Those crazed enough to want senatorial dolls are paying the price. A reader writes to complain that his Jeffords figurine stalked out of the house and went to live with the people across the road. Meanwhile, I am told that the 'Harry Truman's vice president' action figure had to be withdrawn as no one could remember its name.

On a more serious point, please note that any Reagan dolls must be kept clear from Bob the Builder. Bob's always building walls, and the Reagan keeps wanting to tear them down.

More from the EU's 'constitutional convention', this time from the BBC. I have read and re-read this report in an attempt to decide whether it is ironic. Despite its humorous tone, I have a nasty feeling that it might not be, but judge for yourself. Here is an extract:

"Half-way through this week's plenary session of the Convention on the Future of Europe, I noticed that two men appeared to be employed to sit, in turns, on the stage just behind the Convention President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

His sole purpose, it seems, is to push the president's chair in and out when he decides to get up and stretch his legs. He does that quite often, and comes back each time with his huge ET-like dome of a head bulging with even bigger thoughts. The convention is a place for profound thinking. Nine months into its work, it is deep into the minutiae of constitution-writing. And make no mistake - the European Union's future is in the hands of some very clever men and women.

Rarely a session goes by without a tribute to these "founding fathers". Perhaps some day the cliffs of the Rhine will be carved with Mount Rushmore-like statues of the three key figures - the beefy former Belgian Prime Minister, Jean-Luc Dehaene, the silver-haired, arm-waving Italian, Giuliano Amato, and "ET". "

Via blogger Airstrip One, who is appalled. His update on Zimbabwe today is also well worth a look.

The New York Observer, a paper that is as witty as it is (frequently) misguided (although never, of course, when Rick Brookhiser is contributing) has a special edition out to celebrate fifteen years in business (if there's a link to the anniversary items I am too incompetent to find it). This splendidly sour little gem from 1996 deserves repetition. The author is Jim Windolf.

"Taking Our Daughters Straight To Hell"

"See Daddy. See Daddy yell at people on the phone. See Daddy get bossed around all day long. Oh, what a splendid idea, taking little Jennifer to work.

The first thing she noticed was that Daddy's desk was smaller than the one he had at home. He was in a grouchy mood, too - it was pretty much like his mood on Saturday morning, when the errands begin - but he had a tight little smile, a smile he never used at home, and it looked so strange. He ate a giant doughnut in the morning and said, "Don't tell Mom." He drank two big coffees right in a row, and his breath got bad. He had French fries at lunch, even though he had told Mom he was "off the fries." And he disappeared for a while in the afternoon and came back smelling like a cigarette, although he told Mom he quit.

See Daddy crack dirty jokes with the man at the next desk. See Daddy gossip. See Daddy fawn before his superiors. After Take Our Daughters To Work Day 1996, Jennifers all over the city went home with a sad realization: Daddy is kind of a jerk".

Looking forward to work on Monday, folks?

The Miss World pageant may be in yet more trouble. After the craven and contemptible response of its organizers to the murders in Nigeria (they appeared to blame a journalist, not the killers), there can only be one response to this news.

A celebration.

The Nuremberg trials were the final confirmation that Nazism was utterly discredited ideologically, morally and historically. By their conclusion, only the deranged and the wicked could deny the extent of Nazi crimes or the millions of its victims. Communism, unfortunately, has not been through the same process. The result has been that, in one form or another, surprisingly substantial traces of this venomous old ideology have managed to linger on, both in the former communist world and, in the West, in bastions of illiberal thought such as those frequently found on the campuses of this country's universities. The crimes of communism are all too often passed over in silence or minimized in a way that would, rightly, be unthinkable in the case of the Nazi death toll.

While the victims are forgotten, the perpetrators of these crimes live on and, indeed, flourish. Here's a story from the London Independent on Ieng Sary, a murderer in clover. Ieng Sary was 'brother number three' in the Khmer Rouge and an architect of the killing fields. These days he lives in comfortable retirement in Phnom Penh and is often seen "dining in the capital's finest restaurants".

Disgusting.

Drawn by some weird obsession I am still watching Taken. Judging by the e-mails I have received this terrible show has fewer friends than a Republican at a PBS fundraiser.

One reader writes comparing Taken to the awful Communion - now that's one recovered memory I could really do without...

I know that the excitement has been too much to bear for some people, but the EU's constitutional debate (triggered by the possible arrival of all those new members) continues to drag on.

The latest contribution (developed, naturally, in secret) comes from EU 'president' Prodi, and is summarized here.

Amongst the reported highlights. Brussels should have powers to intervene with force in the domestic affairs of member states in cases of "serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order", as long as it was done in a spirit of "solidarity". This, of course, is merely the Brezhnev doctrine brought up to date, something that might give the Czechs pause for thought before they sign up for this increasingly megalomaniacal association.

All is not lost, however. According to the Daily Telegraph report:

"Those states "not able to accept the new constitutional system" would face expulsion from the Union under a "special status". The aim is to prevent a repetition of the first Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, when one state was able to block advances towards greater integration. The expelled state would be able to negotiate an agreement safeguarding its "existing arrangements" as an EU member, retaining trading privileges as an "associate country", along the lines of Norway."

Now that is not a threat. it is an incentive, particularly for British voters, most of whom have consistently preferred to see the EU as a supersized free trade zone rather than anything more profound.

