The Summers storm might have been easy to forecast. But it says less, in the end, about the Harvard president than it does about the unwillingness of the modern academy to tolerate the kind of freewheeling inquiry that academics and intellectuals above all ought to prize rather than revile.

It is of course possible to doubt the significance of establishing a long-term commitment to ending tyrannies--if it's so long term, and has no or little practical relevance to the policies of the day, what does it matter? I have some sympathy for this view myself. On the other hand, consider Reagan's denunciation of the "evil empire" and refusal to accede to permanent co-existence. Saying these things obviously did not commit Reagan to immediate military action to overthrow the Soviet regime. Yet his rhetoric was not, for that reason, unimportant.

That said, I lean toward being moderately critical of the speech. I'll have more to say about its foreign-policy dimension in the next issue of NR. Here I'll just say a bit about the domestic portion--and return to the vexed question of whether Bush is a "big government conservative." If the president were to succeed in reducing Social Security benefits by $10-11 trillion in present-value terms, that would be a pretty substantial victory for smaller government. Personal accounts for Social Security, and personal ownership of health insurance, are not "Bismarckian" policies. A characterization of Bush's politics that ignores those policies is missing a lot about him and his administration.

Bush's isn't going to lead a crusade to slash the federal budget and close down agencies and departments. If he tried, he would fail. But he could (note that I'm saying "could," not "will") nonetheless do a lot to shrink government over the long run.

my prediction...the student lead revolution that will take place in Iran over the next 4 years will look back on Jan. 20, 2005 as the day George Bush told them that the United States of American was ready to aid them in their cause of bringing freedom to their nation, and that this speech will be the catalyst for their action.

Peter - All fair points. However, I'm kind of surprised you don't detect even the faintest whiff of Reaganism in that speech. Reagan could chuck quite a few words in the air himself -- as you well know having written so many of them. But he was quite practical about translating those words into policy. I don't know that anyone thinks Bush is going to send tanks into Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tomorrow in order to be consistent with his speech. But, the more I think about it the more I believe that his speech was intended for a global and transgenerational audience. He was picking sides, throwing down the gauntlet, laying out first principles etc. I really would be surprised if that address isn't being cursed by mullahs and murderers around the world. You know umpteen times more about presidential rhetoric than I do, but I'm not sure that the intended audience was you, Peggy and WFB -- or that it should have been. Yes, he wrote a check yesterday we can never literally cash, but I like the dogma he laid out. And if we have to make practical concessions to reality every now and then -- and be called hypocritical for it -- that's fine by me. I'd rather fall short of that principle every now and then than stick to the wrong principles like glue.

The sign pointing to the sunny uplands of history is still pointing in the right direction even if it doesn't go there itself.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally Sir, judges. You heard Senator Reid there, filibusters are back and he says Republicans will rue the day if they use the so-called nuclear option to prevent filibusters. Do you have enough Republican votes to carry out that option if you want to?

SENATOR BILL FRIST: Yeah, first of all, the nuclear option was in the last Congress where 200 years of tradition and precedent were destroyed by the other side of the aisle by not giving a nominee from the president who has majority support an up or down vote. First time in 200, 200 years, and that happened in the last Congress. That was the big change. My goal, working with Harry Reid who I have tremendous respect for, in this new climate -- optimistic climate -- looking ahead to basically just agree that every nominee coming from the president who -- judicial nominee, not legislative filibuster but judicial nominees -- who make it through the system, not only do they not have to be approved, but all they have to agree to do is give them an up or down vote, and I think that that's what we'll see. I think everybody wants to be more reasonable. The American people deserve it. That's what they want.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we'll see if you're right. Senator Frist, thank you very much.

Yet another theocrat moment from the top mullah:

"A FATWA against the author Salman Rushdie was reaffirmed by Iran’s spiritual leader last night in a message to Muslim pilgrims. British officials anxiously played down comments after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Muslims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Rushdie was an apostate whose killing would be authorised by Islam, according to the Iranian media."

Richard Samuelson agrees with my response to Peter Robinson and forwarded me a letter to the editor he wrote to Commentary addressing Norman Podhoretz's similar invocation of John Quincy Adams. Here's the letter:

To the Editor:

In his recent essay, "Strange Bedfellows: A Guide to the New Foreign-Policy Debates," Norman Podhoretz does his customary insightful job. In the spirit of his essay, I thought I would like to add one bit of evidence. Mr. Podhoretz points out that "when John Quincy Adams cautioned against going ‘abroad in search of monsters to destroy,’ he was not thinking of driving foreign merchants our of business." Actually, Adams’ tended even less to isolationism than Mr. Podhoretz implied.

Many people quote the strictures Adams expressed against entangling the U.S. in European affairs, which come from his July 4th address in 1821. Few, however, note that a few years later Adams cautioned against isolationism. In his Farewell Address, Washington said Americans should have "as little political connection as possible" with Europe. President Adams argued in 1826 that Washington was giving the prudent counsel of the day, not an eternal rule for American foreign policy. "I can not overlook the reflection that the counsel of Washington in that instance, like all the counsels of wisdom, was founded upon the circumstances in which our country and the world around us were situated at the time when it was given. . . . [But] compare our situation and the circumstances of that time with those of the present day, and what, from the very words of Washington then, would be his counsels to his countrymen now?"

Adams went on to argue that the situation in his day was still such that relative non-engagement in European political affairs was prudent, but he argued that the U.S. had a duty to the new republics in South America because "we have an immensely growing commercial, and must have and have already important political, connections; with reference to whom our situation is neither distant nor detached; whose political principles and systems of government, congenial with our own, must and will have an action and counteraction upon us and ours to which we can not be indifferent if we would." One can hardly doubt what Adams would advise in today’s situation in which modern transportation and communication have extended the U.S.’s neighborhood across the ocean, and what he would think of the recent resurgence of isolationism. We should not let isolationists get away with citing him improperly as an authority on their side. Moreover, if, as the distinguished diplomatic historian Samuel Flagg Bemis notes, Adams’s published writings and diplomatic correspondence were an important influence upon Washington’s Farewell address, then he had some claim to give an authoritative interpretation of Washington’s advice.

Let me offer a brief dissent from Peter's analysis of the Bush inaugural address. I agree with him entirely about the basic ickiness of Bush's domestic-policy homage to "a broader definition of liberty" that justified the welfare state. But he did invoke it in such a way so as to justify the paring back of the welfare state through privatization, which pleases me just fine.

But on the foreign policy front, I'm unconvinced. Peter says Bush's doctrine "overturns the nation’s fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of 'foreign entanglements.' The second President Adams asserted that "'we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'"

It seems to me that Washington's warning of excessive foreign entanglements was grounded in a context where the Old World was half a world away. Besides, one of the chief criticisms -- admittedly from liberals, not Peter -- is that Bush is too keen on ignoring allies and refusing to get entangled in the liliputian snares of the "world community." More important Adams' warning about not going abroad in search of monsters to slay is not on point. The monsters came to us. The monsters are still coming to us. In a world which is much smaller and in which our economic interests (and citizens) are everywhere "abroad" really doesn't mean the same thing anymore.

I too hope there's a lot of realism under the rhetoric, but I for one am persuaded by the logic of the "drain the swamps" analogy. As for fighting for freedom being unconservative. I just don't see it, as my column yesterday notes.

Oh, the speech? Place me a little on the happier side of Peggy Noonan. The president called us to higher things, which is what a president is supposed to do in an inaugural speech. I didn't see his delivery, but reading through the speech, I think it's a good one.

