1) He and his staff had "no idea" this was going on until the very end of his tenure: "FULL POWER to the ass shields!!"
2) It wasn't necessarily so bad, because as far as we know Saddam was hooking his peeps up with German luxury cars and other expensive trinkets, not using the money for WMD proliferation.
3) The security council never met on the subject because of the Russia/France/China vs. US/UK "rift," and this dutch guy explained that you can't even have a meeting in the UN unless you have consensus about having the meeting.

It was a concise, 5 minute brief on why the UN should be disbanded immediately.

I have no idea what her politics were, but conservatives have always missed the boat, in my opinion, by not lionizing her more. First of all, she lived to 91 proving daily that the health zealots were wrong. Yes, yes, I know she brought French food to America and I'm supposed to hate all things French. But I don't. French food, particularly traditional French food is wonderful, though I can do without the frogs, brains, snails and intolerably clever cheese. (What I object to is the notion which has even penetrated into these precincts that because their food is good, their politics can't be all bad).

In a sense what Julia Child did was rescue France's most valuable (and exportable) goods before the place went south. Think of someone racing into a building seconds before the Brown English department ransacked the place in order to collect all of the cookbooks. She was a consumate professional and career woman who would not tolerate political correctness in or out of the kitchen. She volunteered for the OSS during World War Two and while many authors and biographers have claimed she was a pretty serious spy, she always denied it, saying she was merely a file clerk.

In short, she was the bomb.

From a reader:

All the news coverage seems to be missing the point re: New Jersey. It was a great speech. Likely calculated, he was a long shot to retain office. The outing was the nail in the coffin. His political capital is now sky rocketing. Well done, Jim. Worry about wife and kids later. Here is the point the Wonkette's of world miss, but us locals(I'm a NY resident) ponder. Homeland Security Aide? Couple people round the tri state area died a few years back. This job was created with the idea that we'd make an effort to avoid a repeat going forward. He created and filled the role with his boy toy. Wonderful speech, citizens be damned. Kudos for Jim coming to terms with his sexuality, but he oughta be out of office this morning. If Condi was Bush's incompetent, unqualified plaything, she and the president would be run out of town, if not up on charges. Don't let this be about sex, that's the spin, not the story.

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suffered shrapnel wounds to his arm and chest during Friday fighting in Najaf while he was inside the Imam Ali Mosque, according to his spokesman Sayed Hazim al-Arajy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military denies any damage has been done to the mosque, and says the military has taken great caution and care not to disturb the site, one of the holiest in Islam.

"It's extremely important to the local Iraqi security forces as well as to U.S. military forces that we minimize collateral damage to any holy sites," Marine Capt. Carrie Batson said Friday. "Right now there's absolutely no indication that any damage has been done to the Imam Ali Shrine."

Insurgents loyal to al-Sadr have been battling U.S. and Iraqi forces in the Shia holy city for more than a week. The mosque compound is surrounded by Iraqi forces, but there is no plan to storm the site.

Al-Sadr was treated at the mosque and is expected to make a full recovery, al-Arajy said.

In the neighboring town of Kufa, Iraqi security forces led a pre-dawn raid with U.S. Marines on a mosque described by Batson as a "militia strong point."

"Iraqi security forces entered the mosque, cleared it of Muqtada militia men, killing several of them, also taking eight detainees," Batson told CNN. During the raid, U.S. Marines surrounded the mosque but did not enter the building.

This comes after Marines in Najaf Thursday raided al-Sadr's house, including two hospital and medical buildings he used, Batson said. The cleric was not home at the time of the raid.

"We knew that Sadr was not going to be there," she said. "In regard to Sadr, we're not concerned about one man. Basically our focus is to stabilize this city."

Batson said the raid was "very successful."

There have been up to 2,000 Marines in Najaf and about 1,800 soldiers from the Iraqi National Guard in the area, U.S. military officials said. The U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division has also taken up positions in the city.

Batson said Friday that 80 percent of Najaf is stable.

Iraqi authorities said al-Sadr and thousands of his allies inside the Imam Ali Mosque compound have been attacking their forces with mortars and laying land mines in the sacred compound.

Another spokesman for the cleric told CNN's Anderson Cooper that was not the case.

"The fighters are not inside the holy shrine of Imam Ali," Sheikh Salah al-Ubeidi said, blaming "several false news" reports.

Cooper then asked him about video and photographs showing mortar shells fired from inside the compound.

"I don't believe it was from inside [the shrine compound] because it is something forbidden for us to go inside the shrine with our arms."

Defense Minister Hazem Sha'alan stressed that Iraqi forces are near but not in the shrine compound. He said the multinational forces, referring to the Americans, are farther away, in the 1920 Revolution Square.

Iraqi forces and not foreigners would be engaged near the shrine, officials said.

Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib echoed that statement, saying, "We will not allow for any foreign forces to enter the shrine of Imam Ali."

Oookay, I don’t know much about McGreevey, and much of what I have seen (not least some nasty tax increases, I seem to recall) I don’t like. What’s more I have absolutely no idea whether there are other revelations to come that would make it impossible for him to do his job, or unseemly for him to try. I do know, however, that, in and of themselves, his matrimonial difficulties should not be a resigning matter. Governor McGreevey has a great deal of explaining to do, certainly – but to his wife and to his daughters, not the voters. That his adulterous relationship was with a man should make absolutely no difference - in this respect at least.