Whether we can actually rise to those higher things -- whether events will allow us the luxury of so doing -- is another issue.

On the train back from D.C. Wednesday I read Richard A. Clarke's piece "America Attacked: The Sequel" in the Jan/Feb Atlantic. Yeah, yeah, I know, Richard Clarke...but one thing rang true.

In Clarke's prognostication, Al Qaeda launches a second wave of terrorist attacks on our home soil -- Las Vegas, theme parks, malls, big-city subways, cyberspace, etc. All this triggers a big withdrawal from Iraq. "The army was needed in the subways." Our Iraq effort dwindles to defense of some watchful enclaves. "Our goal now is just to prevent Iraq from becoming a series of terrorist training camps. If the new Iraqi army can't keep the peace among the factions, that's its problem."

If there is a new wave of terrorist attacks on our home ground, I think public opinion will indeed force something like this -- not Euro-style appeasement, but a retreat to a more defensive posture, with much less talk about "bringing democracy" and "helping the Iraqis" (and others). Inauguration-speech high idealism will, in short, go out the window, if we are attacked again. Says Clarke. And, even given that this is Clarke writing, I agree.

Attended a dinner club last night with special guest Donald Kagan, who had illuminating things to say about all sorts of topics, but especially (a) the Peloponnesian War, and (b) the current condition of elite academia (he teaches at Yale). There was some discussion about how many conservatives there are on the Yale faculty (not counting semi-autonomous outposts like the business school). Someone -- Harvey Mansfield, I think -- had publicized the number six; Prof. Kagan thought the correct number was three.

I asked Kagan to pass an opinion on Victor Davis Hanson's book The Other Greeks, which I've been meaning to read for ages but just haven't. Prof. Kagan effused such a torrent of praise that VDH, who I suppose was on his farm 3,000 miles away, must have wondered why he was suddenly blushing. "Terrific explanatory power... Improved our understanding by 20,000 times..." Wow. Now I **must** read it.

The role of the media corporations in the US is similar to that of repressive state regimes elsewhere: they decide what the public will and won't be allowed to hear, and either punish or recruit the social deviants who insist on telling a different story. The journalists they employ do what almost all journalists working under repressive regimes do: they internalise the demands of the censor, and understand, before anyone has told them, what is permissible and what is not. So, when they are faced with a choice between a fable which helps the Republicans, and a reality which hurts them, they choose the fable.

Washington –U.S. Senator Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ), who attended the Presidential Inauguration and swearing in ceremony today, released the following statement following President Bush’s address to the nation.

“We all join the President in fighting for the cause of freedom, human rights and liberty both at home and abroad. Freedom is our most fiercely held value as a nation, and I agree with the President that it is the cause of our time. The President’s philosophical framing of America’s fundamental embrace of freedom was important. The President failed, however, to lay out the specific sacrifices Americans will face in the days and years ahead.

“In fact, in a seventeen minute address that ran more than 2,000 words, the President used the word sacrifice but once.

“After the loss of almost 1,400 soldiers in Iraq and with the cost of war soon to exceed $200 billion, the people of New Jersey and the nation want to know what more is expected of them and what sacrifices they will have to make. The families of New Jersey’s active duty service members, National Guard and Reserves want to know how much more sacrifice is expected of them and their loved ones serving overseas. The brave men and women defending our freedoms are serving selflessly and are owed our highest admiration and support. They are also owed a realistic assessment from the President of the road and sacrifices ahead.

“Americans want to know how the President will repair relations with our allies so they can share the burden of rebuilding Iraq and advancing freedom around the globe. They expected to hear a commitment to our homeland security and to our firefighters, cops and other first responders who defend us every day. And they want to know that the intelligence failures of 9/11 and the war in Iraq will be corrected. The President was silent on these issues today.

“I stand ready to work with President Bush to achieve great things for our nation and New Jersey. We confront great challenges both at home and abroad. The President had an opportunity today to be straight with the American people about the long road ahead and the sacrifices they will be asked to make. In that respect, his remarks fell short of the mark.

Josh Marshall is silent on the address as well. Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly admits he's too bummed to blog much and Paul Glastris offers what has already become the clichéd quotation of choice among liberals -- that Jefferson bit on the reign of witches. Meanwhile The New Republic is silent as well, even on their blogs.

What's up with the Washington liberal establishment? Maybe it's just good manners? If you don't have anything nice to say....

I'm getting a lot of grief from folks (like Michael). I didn't say the speech -- as in the words -- was sedate. I think it was really outstanding. I wanted to read it through after the delivery to search for overt Wilsonianism and for a few other things I thought I heard. But I think it was a great speech (see my insta-analysis on the home page).

As for Bush's delivery, I do think it was a bit low energy and that he sold his last one better (which was also beautifully written). But Tim Graham and a few others think that impression might have been a result of the bad mixing of the crowd's audio. Maybe so.

Regardless, the more I think about it, I think this will probably be the most historic inaugural since at least Kennedy's and perhaps FDR's first or fourth.

I'm still pondering the content, though I'm generally a three-cheers for liberty kind of guy. But I do think Bush was surprisingly flat in his delivery. I think he was going for somber and sailed just a bit further past that to sedated. I do think that whatever its merits or demerits, this speech will end up being passed around in places like Iran like Samizdat for years to come. In that sense, I think it was a brilliant bit of foreign policy masked as domestic rhetoric. How can a dissident in Iran or Burma read such a thing and not feel emboldened?

In fact, I wish someone would wrap a dead fish with it and drop it off at the Saudi embassy.

Guerrillas launched a series of "indirect fire" attacks on civilian population centers in-and-around Ramadi a few hours ago. Several rounds struck inside residential neighborhoods.
Casualties not yet known.
... no doubt trying to discourage Iraqis from doing on January 30th what so many Americans take for granted here.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well – a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause – in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy … the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments … the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives – and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself – and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home – the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty

On this inaugauration day we should remember the sacrifices being made by the troops. Here's an update I received today from a friend of mine now serving in Baquba, Iraq.

With the elections are just around the corner, the pace of everything here has intensified. We are working flat out on many fronts. Terrorist activity has picked up in the last week or so, as we expected. The insurgents are threatened by the march of freedom, and are increasing their attacks. We were on the receiving end of one on Sunday evening, when mortars suddenly slammed into our compound. After seeing the blue flashes of a few exploding shells outside the window of the small building we were working in, and being covered by a thin film of dust that filtered down from the ceiling, my fellow soldiers and I said, "Phew, those were CLOSE!" Only the next morning did we learn that one of them was a direct hit on the roof of our building, and another landed ten meters away. We were glad they were smaller 60mm mortar rounds and not the larger ordinance used in IEDs and VBIEDs. Close, indeed! Still, the elections are moving inexorably forward. People have registered to vote, parties have issued their lists of candidates, posters have been plastered on walls and buildings in the marketplaces, and politicians are even appearing on television and radio. We are not looking for perfection, but for "free and fair" elections, which is the international standard, and the first step on a long road to recovery in the region.

John---Just finally got around to reading your column on humanitarians, and I've got a nit to pick. Hamlet's "Hecuba" line means the opposite of what you imply.

You imply that he's saying: why do they expect me to weep for Hecuba; I don't even know the girl.

First of all, the line is not "what's Hecuba to me or me to Hecuba" but "what's Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba." Hamlet is not asking why people expect him to weep for Hecuba; he *has* just been weeping for Hecuba. He's praising the talents of the Player King who gets him to weep for Hecuba - who doesn't even exist - while he can't get himself stirred up sufficiently by the crimes that have gone on in his own father's house.

Here's the speech:

"O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! Is it not monstrous that this player here, But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Could force his soul so to his own conceit That from her working all his visage wann'd, Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect, A broken voice, and his whole function suiting With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing! For Hecuba! What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, That he should weep for her? What would he do, Had he the motive and the cue for passion That I have? He would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech, Make mad the guilty and appal the free, Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed The very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet I, A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, And can say nothing; no, not for a king, Upon whose property and most dear life A damn'd defeat was made"

So: Hamlet is not saying, "why should I weep for Hecuba" but "why can't I even make myself weep and rage for my *own* cause, when this *actor* can weep - and make me weep - for someone who doesn't even exist!"

I dunno, there are lot of Bush-fans from Texas and Wyoming out in those crowds -- and they're wearing cowboy boots. I wouldn't want to bend over and moon the Commander-in-Chief if for no other reason than it would be about as perfect an invitation for a swift kick in the rear as man has ever conceived.

It's Bush's party and you can cry if you want to. Or you can crash it. True to the left's polymorphic ethos, there are plenty of ways to rain on the president's parade, from anarchists hoping to reprise their egg-throwing assault on his limo in 2001 to more liberal-minded folk who are calling on people to simply "Turn Your Back on Bush" in silent indignation. Not to be confused with "Turn Your Cheeks on Bush," a/k/a "Critical A**," an open call to moon Bush's motorcade as it whips by...

Last night, DCI Group -- the leading public affairs, lobbying, and consulting shop (DCIer Chris Lacivita led the Swifties' efforts) -- threw a great party for clients and friends in the Atrium of the Galleria at Lafayette Square in Northwest Washington. The party, honoring Sen. Chuck Grassley and incoming RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, attracted hundreds. Recipients received gifts bags with men choosing between a "W" hat and "W" tie while women were offered the hat or a "W" scarf. As befits any good inaugural party, bars were ample and well stocked. Champagne flowed. A band regaled party-goers with standards from Sinatra, Dean Martin, and others, and a few courageous souls even braved the dance floor. The party attracted many notables, but perhaps the most interesting was Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a Democrat. By 11pm, the party was still going strong, and it looked as though festivities would continue into the wee hours.

Kirby and family went to the Black Tie & Boots Party last night. The fire marshall stopped letting folks into the big party about 90 minutes before the President dropped by. Still, Kirby and company still had fun.

This morning as we took the Metro in from Crystal City to Heritage (where we are broadcasting from this week) a group of protesters got on the train at the George Washington University stop. It was very obvious who they were and what they are planning to do. We've talked to a handful of protest groups on the show and they plan physical obstruction today. Nothing peaceful like we saw in NYC at the RNC. I plan on going out into the thick of it with recorder in hand. I'll report back this afternoon.

Another longtime NRO reader and academic scientist guy responds to the first one:

Jonah:

Two points.

First. Harvard is better than Stanford in the sciences. You can as they
say, look it up. (US News Graduate Rankings or PhDs.org) Perhaps this
your OP was cheering his alma mater? (Actually the perceived
Harvard/Stanford (I'm accepting OP's assertion about that ratio)
comparison may reflect the influx of women into the biological sciences,
which are much, much 'softer' than math, physics, and chemistry and
where Stanford is competitive with Harvard)

Second. Look at other schools were the science reputation is high:
Berkeley, etc. They look more like Harvard than Stanford. Moreover, the
trend is observed not just at two schools, but through the university
system. Articles are written annually in Chemical and Engineering News
about how women are under-represented in the sciences, and chemistry in
general.

I hope all is well.

Best,

Michael

POTUS, wearing a black tux and black tie with an American flag on his lapel, set off chants of “Rudy! Rudy” when he said he’d heard Rudy Giuliani was in the crowd. All eyes scanned the mezzanine overlooking the ballroom, but there were no Rudy sightings. (Your pool later bumped into Rudy as your pool was leaving and he appeared to be entering, shaking hands and looking positively presidential in a red bow tie).

Dear Kathryn,

Earlier today, I voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. This vote is an expression of my determination that we hold the Bush administration accountable.

Dr. Rice is a principal architect, implementer, and defender of a series of Administration policies that have not made our country as secure as we should be and have alienated much-needed allies in our common cause of winning the war against terrorism. Regrettably, I did not see in Dr. Rice's testimony before our committee any acknowledgment of the need to change course or of a new vision for America's role in the world.

On Iraq, on North Korea, on Iran, to name just a few of the most critical challenges, it seems to be more of the same. I hope I am proven wrong. I hope the course will change. And I hope that the Administration will recognize the strength of a foreign policy that has bipartisan support.

I am prepared to work with Dr. Rice and others in the Administration to try to reach agreement on policies that will truly strengthen our security and restore America's credibility on the world stage. And I am confident colleagues on both sides of the aisle are prepared to do so as well.

But, we've got to remain firm in our insistence that those who create policies that don't work have the courage to admit their mistakes and the wisdom to change course. Our johnkerry.com community has been expressing that determination in huge numbers.

Over 700,000 people have called on President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.

If you haven't signed the Rumsfeld petition, please do so immediately.

http://www.johnkerry.com/ReplaceRumsfeld

And, please forward the petition right now to friends and colleagues, urging them to join in this effort.

I know you share my strong convictions on the importance of holding the President and his Cabinet accountable. I pledge to you that I will not yield in this effort. Let's keep working together. America's future is at stake.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Interesting reaction from a long, longtime NRO reader and academic geneticist:

His comments had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with making excuses for Harvard's unusually low proportion of women among its tenured science faculty. Having been on the job circuit last year, and now settled at a very good research institution (a tier below Harvard, to be sure), I've seen how things are at other institutions and I'm a lot more open to the possibility that *some* of the difficulties facing women in science stem from sexism. How is it that Stanford, which is at least as good as Harvard when it comes to science (possibly better, when you normalize for inflated reputations), manages to have so many more prominent women in its faculty? You would expect that their reputation would have suffered as they took on more women, if you take Summers's suggestion seriously, but if anything the opposite is true. In any event, it was inappropriate for Summers, who ultimately gives the stamp of approval to all tenure decisions, to make comments like that in a public setting, and you can pretty much be sure that Harvard isn't going to make up its gender gap relative to other schools any time soon.

Let's do keep in mind that if many of those turn-of-the-century feminists were alive today they'd be in favor of euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, forced sterilization and generally weeding the garden of humanity of undersirable races and defectives.

Paging Margaret Sanger.

Yesterday, Steve Hayward prodded me about how many Phish concerts I've been to. The answer is...none!

I doubt a lot of guys in Vegas just bitterly threw down their betting slips upon hearing that news.

But while I've been to a fair share of concerts, I should say that in general I don't like them. I didn't like them that much when I was teenager and I don't much like 'em now. Few things bring out my mysanthropy more, in fact, than watching a bunch of humans jump up and down and go crazy like they're back around the cave campfire. I don't know why this is. I do like music -- though not as much as when I was younger -- and I've had a good time at a couple concerts. But in general, I end up watching the crowd more than the band out of some sick fascination with their antics.

I suspect I will have a similar approach to the inaugural.

From a reader:

I was simply amazed by the thinly glazed sexism and blatant stupidity of your article about Lawrence Summers. But then I noticed...