Looking in more general terms, in the absence of grotesque hypocrisy or (and you know who I am talking about) a spot of perjury, I couldn’t care less about the sex lives of our politicians. What should matter is whether they can govern effectively, legitimately and honestly. So long as it’s legal, what they do in their bedrooms ought to be their business, not ours. When it comes to government, better the competent rake than the incompetent ‘saint’. And to anyone who disagrees with that, I have only one thing to say.

Jimmy Carter.

I've gotten a bunch of emails from people about my article making the case against leadership on tax reform. One idea that I did not deal with keeps coming up: that a national sales tax would allow us to eliminate the hated IRS. This assumes that the introduction of the sales tax would coincide with the permanent elimination of the income tax. Otherwise, you would end up with both taxes. (Sometimes sales-tax advocates talk about repealing the Sixteenth Amendment, but they would have to go further and write an actual ban on income taxes into the Constitution. I find it hard to believe that the modern courts would block an income tax even if the Sixteenth Amendment did not exist.)

Anyway, the federal government cannot raise the amount of money it takes to fund its current operations, or anything close to them, without being intrusive. Perhaps the intrusion could be confined to business owners who would be tasked with collecting sales taxes--in which case it might end up being much more onerous on this class. But almost every economic transaction you make will continue to be the business of the federal government in some way or other.

A number of correspondents also criticized my defeatism. Here's one: "I am a little dismayed at your recent article . . . . You mention the political difficulties of getting [flat-tax] legislation passed, well if you work to have a political majority you can ram this stuff right down their throats. The key is to build a significant majority, especially in the Senate so no obstacles get in your way. You also have to, as President, use the bully pulpit to convince the American people of your idea. If it is explained thoroughly and with the right emotional tugging words it will pass. . . . Your dismissive and defeatist attitude on this is quite dishearting."

You are never, ever going to build a political majority so committed to the idea of abolishing the mortgage-interest deduction that you can ram it through. Rather than wasting their time trying to build such a majority for comprehensive reform, I argued that conservatives are better off seeking actually achievable policy improvements that make further progress possible in the future. If that is "disheartening," so be it. I think conservatives should generally be talked out of useless enthusiasms.

K-Lo:

This line from today's NYT web story struck me: "WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 — Vice President Dick Cheney ridiculed Senator John Kerry today, telling a *friendly Ohio audience* that the Democratic presidential nominee's view of the world is wrong and dangerous in this era of terrorism."

Let's go Nexis:

Over the last two years, the number of times "kerry" and "friendly audience" have appeared together nationally: 154.

For Bush, 340.

On MSNBC right now.

They are 25 minutes away from upsetting Portugal in the Olympics! The Iraqi fans with Iraqi flags jumping up and down, sensing victory, is inspiring!

You can’t help but pull for them!

Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. (Laughter.) America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare -- nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A "sensitive war" will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity. As our opponents see it, the problem isn’t the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. Well, the American people know better. They know that we are in a fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life, and that we are on the side of rights and justice in this battle. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. (Applause.)

I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston, and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America’s military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force. (Applause.)

From a reader:

Jonah, I'm a self-proclaimed liberal and I agree with you on literacy tests. In fact, I'd even go further -- unless you can pass a basic exam, similar to that of naturalized citizens that displays you understand our system, you should not be allowed to vote. A friend of mine who works in a typical office with a citizen who had just been naturalized decided to take an informal test of his American-born office mates to see who else could pass the test. No one could. Only one person out of 11 could name the three branches of government, and that person could not correctly identify the functions of the branches. Yet they all can cast a vote. Cripes. Unless you care enough to educate yourself about how the system works, you shouldn't be able to participate in the process.

"They've got a clandestine weapons program, which, combined with delivery systems, is a threat to stability," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said when asked about Iran's test earlier Wednesday of an upgraded version of its conventional medium-range Shahab-3 missile.

From a reader:

Oh, you *can't* let a great idea like NRO-MST3K out, Jonah, without at least casting the thing! Who would be the robot? A no-brainer there: Derb. Couch is ready, too, I'm sure.

Isn't there some lame public access cable time available in NYC? All you'd have to do is tape Peter Jennings doing *anything* and it'd be a slam-dunk. What an enhancement to Derb Radio!

1907 W. R. B. GIBSON Eucken's Philos. of Life (ed. 2) App. 170 Eucken deliberately adopts the activistic label as a distinctive philosophical badge. 1909 Athenæum 17 Apr. 469/3 Pragmatism..is tainted with the characteristic activist fallacy of making process as active account for the structural form of process which it implies. 1913 E. UNDERHILL Mystic Way 31 The positive and activistic mysticism of the West. 1915 Times 7 Aug. 7/6 For some, neutrality simply means a passive aloofness. For others, neutrality should be active, and these are divided, in the current jargon, with active and passive ‘activists’. 1949 Theology LII. 363 American Christianity has tended traditionally to express itself in an activist form. 1954 KOESTLER Invisible Writing 206 He was not a politician but a propagandist, not a ‘theoretician’ but an ‘activist’.

A few liberal readers seem horrified --or at least dismayed --- by my belief that voting should be more difficult. They ask, "What do you want, literacy tests?"