1) Your name and photograph suggest that you're a wimpy little Jew-boy who probably got beaten up as a little kid, and who cheated and bought your way into a small-time job where you write controversial articles on the Internet. There's the effect of stereotyping, you idiot.

2) What do you know about Harvard? Your biography says that you're a Goucher College graduate ... I don't think that even makes you qualified to write about Harvard presidents. There's another sterotype for you.

And remember that women are frail and can't do math. And blacks are stupid and only know how to play basketball and dance.

Go *uck yourself.

I think this is basically a fair point, from a reader:

one thing that irks me is that if this had been a former Bush admin. guy, all the news shows would be saying, "Former Bush Cabinent member said women are too stupid to do math!"

Patricia Ireland on Scarborough last night was trying to tie Summer's comments to Harvard's dwindiling tenure rate for women profs. I just know if this had been a Republican, she would have been talking about the entire Republican party as being anti women.

I will be debating Peter Beinart at UNC Wilmington on the 24th.

I will be on KSFO tomorrow morning at 7:00 AM PST.

I will be on Bill Bennett's show tomorrow around 8:05.

I will be speaking at American University on the tentative date of February 2.

I will be eating spicy buffalo wings on the following dates: Jan 21, 22, 27-29. Feb 1, 6 ... oh you get it.

Correction! I'll be at UNC-W on the 24th!

You may recall the controversy that arose when Elaine Jones, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was revealed to have asked Ted Kennedy to delay the confirmation of some of President Bush's judicial nominees in order to affect litigation in which her organization was involved. Jones ended up resigning during that controversy.

Now Arlen Specter, in one of his first acts as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in a Republican Senate, is hiring one of the NAACP's top lawyers. Specter wanted Hannibal G. Williams II Kemerer, who has been the group's assistant general counsel, to handle nominations for the committee. There has been resistance to that idea, however, and Kemerer appears likely to take over other duties on the committee.

Perhaps Kemerer was some sort of dissident at the NAACP, and is not bitterly hostile to most Republicans and their ideas. It's always possible. But here's a friendly description of a speech he gave in 2003: Kemerer "roused the more than 150 people present to a new sense of awareness with a focus on the 'new racism' that is now prevalent in the United States. A racism that hides behind civility, persuasive code words and black faces." That's not very encouraging.

Kay Daly of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary remarks, "I don't think Senator Leahy is calling Manny Miranda" with job offers.

Not to keep flogging the subject, but this reader shouldn't be punished for packing disaster relief supplies:

My one chance to be a semi-expert for you and I blew it by packing disaster relief supplies with my Cub Scouts yesterday and missing the Corner.

Here in Lake Charles the Wilbert Rideau saga has been ongoing for years, ever since he was granted a fourth trial. We are so glad this is over, but most of us believe he literally got away with murder. The lawyers spent years working every possible legal angle, with the judge tossing out most of them, until they finally settled on a strategy that worked. I felt that if he had been convicted of murder a 4th time, the lawyers would have just gone back to square one and started over, Groundhog Day-style, until he was eventually freed. The prosecutors were at a severe disadvantage since most witnesses were dead so the defense could freely dispute anything that had been said, autopsy photos, etc., just to instill doubt in the juror's minds. Also, what juror looks at a 63 year old man and doesn't think 44 years in prison is enough?

The news coverage has been constant, but we had no idea it would become a national story. This man will get book deals for his writing and make tons of money after the state footed the bill for 4 trials, incarceration, and his education. Meanwhile, the relatives of those injured or killed by him are treated as racists for wanting justice. Frustrating.

Pragmatically, I guess it's better for him to be free so that the state isn't footing the bill anymore for the 5th or 6th trial and endless appeals. It also makes La. look progressive for "righting this wrong" and setting the murderer free.

Personally, I think you're fathomably disgusting for actually getting paid to write and surf the 'Net, thereby supporting your family's lavish lifestyle.

From the Scotsman:

"TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry. While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft."

Via Instapundit, I came across this post, titled "Why Federal 'Tort Reform' Is an Unconservative Idea." Federal tort reform is "unconservative," supposedly, for two reasons: 1) because high fees for plaintiffs' lawyers are the price of having such a wonderful legal system and 2) because federal tort reform violates federalist principles that conservatives "should hold dear." It's not as though nobody has addressed either of these points before (PointofLaw.com, anyone?).

The post never really even tries to apply a federalist analysis to different kinds of tort reform. "[I]f State A's tort system is too unfriendly to business, then State B might have an incentive to develop amore business-friendly law." Well, sure: it might. It might have that incentive, for example, when it comes to medical malpractice laws. In many cases, however, a business-unfriendly state product-liability system is going to have effects outside the state. That state may set a de facto national standard. There may, then, be occasions where a federal law is necessary to keep states from interfering with national commerce. Some federal tort reforms might be unnecessary--I'm against Bush's medical-malpractice reform on federalist grounds. But there are good reasons to support federal tort reform in other areas. The Cato Institute and The Federalism Project are among the groups that have done careful work in this area.

From a reader:

Maybe CBS should try two anchors -- a pompous, graying male journalist teamed with a wise-cracking, black, 10-year-old boy. Who wouldn't want to hear the kid say, "Dan, shut your mouth!"

Regarding Jonah’s sensible bias against Woodrow Wilson, it is worth noting something Churchill told the New York Enquirer in 1936: “America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the world war. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by facism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over 1 million British, French, American, and other lives.”

Before people start throwing back anti-Churchill arguments (I know them all) or the dubiousness of post-hoc counterfactual history, recall that at the moment Churchill said this (1936) even he was having grave doubts about whether parliamentary democracy could survive even in Britain.

Now, as to Jonah’s suggestions that Bush simply read off Phish’s “Fee” for his inaugural address (by the way Jonah—how many Phish shows did you ever see anyway—hmm? hmm?), may I suggest the better idea is moe’s “Captain America,” in part because of the intrinsic fitness of the lyrics, and in part because the first time I saw moe (e.e. cummings-style lower case on purpose for moe) at Club 9:30, I squinted and said to Allison, “Why, isn’t that Jonah Goldberg on the bass??” On closer look, no, but for a minute there. . .

Anyway, here’s excerpts from moe that would drive the Left out of its mind (Complete lyrics here ):

Captain Captain America said you gotta be like me Or you're gonna wind up dead last At the end of your rope Flat broke Down and tired You sleepy head Won't you go to bed Let me run your life

Clark Kent ran for president
No one knew about the secrets locked in his head
Friends tried to take his life
Accusations flew
Flew like Kryptonite
Clark still looking good
What you gonna say
To make everything alright

[Chorus]:

May be right
May be wrong
I'm in the middle anyway
May be right
May be wrong
I'm in the middle anyway
Stuck in the middle anyway

After all the Airbus triumphalism yesterday, this report makes interesting reading:

"The European Commission has quietly dropped a five year old EU pledge to make Europe the world’s most competitive economy by 2010."

'Lisbon' has been an EU clarion call for quite a few years. If this report is accurate, it's not only a recognition of reality, but a humiliation.

Via EUpolitix

From a reader:

Yes, World War I was an “idiotic war” as you put it, but I am not clear as to how we could have avoided entering it. How were we to ignore the sinking of our merchant vessels by German submarines? And what about Germany’s attempt to co-opt Mexico into the war in exchange for a promise to regain the territories of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico? These were gross affronts to our sovereignty, and despite Wilson’s sanctimonious arrogance and pollyannish belief in the omnipotence of enlightened diplomacy, and despite a large German-American populace arguing strenuously for continued neutrality, we had to defend ourselves.

As to Versailles, it’s an interesting debate and one to which I am not qualified to contribute much – however, it must be remembered that Germany was the first power to breach a national frontier in 1914, and they chose a neutral country to attack. The only immediate threat to Germany at that moment was the general mobilization of Russian troops in response to the diplomatic crisis created in the wake of the Archduke’s assassination, however Von Moltke struck to the West in the opening gambit of Germany’s long-held two-front strategy which required an entry into heavily-fortified France by way of Luxembourg and the lowlands of Belgium. It is only speculation to suggest that the inherently militaristic tendencies of a unified German state (even without the Kaiser) would have been checked by a “balance of power” scheme. This may have proved to be even more whimsical than the League of Nations, and there is no guarantee (and, in my opinion not much actual likelihood) that Germany would not have simply begun its 1930´s arms buildup from a stronger base if it hadn’t been stripped bare at Versailles. It may have been a leader other than Hitler in that case, but I don’t accept that the political and economic humiliation of the post-Versailles years was the only factor leading to a resurgence of militarist populism in Germany. If anything, the lesson I draw is that they should have been humiliated more – although I admit that it is difficult to think of concrete ways this might have been accomplished (other than the dividing of the country, ironically enough).

I have sown confusion among the Phish phollowers. Here and here. Phase two commences shortly when I start cooking 12 minute brownies in 7 minutes.

Evil cackle here: mmoooooo ha ha ha.

He wades into the data and sheds some useful light on the whole thing. My favorite part (perhaps because it tracks my argument):

CRIMSON: Were President Summers’ remarks within the pale of legitimate academic discourse?

PINKER: Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.

CRIMSON: Would it be normal to hear a similar set of hypotheses presented and considered at a conference of psychologists?

PINKER: Some psychologists are still offended by such hypotheses, but yes, they could certainly be considered at most major conferences in scientific psychology.

CRIMSON: Finally, did you personally find President Summers’ remarks (or what you’ve heard/read of them) to be offensive?

PINKER: Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is “offensive” even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don’t get the concept of a university or free inquiry.

From a political scientist longtime reader:

I think you were right the first time, your critic notwithstanding. The US' entry into the war was a terrible mistake in the first place. The short-term deaths it may have prevented on the western front have to be weighed against the long-term catastrophe that came from giving France and Britain a decisive win-- and ther power to impose Versailles-- rather than a balance-of-power stalemate.

(And with respect to domestic politics, what you say about Wilson is
indisputable; you neglected to mention that he was the only president
since Andrew Johnson to move the federal government determindedly
backwards on civil rights/ Jim Crow.)

I *do* see the Bush-Wilson parallels, and they *do* worry me; I think
you're right that they should worry more of us.

You can't make this stuff up. From a reader in response to today's column:

As always your column is exceedingly transparent, and unbearably childish. Perhaps it would be more cogent and thought provoking if you and the members of of your gender had "word game" mastery and "matching" skill. As a paid linguist, (unbelivably you get paid), you carefully dance around the meat of the study, women peform better at tasks requiring perception and verbal fluency, and you conveniently omit the studies finding that women excel at tasks requiring memory and arithmetic. Instead you predictably reduce the female grasp of language to a Chute and Ladders dexterity, while elevating the male ability of spatial and navigational reasoning to a Crimson Tide-commandeer a submarine- bravado.

Remember Mr. Goldberg it is a hypothesis not a scientific fact. If you were to apply the same pattern of logic to your own profession, you would have navigated yourself out of a job.

Me: Since this writer puts so much weight in my crafty wordsmithery, I should at least clarify that I am not a trained linguist, nor even an untrained one. Nor am I paid to be one. The rest speaks for itself.

From a reader:

A few comments on Wilson. Wilson was outmaneuvered on Versailles by his British and French colleagues, who made the treaty into a hairshirt ranging from incredible reparations to the destruction of every Fokker D.VII. It's painful to look at Wilson's Fourteen Points and then Versailles. Nationalism, for its part, had deep roots in every WWII Axis nation and needed no outside help.

Wilson knew how democracy worked: what left the practice of his philosophies much to be desired was his adherence to James Monroe's moral neutrality to sovereignty:

"I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world: that no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful."

Even pre-9/11, that could be dismissed as faint-hearted and insouciant. It was a lack of direct participation which, of course, allowed poorly founded republics like Germany's Weimar to teeter and fall - a problem corrected come 1945.

I think you and I are in agreement in the way Bush is unlike Wilson: he has the brass to cross the legalistic boundary Wilson never could.

[Name withheld]

P.S. America put an end to the Great War. Don't shortchange the death our intervention prevented.

Here's Reuters on Bush's second term (via Drudge):

By Timothy Heritage

PARIS (Reuters) - The rest of the world will be watching with anxiety when President Bush is inaugurated Thursday for a second time, fearing the most powerful man on the planet may do more harm than good.

Many world leaders, alienated by Bush's go-it-alone foreign policy and the U.S.-led war in Iraq, would have preferred him to lose the U.S. election last November. Since his victory, they have been urging him to listen and consult more.

Michael Barone has a good op-ed on Bush's inauguration and second inaugurals in general. What I find particularly interesting is his suggestion that Bush's address will most resemble Woodrow Wilson's. Which reminds me of something that's been rattling around in my head for a while.

Intellectual honesty should force us to at least admit that A) Barone's right and B) the comparison should be at least a little troubling to conservatives. Wilson, by my lights, was the worst president of the 20th century and did more damage to that century than any other American statesman. Much of the damage he caused wasn't deliberate, but a great deal of it stemmed from his idealism and his arrogance. He got us into an idiotic war for high-fallutin' reasons and his incompetence in handling the aftermath created a parade of horribles we are still reviewing as it passes us by (He also laid the groundwork for the Welfare State, the National Security State, and the Corporatist State but that's a topic for another time).

That these traits and mistakes echo complaints about Bush is significant. But I think we can draw important distinctions as well. Despite being a political scientist, Wilson's ideas were based on shockingly little empirical data about democracy and how it actually works. Wilson unleashed nationalism in not one nation but many and then refused to do the hard work of cleaning up the mess. Bush, on the other hand, is sticking it out to do exactly that. No one who denounces the "propaganda" from the Bush administration as if it is unprecedented or novel knows what he or she is talking about. Woodrow Wilson was the first president in American history to actually set up a bona fide propaganda ministry complete with secret agents and provocateurs. FDR's propaganda efforts were also obviously wildly more extensive than what should more properly be called Bush's PR offensives. And if you dislike the Patriot Act and other alleged civil liberties infractions, you must loathe the horror show that was the Wilson Adminsitration. If you think what Bush "does" to his "enemies" is bad you must shudder at the thought of what Wilson did to his. Valerie Plame may or may not have been "outed" in retribution, but Wilson would have undoubtedly put Michael Moore in prison.

But most important, Wilson steadfastly refused to consider American national interest properly when it came to the war which meant not that Versailles would be ruled by high-minded principle but by the national interests of other nations. Meanwhile, a major thrust of the anti-Bush criticisms is that Bush has considered American national interest too narrowly and too much. In a sense he's turned the worst part of Wilsonianism on its head. It is Bush's critics -- or at least many of them -- who are offended by arguments of self-interest while it is Bush who has argued that this war and its aftermath were first and foremost necessary for America. That doesn't mean the consequences of this war won't be bad (though I am still both optimistic and supportive of the war) but it means that those consequences will be the price of acting in our own interests first. In other words, should things get worse, Bush's folly will be his own and not a replay of Wilson's.