My short answer is yes. My slightly longer answer is, I haven't a clue what is wrong with literacy tests if you take the racial connotation out of the equation. What, exactly, is so bad about the idea of expecting a certain minimal degree of education before letting citizens vote? It seems to me that literacy tests are the bare minimum. Of course they would be a logistical nightmare to implement and wholly unpractical. But as an abstract standard I simply don't get why liberals are horrified by the idea (other than the fact that it might dissuade some of their voters).

Seriously, the argument for letting ex-cons vote is that it encourages them to rejoin society as stakeholders and citizens. Okay, well, wouldn't letting only the literate vote encourage citizens, including ex-cons, to learn to read? And, isn't an informed/educated electorate better on the whole than an uninformed/uneducated one?

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces stormed the home of rebel Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the holy city of Najaf Thursday, witnesses said.

They said servicemen went into the house in the center of the city after warplanes bombed nearby targets and battled militiamen loyal to Sadr.

The cleric was believed to be at Imam Ali shrine, a mile away.

A fire was still raging in the street when Humvees drove to the house.

U.S. Marines, backed by aircraft, swooped on Najaf's city center earlier in an attempt to end weeklong fighting with Sadr's militiamen. But they stayed away from Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest sites in Shi'ite Islam.

I've often thought that a Mystery Science Theater version of the Corner could be pretty funny (if it worked, otherwise it would be horrendously lame).

But on a larger note, I get questions from readers all of the time about "Why don't you have a TV or radio show?" Or, "Why don't you go on show X or Y and set so-and-so straight?" I know other NROniks get these sorts of questions too. It's all very flattering, but I try to tell folks that that's not the way things work. Unless you've got the fire in the belly to be a TV star and are therefore willing to hustle and work to get a show, you have to wait until somebody offers you a shot. Ditto being invited as a guest or substitute host. Personally, while I'd certainly entertain offers to do that sort of thing, and I even have some ideas of what would constitute a good show, I really don't have a burning, yearning passion to be infotainer.

The Remington Steele pundit brings up a great point about In Harm's Way. It is a neat picture with a solid cast (John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, Burgess Meredith, and Patricia Neal)--and has even more parallels to Kerry's naval service than the ones he remembered.

John Wayne plays Capt. Rockwell Torrey ("Rock" to his friends) whose complete dedication to the Navy, a dedication that led to his divorce from a woman from a Beacon Hill family. He discovers that his son has volunteered for "motor torpedo boat" duty and goes to the young man's boat to meet him. When Rock arrives, the young man is below decks--typing. He tells "Rock" that he volunteered for MTB duty not because he was looking for action but because he thought it would eventually get him assigned to an admiral's staff; he also boasts of his close relationship with the aforementioned CDR Neil Owynn (to the point of blabbing about a top-secret operation).

Later, when Rockwell Torrey is having lunch with Burgess Meredith's character (a delightful creation), he points out his son in the mess hall/o-club. When Meredith's character says something like, "Oh, I'd like to meet him," Rock replies, "No you wouldn't."

I saw something interesting in another movie recently, "In Harm's Way" (1965). I think the title of the film is pretty ironic, too. There is a brief scene where two naval officers are having a discussion about being sent to hostile waters. One of the officers is a secondary character, Commander Owynn, who has a political career in mind after the war. He's not too keen on being shipped out to a danger zone, so the other officer consoles him by saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "Some combat would be good for your political career, a purple heart might be worth half a million votes."

Now I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given the year of the movie's release and the fact that it contained scenes with PT -boats, perhaps a young college student bent on emulating JFK would have seen the movie and drawn some inspiration. At any rate, that scene sort of jumped out at me, and my sick twisted mind instantly thought, "Hmm, 3 Purple hearts would be worth 1.5 million votes." I think I'm being overloaded with campaign coverage.

My gf and I have discussed this considerably. Without condoning it, I have concluded that it's certainly not different in principle than slogans on the chest area of tight t-shirts adorned by a woman with a bosom. The only key difference is that the latter (ie, sloganed t-shirts, not women with bosoms) have been around since I (born in 1968) was too young to question it, and the former is a recent invention. For someone much older than I (and, I guess, you), or much younger, there's probably no perceived difference.

I've got to remember this one:

"Now, just as with the Keyes candidacy, each of these irregularities may be justified by no shortage of good arguments. But so what? That just demonstrates the political and cultural pressures driving efforts to rewrite the written and unwritten rules of our system."

This is the rhetorical equivalent of waving a magic wand: "watch me make contrary arguments disappear!" This trick suggests the mindset of conspiracy theorists. The more evidence you show which is contrary to the conspiracy theory, the more convinced the theorist becomes. To him, it's just more evidence of how deep the conspiracy goes.

Meanwhile, back in the world of logic, you have to defeat those "good arguments" on the merits (or lack thereof), not by using the (unproven) point you're trying to make.

BTW, big fan. I tease because I love.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Tony Fabrizio

August 11, 2004 Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates 703-684-4510

“Swift Boat “controversy” gets Voters’ attention and nicks Kerry”

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates (FMA), a Republican polling and strategic consulting firm based in Alexandria, VA, has just completed their second likely voter survey with interviews conducted ONLY in the 19 battleground states. The battleground states are defined as those in which the Bush and Kerry campaigns have been focusing their paid media efforts throughout the campaign.