This reader has a slightly different perspectvive:

Jonah,

Isn't CBS changing its format to "multiple anchors" the equivalent of adding the "spunky but good-hearted" punk kid in the last season of a failing sitcom?

-Mike

As many of you know, I like to keep my finger on the pulse of those who keep their fingers on the pulse of those who occassionally monitor what young people think. And, based upon my exhaustive research I can tell you one thing I am sure of. Les Moonves is a frick'n genius. The CBS News chief is changing the "antiquated" format of the CBS Evening News with a multi-city, multi-anchor deal (or, "dealio" as the kids today call it). He believes that young viewers don't like the "voice of God" approach of one anchor.

He is so right. Why, I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've overheard i-Pod listening hipsters and hep-cats say, "You know, Tré, it's really too bad the broadcast news programs are so obsessed with the mono-anchor paradigm. If only they would shed that antedeluvian format for something more dynamic and multi-tasking I would eschew MTV cribs and the WB fare for some hard news about the deficit and social security reform reported from different locales."

A US federal court has dismissed proceedings under which the Saudi government was accused of providing logistical support to the al-Qaeda.

Georgetown Law School will host a debate about the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Wednesday at 3:30p.m.

Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council and Cathy Cleaver Ruse of the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat will be defending the Ban against Kimberly Parker, Counsel for the National Abortion Federation (one of the plaintiffs suing the Attorney General) and Rachel Laser with the the National Women's Law Center.

The event is sponsored by the Georgetown Federalist Society, Law Students for Choice, and the Progressive Alliance for Life.

Attendance is free...

Date: Wednesday January 19, 2004 Time: 3:30p.m. Location: Georgetown Law School's Gewirz Student Center, 120 F Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20001.

From: John Kerry
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:19 PM>
To: Kathryn Lopez
Subject: Hold Bush and Rumsfeld Accountable!

Dear Kathryn,

I have just come back from Iraq. After several months consumed by the campaign trail, I wanted to make contact with our soldiers on the ground there. The first thing I want you to know is that, in very difficult circumstances, our brave soldiers are serving America with enormous skill and great courage.

In the Senate, we have a duty during times like these to hold our Defense Department accountable for the well-being of our troops. It's one of the ways that our democracy makes our military the strongest in the world. And I can't tell you how comforting it is as a soldier to know even if you don't have a say over your own situation, the folks back home do.

I knew our soldiers were still facing hold ups getting the equipment they need, but I wanted to see it for myself. American troops deserve the best gear and equipment we can provide. But adequate vehicle armor remains in short supply.

A soldier who spoke up about these problems was told by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, "you have to go to war with the army you have, not the army you want."1 Well, it's been over two years since Rumsfeld planned this war. And whether he has the army he wants or not, he should at least have basic armor for army vehicles.

I'll say this in the Senate, but I'm asking you to add your voice to mine:

"President Bush, for the sake of our troops, replace Rumsfeld now."

http://www.johnkerry.com/replacerumsfeld

More than 500,000 called for Rumsfeld to resign during the presidential campaign. I'm renewing my call now -- please renew yours too, and forward this email to friends to bring them on board. Add your name to mine here, and add your voice to mine by speaking out in your community as I will do in the US Senate for as long as it takes to remove Secretary Rumsfeld from his post:

http://www.johnkerry.com/replacerumsfeld

It's a question of competence. Poor planning at the Pentagon is letting American soldiers down. According to the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, Iraq is now providing the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, [and] the opportunity for enhancing technical skills."2 Our troops need a capable Secretary of Defense. At the very least, they absolutely need that.

I believe that together, the three million of us who worked together on the campaign can help the troops. We not only have a right to speak out against failed Bush policies: we have a duty to defend this country from a President who refuses to recognize the total inadequacy of his own Defense Secretary. That's how democracy works. And that's why America has worked all these years.

The campaign season is over, but our citizenship continues. I know from personal experience that citizens and Senators standing up for the truth can be a powerful combination. Now, with email and the Web as citizenship tools, we can make ourselves heard even more clearly. And I can't tell you how inspired I am that you and I are using these tools to fight side-by-side for the things we believe in.

One more time: please join me in my call for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. He's the man responsible for the well-being of our troops. He's neglected his duty. He's made excuses. It's time for him to go.

Add your voice to mine in the Senate in calling for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld today.

http://www.johnkerry.com/replacerumsfeld

Thank you,

John Kerry.

_______________________

WHY RUMSFELD HAS TO GO!

1) Rumsfeld Blamed The Troops for Problems in IRAQ

Rumsfeld: "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." [CNN, 12/9/04]

2) Rumsfeld Admitted Bush Administration Was Not Prepared for Iraqi Resistance

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that "I am saying that -- if you had said to me a year ago, 'describe the situation you'll be in today, one year later,' I don't know many people who would have described it -- I would not have described it -- the way it happens to be today. ... I certainly would not have estimated that we would have had the number of individuals lost that we have had lost in the last week." [Rumsfeld News Conference, 4/15/04]

3) Rumsfeld Failed to Equip Troops in Iraq

Army Study Suggests One-Fourth of Casualties in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented If Troops Were Properly-Equipped at Beginning of War. Newsweek reported, "A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs." [Newsweek, 5/3/04]

4) Rumsfeld Failed to Plan for Iraq War

In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report assessing the post-war planning for Iraq. The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process." It also said "planners were not given enough time" to plan for reconstruction. [Washington Times, 9/3/03]

5) Rumsfeld Failed To Sign Condolence Letters to Families of Soldiers Killed in War on Terror

ABC World News Tonight, "Now on the home front here, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is under fire from some military families and members of the Congress. They're upset that he has used a machine to attach his signature to some letters of condolence. More than a thousand of those letters have been sent to families who have lost sons and daughters in the global war on terror." ABC (Yang) added, "After Ivan Medina's twin brother Irving an Army Specialist was killed in Baghdad last year he got a letter of condolence from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Today, Medina himself a veteran of Iraq said he was angered to learn that Rumsfeld never actually signed the letter or even saw it." Medina: "Our commanders here in the United States who include the President and the Secretary of Defense don't care about the troops. We're just a number to them and that's the wrong message to send back to our troops." Yang: "In a statement Rumsfeld said he used a machine." [ABC World News Tonight, 12/19/04]

Notes:

1. MSNBC, January 13, 2005

2. CNN, December 9, 2004

A friend of mine points out that most/many states have felony murder rules which hold that even accidental homicides committed in the course of a felony make constitue first degree murder. Wouldn't Rideau's crimes qualify? If not, why? Did they not have those laws in Louisiana back then or now?

Again, I don't wish Rideau dead. He seems like he's about as redeemed a murderer as can be. I just reject the celebratory tone of the coverage which makes it sound like this guy was an innocent victim of racism. He brought some pretty big chips to the table.

Andrew Sullivan writes:
:

IS HE A BIGOT? Jonah Goldberg notes that Martin Luther King Jr III (unlike his mother, Coretta) hasn't endorsed equality in civil marriage. Jonah cracks: "I guess he's a bigot." What King actually said was: "I think we need to find a way to honor partnerships, but I don't think that marriage needs to be redefined." I don't know anyone who would describe that position - which is John Kerry's - as a bigot. Now, opposing any recognition or protection for gay couples is a wholly different matter. Sorry, Jonah, but young King is not on the side of NRO in this.