Nearly 6 in 10 likely voters claim that they that they recently saw, read or heard something about the TV ad “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” released and began airing in several key battleground states questioning the truthfulness of Senator Kerry’s Vietnam War record. Among those who claimed to have seen, read or heard something about the ad, a majority overall and among undecided voters said it would not impact their vote either way. However to the extent it did impact voting intentions, it was a negative for Sen. Kerry by as much as nearly a 3 to 1 margin.

“Make no mistake -- controversy surrounding potential “dirty laundry” still sells in American politics and this is a sterling example of it. But most surprising is that despite Sen. McCain’s swift and very public repudiation of this ad and the lingering questions on the veracity of the charges, it still ends up being a net negative for Kerry – especially among crucial undecided voters. In a close race where every little bit counts, Kerry can’t afford to sustain too many minor hits like this.” said Tony Fabrizio, who served as chief pollster for Bob Dole’s ’96 Presidential campaign.

“Recently, have you seen, read or heard anything about a TV ad being aired by a group of Vietnam Veterans who question the truthfulness of Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam War record?”

Overall 2 Way Undecided 3 Way Undecided
Yes 57.6% 48.5% 38.3%
No 35.4 42.1 45.1
DK/Refused 7.0 9.4 16.6

ASKED ONLY OF THOSE AWARE: “And did what you saw, read or heard make you MORE likely or LESS likely to vote for John Kerry for President? If it didn’t impact how you would vote, just say so.”

Overall 2 Way Undecided 3 Way Undecided
More Likely 19.4% 10.9% 9.5%
No Impact 50.8 51.1 56.2
Less Likely 27.1 29.9 24.1
DK/Refused 2.7 8.0 10.3
Net +/- -7.7% -19.0% -14.6%

About the Poll

The telephone survey was conducted in the 19 battleground states in which the Bush and Kerry campaigns have focused their paid media efforts to this point. The sample of 1,000 likely Presidential voters was conducted on August 8-9, 2004 and has a margin of error of +/-3.1% at the 95% confidence interval. Respondent selection was at random within predetermined geographic units to reflect actual electoral vote allotment to each state. The battleground states used for the survey were AR, AZ, CO, FL, IA, LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, WA, WI, WV.

Former Lieutenant John Kerry was reunited today with fellow Vietnam veteran Jim Rassman, who says Kerry saved his life during combat.

On March 13, 1969, Rassman, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassman’s boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassman.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

Do I really have to capitalize Braille?

One of the most dismaying things – particularly as a father of a little girl – is how young women and teenagers dress like tramps today. Oh, I don’t mind it that much late at night, on Cinemax. In fact I don’t relish sounding like a prude, and that’s not really my point. What I do find interesting is the intersection of two kinds of feminism which cannot be sustained – at least not logically – during an age of slattern chic. First, there’s the sort of feminism which says that unwanted looks from men are demeaning and borderline harassment. The second sort of feminism says that women should own their sexuality, enjoy expressing themselves physically, relish being sexual creatures etc etc. Obviously, both kinds of feminism are tedious in their own ways. But they cannot be simultaneously operative. In airports, for example, I’m constantly seeing young women wearing sweatpants with “sexy” or “juicy” or, I dunno, “this space for rent” emblazoned across their butts. I use this example because it just seems inconceivable that you can put text across your posterior and then take offense when people look at it. I suppose these two worlds will finally collide for sure when such phrases are written in Braille.

I’ve been watching a bunch of the NBC series “Last Comic Standing.” I like it, generally speaking, although the guy who won it last year was a travesty. One thing that’s sort of interesting is how so many of the comics are what humorless women in the 1980s would call “misogynists.” A huge amount of the material over the last couple months has been devoted to how women are – or can be -- money-grubbing, duplicitous, shrewish, gold-diggers etc. That’s not that interesting except for the fact that nobody even nods to the existence of political correctness or feminism. It’s as if any woman watching will think it’s funny stuff. I suppose that’s progress of a sort, but worth pondering for its broader implications as well. Simply, because something annoys the politically correct doesn't mean it's well-mannered.

After all, political correctness is/was in many ways an attempt by the puritain left to reinvent Victorian morality without any reference to God or religion or tradition, rooting it instead in victimology and neo-Romanticism. But, hey, that's a topic for another day.

Lots of angry email about that email I posted. Here are a couple:

Jonah: Thanks for your consistently excellent work.

I'm a Gen-X conservative Simpsons-fan in Chicago (a rare breed, to be sure, but if you don't believe me, ask our 18-mo. old daughter named Reagan).
Your correspondent deserves a round fisking, but as I am reading the Corner while I should be practicing other dark arts (I'm a lawyer; please withhold the name), let me be brief. Everyone, please repeat after me: Alan Keyes is taking one for the team - something not one Illinois Republican could be bothered to do. He did not actively seek this gig, in stark contrast to one Hillary Clinton. Rather, to help fellow Republicans out of an embarrassing mess of their own making, he has committed to come here, run an honorable campaign in the 85 short days that are left due to the dithering of Denny Hastert and other Illinois RINO clowns, incur considerable debt, and then certainly go down to resounding defeat in this now dark-blue state. And this state is dark blue precisely because "moderates" like your correspondent have completely enervated and discredited the GOP in Illinois.

Moreover, your correspondent's suggestion that Republicans should stop fielding black conservatives ("the whole bunch" of whom, in a startlingly racist attack, are house Negroes) and start fielding black candidates who can "court black voters" is politically asinine. First of all, as everyone knows, black voters are liberal Democrats by an overwhelming margin. Why would any heretofore liberal black voter pull the lever for a Republican who co-opts Democratic themes when he/she can get the genuine article? Secondly, isn't a staunchly Christian candidate more likely to make quicker inroads for the GOP among black voters (lots of churchgoers) than a standard-issue wonkish politico? And thirdly, how is a "moderate" candidate going to be better than a conservative candidate at demonstrating how liberal Barack Obama is?

No, the GOP should go about courting black voters the same way it courts all voters: by unashamedly espousing its principles and then translating those principles into action whenever elected. Yes, it will be a long slog, and yes, the GOP probably could steal a race here and there by imitating the Democrats, but in the long run all that does is solidify Democratic majorities (as has happened in Illinois) as conservatives disengage and voters in general grow to distrust a party that stands for nothing but seeking power.

Alan Keyes, of course, has no peer as an espouser of principles (Obama, who originally agreed to 6 debates with Jack Ryan, is already saying he will debate Keyes no more than twice). The fact that Keyes won't win a race that circumstances have made unwinnable hardly should be interpreted as a repudiation of the conservative project.

And finally, if your correspondent thinks that you're a "flaming liberal" next to Keyes, then I don't think he/she knows either Alan Keyes or Jonah Goldberg very well. Keyes may wear his faith on his sleeve a little more than you, and he's probably not a fan of either civil unions or the Simpsons (mainly due to his being a generation older), but you're both well within the respectable mainstream of conservative thought, and I doubt there's a whole lot of daylight between you on the other issues of the day. To put it another way, if you're not a right-wing wacko, then neither is Keyes.

All the best to Lucy, Jessica, Cosmo and the Couch.

And...

Whoa! This guy feels strongly about this -- and writes well about it! But Jonah, it seems to me he is just superimposing the "blackness" question on the real issue I struggle with daily: Is the Republican Party the party for conservatives, or has it left us behind? And since his inclusion of names like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell on his list of black shills marginalizes some of our best conservative thinkers, the subtext is clearly: "You can't ever be black and conservative, but if managed properly, you can be black and Republican."

And...

Jonah,

Your correspondent apparently has never heard of J.C. Watts, nor of other less well known black Republicans: inexcusable ignorance for any making assertions on the subject.

He doesn't hesitate to demean in the most insulting terms possible blacks who disagree with him. That many Republicans are not at all fond of Alan Keyes seems to elude him; Keyes takes positions which are far to the Right of many in the Republican party, hardly making him a sycophant (or, as your correspondent has it, "syncophant").

The only worthwhile bit in the whole piece is the estimate of Jesse Jackson, who is simply a hustler's hustler and not accustomed to constructive work.

Best wishes,

David

I don't agree with all of this by a long shot, but it's an interesting conversation starter. From a reader:

Hello:

Barbara Jordan famously put down Jesse Jackson by saying that he would never run for a race that he could win, speaking of Jackson's desire to seek the limelight and avoid real work. Well, Republicans will never field a black candidate that can win in a race that he can win. That shows that the GOP has no real interest in courting black voters or developing black politicians that can help them. The GOP has always had a bunch of ne'er do well syncophant types that tell them what they want to hear even as they were waving Confederate flags in Philadelphia, Mississippi and at Bob Jones University and courting segregationists like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Alan Keyes is one of them, as is Ezola Foster, Armstrong Williams, Kenneth Hamblin, Walter Williams, Tom Sowell, Jesse Peterson, that whole bunch. All those guys do is sit around and tell the GOP that they don't have a race problem, and that blacks fail to support the GOP because of some intellectual or character deficit on the part of blacks; that blacks are lazy, don't understand the issues, or "want a handout." And Republicans parade those people around in an attempt to show that they have "diversity." So now, because the Democrats are going to elect Barack Obama, the GOP is going to one of their reliable old minstrels to show that they have Negroes too.

Why not a moderate black Republican (next to Keyes, you are a flaming liberal by the way) who could actually use the attention that he would get by running against Obama to be a springboard in a future race in an election that he can win? Who could at least show the nation how far - left Obama (who is portrayed as a moderate in the national media) is? Oh, wait, that's right, the GOP has absolutely no interest in putting electable blacks in electable races and then supporting them with campaign cash and organization and then using those blacks to promote the party in the black community. Nope, that's what the Democrats do.

Not only do Republicans not do that, but we demoralize and undermine what few black Republicans manage to get elected on their own! Like that J.C. Watts fellow. We use him to raise money, articulate our agenda, and undermine himself in the black community by attacking black leaders and running interference for Bob Barr and Trent Lott over that Council Of Conservative (Segregationist) Citizens scandal, and we repay him by refusing to even vote on his bills in committee and drawing him out of his district (but protecting all the white GOP incumbents though). Or like Colorado lieutenant governor Joe Rogers, who gets into a minor dispute with the governor and as a result the Colorado GOP changes the state constitution to make the lieutenant governor's office appointed rather than elected, and so ends the career of the top black Republican elected official west of Texas. Ordinarily minor interparty disputes are handled without resorting to political fratricide, but, Rogers is, well, black.