Now I suppose Sullivan's correct that MLK III and NR don't share the same view on these issues. But there's some sleight of hand here. First of all, as Sullivan well knows, I came out in favor of civil unions quite a while ago, which -- differing rhetoric aside -- means I have pretty much MLK III's position. Second, I think the sarcasm is lost on Andrew in that he has been comparing the anti-gay marriage position to racist anti-miscegenation laws for years while implicitly and, if memory serves, explicitly saying people who oppose legalizing gay marriage are bigots or hold a bigoted position (not necessarily the same thing). Indeed, unless I'm reading him wrong he's suggesting NR's position is bigoted. But maybe I'm just lost in the nuance of Andrew's position.

"Is that 'Laura'?"

Roberts: "No, that's 'legacy.'"

So I guess this reader thinks the murder was worth it in the end. Oh, and couldn't I simply be "fathomably disgusting"? Anyway:

You must be the only person on earth with the correct mixture of shallowness, bloodthirstiness and pretension to assert (correctly) the value of "Groundhog Day" -- a beautiful tale of redemption -- fast on the heels of your previous post, which expressed your preference that a dubiously convicted killer (19 at the time, and black in 1961 Louisiana) be executed rather than permitted to reform himself and contribute to the world.

Unfathomably disgusting.

Needless to say -- as I'm sure you know it deep down --(but it feels good to say it anyway) at the end of his life Rideau will have contributed more to the health of humanity's soul than you, your wife and parents combined. By rather a lot. (I leave your daughter out of it, in case she diverges from the family tendencies.)

In a CBS interview with John Roberts that aired this morning, Bush was asked about his legacy and how he wanted to be seen. After hitting some humble notes (I won't be around, yeah I care a bit), he answered: "How about this? That George W. Bush used the great influence of America to spread freedom at home and abroad."

A reader offers a coorection/clarification:

Jonah,

I heard that story about Wilbert Rideau on NPR yesterday, too. I got
the impression from the NPR story that he had killed three people.
According to your post that's what you thought also. However, according
to WP he shot and wounded three people. He then chased one of them down
and killed her with a hunting knife. The other two victims survived.
That's is a slightly different story but it still adds up to murder to
me. Lots of people get life in prison and are later paroled. This is
annoying to most people. To make the case that Wilbert Rideau deserved
parole because of 41 years of rehabilitation is somewhat defensible
(although wrong, I think.) However, to say that what he did wasn't
murder is ridiculous.

All this proves an interesting point. The best thing any inmate could
do for themselves, especially if they are a minority, is learn to write.
Just like the murderous Mumia, if an inmate can write, they become a
hero to liberal celebrities especially writers. One can be a good
writer and still be an evil, murderous creep.

Ryan Lizza has a very interesting article on the subject. What I'm posting about here is the quote he uses as his closer. It's from James Carville to a Senate Democrat in charge of stopping a Bush-style reform: "You're the only thing standing in between Democrats and the abyss." This seems to be a widespread view. The underlying argument seems to be that if retirement depends less on checks from the government and more on private investment, government (and thus the party of government) will be less important to people. I have probably contributed my small part to this conventional wisdom myself.

Let's assume, here, that the long-term result of reform would be a shift away from statism among voters. This is obviously a debatable assumption, although I myself believe it. Would it necessarily result in a shift away from the Democrats? Or would the Democrats themselves become sufficiently market-friendly to maintain near-parity in national politics? I suspect that the answer is the latter, and that reform has more to offer conservatives than it does to Republicans.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that "by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes." That's more support than the president gets for the overall job he's doing (he has a 52 percent job-approval rating). It's also way higher than his approval rating on Social Security specifically (38 percent approve of his handling of the issue while disapprove of it).

I'm not sure what to make of the gap between Bush's low marks on Social Security and the majority support for a Bush-style reform. Two theories come to mind. The first is that the gap reflects the public's persistently higher trust in the Democrats on Social Security (which the polls also finds). The second is that the Post is exaggerating support for reform.

Here's its benefit-cut question: "One idea to help keep the Social Security system funded is to reduce the rate of growth in guaranteed benefits for future retirees by up to one and a half percent a year. Would you support or oppose this reduction in the rate of growth in benefits for future retirees as a way to help keep Social Security funded?" It's nice to see majority support for that idea, but it would be more useful to see the results from a different kind of poll question, one that asked respondents to choose between an unnamed Democrat saying that Bush was slashing Social Security benefits by 40 percent and an unnamed Republican making the counter-argument.

Views on reform vary with age in exactly the way you'd expect. Voters under 45 support it, voters above 45 oppose it.

Yesterday's Washington Post featured this long story about Wilbert Rideau's release from prison after 40 years. The gist of the tale is that Rideau's various trials were deeply flawed for one reason or another. Also, the fact that he was black seemed to indicate he got "harsher" treatment -- i.e. a longer sentence -- than some whites convicted of similar crimes. He was originally sentenced to death but when the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional his sentence was commuted to life in prison. I didn't read the story at first, because I figured it was just another story about racism and death penalty screw-ups. But then I heard the story reported on NPR. Here's the thing: The guy was guilty of shooting three people and stabbing one of them with a hunting knife after taking them hostage after a bank robbery. None of that is in dispute.

Rideau has apparently worked very hard at redeeming and rehabilitating himself. But the fact is that his release is dependent on a whole confluence of events which have nothing to do with what he actually deserves. The system made mistakes. Whites were treated too leniently, etc. But this guy did in fact murder people. His appeal hinged on the contention that he didn't plan on murdering these people and so he was only guilty of manslaughter (a conviction deserving a shorter term of conviction). Maybe so, but killing three people you've taken hostage after robbing a bank is not exactly the same thing as accidentally hitting someone with your car. It speaks well of him that he feels remorse and that he got his act together. Life Magazine called him America's most rehabilitated prisoner in 1993, presumably for good reason. But, if the Supreme Court hadn't scuttled the death penalty in the 1970s he probably would have been executed for his crimes -- and, in my mind at least, deservedly so.

NEW YORK (AP) - An Iraqi-born U.S. citizen was charged with conspiring to act as an Iraqi agent as he accepted millions of dollars in compensation and negotiated with United Nations officials to let Iraq sell oil.

Samir A. Vincent was charged in a criminal investigation in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, where a grand jury has been looking into the United Nations oil-for-food program.

The problem of not wanting to grow up and take responsibility stems from the "education" students are receiving today at colleges and universities. My own alma matter - Colgate University - is currently embroiled in a controversy over freedoms on campus. The College wants to make every decision for you and cater to your every need, rather than simply giving you the freedom to make your own choices (and mistakes) and learn from them. It is becoming really sad to see how "soft" college graduates are these days. "What do you mean I have to cook and clean for myself?" "An 8:00 AM meeting? I never took a class before noon?" and so on.

Richard Branson, the head of Britain's Virgin Atlantic, said his airline would pamper passengers on the six A380s ordered by including gyms, beauty parlours, bars -- and even casinos and double beds.

The last two features meant "you'll have at least two ways to get lucky on our flights," Branson joked.

The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for the Central Election Committee to publish the election results after the 19th. (Clearly, the inference appears to be that there weren't any systematic violations that could threaten the legitimacy of the 12/26 vote.) This final step makes the results official and means that there are no legal obstacles to the inauguration. In other words, the 22nd is still very much on he cards. Rumor has it that the court could reach a verdict on the Yanukovych business as early as tomorrow night.