Please. Alan Keyes needs to be put out to pasture, and so does the Republican Party mindset that allows guys like Keyes to stick around; the mindset of "we REALLY don't want any blacks in our party anyway ... other than one or two that the rest of the black folks can't stand." George W. Bush has brought the GOP a long way in a short time, but this Keyes foolishness shows that the GOP has a long way to go still, and that it's going to take awhile.

HEALTH CARE OPTIONS IN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

Amidst fierce criticism from outside Catholic groups, including the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Individual Rights Section withdrew its resolution that would have called for changes in law requiring Catholic hospitals, despite conscience objections, to discuss treatment options such as abortion, sterilization, and human embryo stem cell treatment. Amidst fierce criticism from outside Catholic groups, including the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the American Bar Associations Individual Rights Section withdrew its resolution that would have called for changes in law requiring Catholic hospitals, despite conscience objections, to discuss treatment options such as abortion, sterilization, and human embryo stem cell treatment.

On a slow pass through Arizona last night, Teresa took the microphone and said, "Hello, Nevada!" Kerry leaned into his fatigued wife quickly and said, "Arizona." "Oh, Arizona!" she replied. "We're in Arizona. We're still in Arizona. and we are going to Nevada. If you've been in as many places as we've been in in the past 12, 13 days, even if you have a map, the hours make you mix them all up."

We do not want a partisan fight right before the election,” Roberts said.

“[Rockefeller] said he was too partisan and not acceptable,” Roberts said. “I don’t think Porter is too partisan or that he is unacceptable, but that doesn’t speak for the other side. Apparently, if you have the vice chairman firmly opposed to the nominee, I don’t think that’s a very good starting point.”

I continue to get email from folks who don't like one or the other or who don't know there's a difference. Yesterday's G-File on "No Child Left Behind" received a bunch of mail from folks who really don't like the syndicated column style and who said essentially "good to see your rut is over." Other emailers complained about the glibness and the self-indulgence.

Here's the deal: you simply cannot write a national syndicated column the way G-File is done. Most newspaper columns are about 700-750 words, some are cut even shorter.There's no room to mention the couch, get distracted by movie quotes etc. Also, you have to assume that most newspaper readers have no idea who you are and so all of your running jokes have to be explained. It's just a different beast. This doesn't mean that the syndicated column needs to be emasculated, dumbed-down, or dull -- like, say, Leonardo DiCaprio -- it's simply a different style. In fact, there are many ways in which the syndicated column is superior, it's just that some of the G-File vets who hang out around here are looking for something different.

What may be confusing some folks is that NRO has been running both G-Files and syndicated columns. We've tried to make it clear which is which, but I don't think a lot of folks look at the fine print. Regardless, here are few hints. I don't believe the Couch has ever been mentioned in syndicated column ("Yer darn right!" -- the Couch). The syndicated column will never go longer than 850 words and is usually much shorter. The first paragraph will pretty much always tell you what the column is about whereas the topic of the G-File often arrives like an afterthought halfway through. Oh, and at the end of the syndicated column there will always be a copyright for Tribune Media Services.

He did not, however, provide a clear vision on Iraq. Voters needed to hear him say that he understands, in retrospect, that his vote to give President George W. Bush congressional support to invade was a mistake. It's clear now that Kerry isn't going to go there, and it's a shame.

with Kerry, even before any gaffes or scandals, the official narrative makes no sense. He's publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it. Then he comes back disgusted with his experience in war, publicly hurls his medals away (or someone else's: that story keeps changing), denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists, and claims that he personally committed atrocities.

But then he decides to run for president and suddenly Jane Fonda morphs into John Wayne and all those war criminals are war heroes he wants at every rally and he's got his medals back and his disgust at his wartime experience has mysteriously turned into pride in his wartime experience to the exclusion of all else.

If Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand or any of his other Hollywood supporters got a script like that, they'd send it to rewrite. Either that or they'd figure they'd got an early, rejected draft of the new Manchurian Candidate.

That's what people mean when they talk about how "complex" and "nuanced" Kerry is. They don't mean his positions on the great questions of the day are complex and nuanced.

Quite the contrary: for the purposes of this campaign, his entire political career – 20 years as Senator, Lieutenant-Governor to Michael Dukakis – has been dropped from his CV. If Kerry had exhibited the slightest trace of any interestingly complex view of any policy matter, you can be sure we'd have heard about it. But he hasn't.

The detractors may only be playing into his hands by focusing on what he did or did not do on the Mekong 35 years ago. The more telling point is that nothing he has done since then sustains the claim that he would be an effective leader in the war we face today — any more than George McGovern's 35 combat missions in World War II, which won him the Distinguished Flying Cross, qualified him to lead us in the Cold War.

The Cold War also provides our best measuring stick for estimating how Kerry might perform as commander in chief, and in that conflict Kerry's instincts were always awry. Had the country heeded his counsel, we might not yet have won it.

CROWLEY: Mr. Keyes, when you look at this, and I know that you have said -- you criticized Hillary Clinton for going to New York, and we have to at least discuss the carpetbagger issue. You have said, look, I don't know what the issues are in Illinois, I'm going to listen. But is that, like this close to an election, really a bumper sticker you can run on?