I have a good friend who has a son in his early 20's who has had numerous jobs the past year -- rifleman, radio operator, machine gunner, Bradley driver, assistant armorer, fire team leader.

While Republicans in Washington will be busy hanging bunting and straightening the final touches on the president's second inauguration Thursday, Jesse Gordon of Cambridge will be taking another, less festive action.

Gordon will turn the pockets on his pants inside out. No, the 44-year-old Internet marketing manager for a chemistry company is not flat broke. Nor is he attempting to advance a new hobo chic.

Gordon will be taking part in what he and other activists hope will be a day of protests across the nation designed to dampen the spirit of the quadrennial ritual and register a broad, if quiet, displeasure with the man about to be sworn in for a second term.

"This is such a tragedy," said the Rev. Prince Davis, the pastor of the church where the newborn was abandoned. "They [the parents] really need help. They need counseling and they need to be prayed for.

"They may not be aware of what they were really doing," he said, adding, "What about their parents? Where were they? They should be responsible."

Tim - It is worth noting that they've also signed Christopher Caldwell at the Times magazine. Not only is Caldwell smarter than Helen Thomas is obnoxious, but if the Times is going to start a 1-to-1 ratio of conservative-to-liberal writers we should jump for joy. And, no offense to Confessore (who's always seemed like an intellectually honest and decent guy to me), but his political views will no doubt get lost most of the time as part of the Times' liberal choir. Meanwhile Caldwell should end up being even more of a stand-out in the Times than he has been on the right generally.

Just got in from a Music for Relief (musicforrelief.org) tsunami relief concert featuring Tenacious D and guests. I doubt you will be able to confirm this anywhere, but I want to give you my firsthand account.

Eddie Vedder was one of the special guests. After singing two songs, he remarked that we were all there for a good cause, but added he didn't think we should "have to contribute all this money" since our government could easily give enough for all of us. And since so many of the victims of the disaster were Muslim, he continued, he thought that the money should come "out of the anti-terrorism fund."

He threw in a snarky afterthought; he was upset he was not invited to the Inauguration. I yelled as loud as I could, "I WAS!" My wife tossed in "shut up and sing!" for good measure.

It should be noted that Tenacious D rocked the [house] and said nothing stupid.

Talking about the war in his MLK Day tirade Jesse Jackson said: "We call the home team the insurgents and we're the home team," Jackson said sarcastically. "Dr. King, what are we doing?"

Um, what exactly is that supposed to mean?

The Massachusetts Democrat, Bush's challenger in November, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but ``thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote.''

``Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes -- same voting machines, same process, our America,'' he said.

Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers' talk, saying later that if she hadn't left, ''I would've either blacked out or thrown up."

The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

On this Martin Luther King day, it’s worth remembering another campaigner for human rights also butchered for his bravery.

On January17th, 1945, sixty years ago today, Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved tens of thousands of Jews in wartime Budapest, was arrested by the Soviets, and, like so many other millions, disappeared into the darkness of Stalin’s system. He almost certainly perished in prison there during the late 1940s.

The site of his grave remains unknown. His courage does not.

A counterterrorism strategy that approaches the problem on multiple fronts offers the greatest chance of containing—and ultimately reducing—the terrorist threat. The development of more open political systems and representation, broader economic opportunities, and empowerment of Muslim reformers would be viewed positively by the broad Muslim communities who do not support the radical agenda of Islamic extremists.

Their list of priorities is a call to arms in the culture wars. Marriage, obviously, is the most controversial item on the agenda. The spate of same-sex marriages in San Francisco and other cities last year sent religious conservatives into action. They made unprecedented efforts to get out the vote for President Bush, who supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and are now focusing on winning 15 more state referendums to ban same-sex marriage, as well as on lobbying for federal judges who will bolster their conservative agenda.

A news analysis in The Post accompanying the story about CBS reported that "conservatives hailed the panel's findings as a watershed event that would go well beyond a single flawed report by a lone network, asserting that the matter would tarnish the media broadly and would convince Americans that Bush had served honorably . . . and received no special treatment."

If this story holds up, it's a scandal. Here's the opener:

A 17-year-old Kuwaiti student whose uncles were kidnapped and tortured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's invaders more than a decade ago said his California college political science professor failed him for praising the United States in a final-exam essay last month.
Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a foreign student at Foothill College near San Jose, Calif., said he was told by professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay.
"Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America, you must be deranged," said Mr. Al-Qloushi, who feared the failing grade could cost him his student visa.
"I didn't want to be deported for having written a pro-American essay, so as soon as I left his office, I made an appointment with the school psychologist," he said.
Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries. College officials declined to comment, saying it is a confidential matter because Mr. Al-Qloushi and Mr. Woolcock have filed complaints.

Update: apparently this story's been around for about a month and has worked its way around the web. Just an FYI.

There’s little doubt that Jacques Chirac is going to face some rather awkward legal questions over his sticky-fingered past when he ceases to be president (that’s almost certainly why he is contemplating another run for the Elysee). So what’s to be done? The leftist Liberation has details of a clever scheme designed to keep the old crook out of jail. Basically, the idea is to amend the constitution so that all former presidents automatically become members of France’s Senate.

Senators are, naturellement, immune from prosecution.

Voila.

This superbly slimy proposal has been forward by an existing senator, described (magnificently) as “un chiraquien notoire”.

Chiraquien notoire!

The French do corruption well, but they are not bad at insults either.

Via the North Sea Diaries.

Incredibly, the Harry scandal rumbles on in Europe. Le Monde is now suggesting that it may hit London’s chances of ‘winning’ the right to host the 2012 Olympics. That would be no bad thing for London, but perhaps Le Monde might explain how Harry’s gaffe compares with the persistent support (15% or so) in France or the National Front, a political party headed by a man on record as regarding the Holocaust as a ‘detail’.

Motes and beams, eh, messieurs?

The local Guardian correspondent has called the Embassy; he is doing a negative story on the U.S. relief effort based on 'information' provided by the U.N. at a press conference. ...

This Embassy has been running 24/7 since the December 26 earthquake and tsunami. Along with my colleagues, I've spent the past several days dealing non-stop with various aspects of the relief effort in this tsunami-affected country...

That work, unfortunately, has brought ever-increasing contact with the growing U.N. presence in this capital; in fact, we've found that to avoid running into the U.N., we must go out to where the quake and tsunami actually hit. As we come up on two weeks since the disaster struck, the U.N. is still not to be seen where it counts -- except when holding well-staged press events...

Ah, yes, but the luxury hotels are full of U.N. assessment teams and visiting big shots from New York, Geneva, and Vienna. The city sees a steady procession of U.N. Mercedes sedans and top-of-the-line SUV's -- a fully decked out Toyota Landcruiser is the U.N. vehicle of choice; it doesn't seem that concerns about 'global warming' and preserving your tax dollars run too deep among the U.N.ocrats...

Sitting VERY late for two consecutive nights in interminable meetings with U.N. reps, hearing them go on about “taking the lead coordination role,” pledges, and the impending arrival of this or that U.N. big shot or assessment/coordination team, for the millionth time I realized that if not for Australia and America almost nobody in the tsunami-affected areas would have survived more than a few days. If we had waited for the U.N.ocrats to get their act coordinated, the already massive death toll would have become astronomical. But, fortunately, thanks to retrograde racist war-mongers' such as John Howard and George W. Bush, as we sat in air conditioned meeting rooms with these U.N.ocrats, young Australians and Americans were at that moment “coordinating” without the U.N. and saving the lives of tens-of-thousands of people.