KEYES: Well, I think I have addressed the issue of the very deep differences between what I am doing and Hillary Clinton. She used the state of New York as a platform for her own personal ambition. I had no thought of coming to Illinois to run until the people here in the state party decided there was a need. Just as people faced with a flood, or people in the case of 9/11, would call on folks, firefighters and others to help them deal with the crisis that they were faced with.

The people in Illinois have called on me to help deal with what they regard as a crisis. But from the point of view of my own personal principles, I believe in federalism. And I had to think this through based on my respect for the principle of state sovereignty.

But I think when you have a candidate like Barack Obama who has turned his back on the principles of our national union, you have to stand in defense of those principles just as Lincoln did in the run-up to the Civil War. He understood that our respect for state sovereignty must be limited by our commitment to defending the principles of our national union. And that's what I am doing.

And I am doing it on behalf of Illinoisans who deeply believe that we should not abandon those principles, on abortion, on our respect for traditional marriage, on our respect for true self- government as the basis of our approach to education and to our economy. These are folks who have stood with me over the years, who have seen me as someone who speaks for their hearts and now I will be offering them a choice in Illinois.

"We don't have to fear being hung from a lamppost or shot or sent to jail. Not yet. Not yet. And please God, not ever" (Teresa Heinz Kerry, August 5th).

Not Yet? Calm down, dear, calm down.

Via VikingPundit

I suspect I'm even more bothered by carpetbagging than Ramesh is. As I wrote about Hillary's New York run at the time, carpetbagging of this sort contributes to the worst sort of trends in our politics. It's a nationalizing force which makes the Senate in particular a House of Lords for the media age, in which celebrities from anywhere can parachute in and run for office based upon name recognition and public relations. Keyes isn't nearly as a good an example as Hillary, in part because Keyes will almost surely lose. But I really don't like the idea that growing up in -- or at least setting down roots in -- the place you're going to represent is becoming quaint in the eyes of the voters and the media.

That said, considering how Hillary Clinton and her supported considered any mention of her out-of-state status to be an unfair attack, it will be interesting to see how many Democrats become suddenly comfortable with the carpet-bagger epithet.

Among many of the administration's critics and even, to a more limited degree, among some of its allies, Mr. Ridge's performance was seen as fueling disbelief and cynicism. 'This episode certainly undermines the credibility of Secretary Ridge whether it was his fault or not,' said Joe Lockhart, who was press secretary to President Bill Clinton. 'He was the guy who stood up there and omitted some pretty important facts.'"

From a reader in response to today's G-File:

As a teacher, I know that "No Child Left Behind" is not just a motto; its also a slogan. And ridiculous.

Go into any school in America and say, "Here's a Math program that will raise the test scores for 70% of your students. It won't have any effect really on the rest of the students, but it is guaranteed to raise the scores of 70% of the kids." You'd have to beat them off with a stick -- if we could have 70% improve, we'd leave the rest behind in a New York minute, and gloat over the results.

NCLB comes from a culture of victimology and low standards. Here in Georgia, nobody cares how high a school's scores are; only that the students pass.
[Name withheld]
DO NOT USE MY NAME FOR OBVIOUS REASONS

Obviously I think there's a lot of silliness in the election-monitoring of Florida stuff. But in generaln I don't understand why Republicans and the Bush White House ran away from the issue of electoral reform. Democrats have this myth that if elections were run more honestly and accurately in this country that Democrats would gain. One can see why they'd think that in the wake of Florida (let's not start that argument again). But the obvious fact, it seems to me, is that if every vote was counted -- and counted only once -- Democrats would suffer big time. They'd come out poorly in states like Arizona where, allegedly, the Democrats bus indians from one polling station to another; in Lousiana where the Democrats do the same with blacks and in various major cities like St. Louis where the Democrats play games by extending voting times in certain areas.

To me it's a lot like DNA testing for people on death row. I think it should be free to anyone who might be helped by it. Why? Because wherever DNA might be relevant it will in all likelihood prove the guilt of the convict. And, if in the off chance it proves his innocence, great. Who wants to execute innocent people? That may just boost the public's confidence when it comes time to fry the guilty.

Let's have serious electoral reform, which would include making it much harder to vote in different locations, with bad ID and without proof of citizenship. How, exactly, would that hurt the GOP?

I meant to post this last week but travel etc got in the way. Did anyone see the lengthy piece in the NY Times last Thursday revealing that -- gasp -- when it comes to terrorism coverage, "The further a publication is situated from the New York and Washington areas, where the risk was said to be greatest, the less coverage the threats often received."

It goes on and on, quoting for example, Fred Zipp the Managing Editor of the Austin-American Statesman: "If the warning had been that Al Qaeda is going to attack the tower on the University of Texas campus or a University of Texas football game, then we would have been equally aggressive."

What's shocking is that this might be shocking to the folks at the New York Times. Do they think New York City and Washington are so beloved and revered that newspapers in Texas should treat events -- even important ones -- 2,000 miles away with the same intensity. All of the papers in question gave the terror threats front page treatment, just not saturation coverage.

Maybe this phenomenon explains why the LA Times covers earthquakes in California with a bit more enthusiasm than earthquakes in Uzbekistan?

Most women feel relief after an abortion. Serious emotional problems after abortion are much less likely than they are after giving birth. But anti choice extremists make false claims about this. They want people to believe that most women who choose abortion suffer severe and long lasting emotional trauma. This is not true.

Townsend said announcing the precise targets and raising the alert level in Washington and New York may have had an impact on the terrorists' plot. "I certainly think that by our actions now that we have disrupted it," she said on Fox. "The question is, 'Have we disrupted all of it or part of it?' "

Could it just be that the New York Times has actually got something right?

”There is no bigger and more urgent threat to the security of every American than the possibility of nuclear bomb materials falling into the wrong hands. That is why it is astonishing, and frightening, that the Bush administration is now pushing to strip the teeth from a proposed new treaty aimed at expanding the current international bans on the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. With talks on the new treaty set to begin later this year, the administration suddenly announced last week that it would insist that no provisions for inspections or verification be included.”

I’m no megaton-head, but I have to believe that the US has more than enough weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to satisfy the country’s defense needs for the indefinite future. Given that fact, and the fact that we are living in an age facing the threat of nuclear terrorism, anything basically reasonable that could result in less of the bad stuff being manufactured by the bad guys (and from there falling into the hands of the worse) should, one would think, be pursued.

Properly amended, this treaty looks like a good idea. Time for a rethink?

From Salon:

“Aug. 4, 2004 | Even staunch defenders of the U.S.-Saudi alliance, such as former Secretary of State James Baker, would be hard-pressed to assert that Saudi Arabia respects religious freedom. A 2003 State Department report flatly states that "freedom of religion does not exist" in that nation. The State Department has also concluded that "non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activity." Even Muslim members of the Shiite minority "are the subject of officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination," according to the same report. Yet the evidence in the report, mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, was not quite persuasive enough for the Bush administration. For the past several years, the State Department has ignored the recommendation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom -- an independent body created by the IRFA -- to list Saudi Arabia as a country of "particular concern for religious freedom."

Yes, let’s read that again:

"Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activity."

Revolting.

Yes, yes, of course, it’s important to understand that the current situation in the Middle East may mean that the US has to tread a little carefully when dealing with the ‘Kingdom’, but at the same time, it’s difficult not to think that this craven approach to Saudi theocracy (which will, doubtless, have been noticed by the more secular elements in that unfortunate country) is doing anything other than stirring up yet more trouble for the future.

Does the State Department never learn?

Read the whole thing – despite the annoying registration requirement.

Just when you think that some of the Church of England vicars can sink no further into smugness and stupidity there’s this:

”A Birmingham vicar was today accused of "political correctness gone mad" after calling for the historic Saracen's Head pub to be renamed because it offends Muslims. Kings Norton's rector, Canon Rob Morris, said the name, which harks back to the Crusades, was "offensive", although he had heard no complaints.”

Morris’ stance, of course, is so wrong on so many levels, that it’s impossible to know where to begin.

It’s worth noting, however, that one of those seemingly in agreement with this presumptious parson was none other than the chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque. Judging by this report, published a day or two after Saracengate, he might have been better employed paying attention to matters rather closer to his own patch:

“A long-running feud between rival factions at a Birmingham mosque is believed to be behind two murders, including the fatal shooting of a 35-year-old man at a gym last week. Azmat Yaqub was repeatedly shot in the head and chest as he worked out at the Chic Physique Health and Fitness Gymnasium in Birmingham on Thursday night. The hit is being linked to a second attack in which Mr Yaqub was injured and his friend, Shaham Ali, 30, was killed in a drive-by shooting in Birmingham in March last year…The first, unsuccessful attempt to murder Mr Yaqub was blamed on a dispute between rival groups at the Birmingham Central Mosque, Europe's largest Islamic centre which can hold 5,000 worshippers. The row centred on an affair between the mosque secretary and a wife of the centre's imam, or preacher.”

For another glimpse of the way that Britain’s draconian gun control laws work, check out this story:

”A Farmer was being quizzed by police today after shooting at a suspected burglar. Police said the farmer, 73 - who has been burgled twice in recent months - had spotted a burglar at a detached garage at Keys Farm, in Ockbrook, at 6am. A Derbyshire Police spokesman said: "The offender fled from the farm. During the incident the farmer fired a shotgun and a 22-year-old man was later found a short distance away, suffering from minor pellet injuries to his left leg." The victim was taken to the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary for treatment. Both the farmer and the victim are now under arrest.”

Well, of course. The farmer – a septuagenarian and two-time burglary victim - was clearly a menace to society.

Meanwhile, ‘real’ gun crime, you know, murders, robberies, and things like that, have continued to soar, and the only people who are disarmed are those looking to defend themselves.

Blair’s Britain: Soft on crime, tough on its victims.

The ignorance of ‘environmentalist’ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is, it seems, multi-disciplinary. A period of silence is, I think, now called for, at least until he has written a more detailed account of the battle of Runnymede.

Ha ha ha.

Via Iain Murray.

Perhaps it’s a curmudgeon thing, but I have never really understood the appeal of tattoos. One remorseful Brit seems to agree:

“Having a tattoo young is akin to buying a T-shirt when you're 16 and being told you have to wear it, regardless of style or fashion, for the rest of your life. You just wouldn't do it. Tastes change, fashions change, you change.”