Expulsion on Prodi's terms would be a delight. Bring it on.

This won't give you eye strain.

"Humor" at Reason magazine.

Where are:
Brookhiser, Lowry, Stuttaford, Derbyshire...and the rest of the NR clan? This is getting ridiculous. It's because I'm Jewish right?

[Nothing like playing the anti-Semitism card right of the bat!]

But this email does take their side:

I read with interest your BOMB CANADA article today in the current issue of National Review -- it is, frankly, a piece of American Imperialist trash.

But....why not bomb Canada? It seems the popular thing to do of late: bomb Afghanistan; bombing buses in Jerusalem; bombings in Bali and Kenya; going to bomb Iraq.

The article smacks of the Bush Administration's doctrine of late: either you are with us or you are against us. Your style mimics nationalist mouthpiece Joseph Goebbels, except that you wouldn't be welcomed in the inner circle of fellow fascists nor at several upper-crust, Republican-enclave, private "Eastern establishment" clubs.

When the TITANIC was sinking, Captain Smith rallied his crew to stay on board with the phrase, "Be British!" As the American Imperialist ship-of-state sails into the world scene, with Bush Jr. at the helm, the captain's siren call is, "Be American!" Good for Canada in charting a different course.

What a sad piece of journalism, Mr. Goldberg -- I shall use the magazine for kindling tonight.

To replace Lindsey or O'Neil for that matter: Chris DeMuth, President of the American Enterprise Institute. So much of Bush's economic team has come from AEI, the White House might as well take the top banana and the smartest of the bunch. He doesn't write much so a lot of folks may not have heard of him, but he's one of the smartest people in this space-time-continuum and all class. Get the buzz started.

Jonah: As always, another excellent column on your part ("Religion of Peace?"). As a Muslim, I could not have agreed more with the points you made, particularly at the end, when you noted that Muslims of the peaceful variety (i.e., the majority) are quick to denounce Americans and Europeans for bigotry, yet are slow to condemn their fellow Muslims for atrocities they commit. I applaud you, and others like you, for your efforts to enlighten us all on such an important issue. Keep up the good work.

Pretty much everybody is in favor of us posting reader email. Some agree it could go to far but don't think it has. I did like this one:

Keep the reader posts coming.

I got published in the Corner by Dreher once, and I consider it to be one of the top 3 accomplishments of my life.

(In case you're interested, the other 2 were getting an honorable mention in a Style Invitational and getting my fantasy baseball team name ("Furst Offenders") published in the 1993 Rotisserie League Baseball handbook.)

Scrolling through the Corner suddenly reminds me of Lord Byron on Coleridge: "Explaining his metaphysics to the nation / I wish he'd explain his explanation."

Readers have written in with further comments about presidential action figures. There's concern that a Ford doll would keep falling over and that the LBJ figurine would try to pick up the Blues Clues dog by the ears. The Taft figure might need a special-sized carton and the William Henry Harrison is only likely to have a very limited warranty.

Dangerously (how would you get the Byrd to shut up?) there's also demand for talking senators ("Imagine the Daschle figurine complaining about everything you do") and, incredibly, for a House/big house combo doll - a 'James Traficant'.

Not much call yet for vice presidents. Of course, the Cheney figurine is only available at an undisclosed location.

Thinking back to my school days, I reckon I win this tawdry talent contest with some ease. Captain of the chess team, stamp collector (until surprisingly recently in fact), reader of Isaac Asimov, Pink Floyd fan and member of the Syd Barrett Appreciation Society. The clincher (in case anyone knows what this means): when it came to picking cricket teams I was always chosen to be the 'scorer'.

These days, of course, I'm cool, which is why I wear NRO logo clothing. (advertisement)

Taking the Arsenal of Democracy up a notch. Daylight stealth. That’s right, daylight stealth.

If we're going to play top that nerd factor, I guess I should join in. Though, for the record: I got dates in high school, was quite popular, was voted some flattering things in my yearbook and so on. If you think I'm bragging, you'll understand that I'm pointing out this stuff to offer some counterweight to this nerd factoid of such density it can bend light:

I have a permanent scar on the inside of my left thumb from the "reverse" button on the "Defender" video game -- which I played at Pizza Park on first avenue everyday after school for hours and years.

That post about not reading LOTR until last year ain't by me!

Your Corner reader chastises the mental torquedness of someone who believes "both that he is Jewish and the Jesus is the Messiah".

Since the founders of the Christian faith, and the majority of its adherents through 180 AD or so, were people who considered themselves to be Jewish and believed that Jesus was the Messiah, are we to infer that such critics basically believe that Christianity is an insane religion?

If not, then at what chronological point do they draw the line? If it was reasonable for Paul to believe both in 40 AD, is it reasonable in 400 AD? 4000 AD?

Inquiring Christians want to know.

Our friend Peter Robinson from the Hoover Institution writes:

Dear Jonah,

Can't let this one pass: In asserting that the Inquisition merged the church with the Spanish state, your correspondent is mistaken. Explicit lines of authority always separated the two, as witness that the Inquisition made judgements on accused persons, but always considered itself powerless to impose punishments, instead handing the accused over to the civil authorities to do so. And it's worth bearing in mind that at a time when justice in much of Europe was peremptory and crude, the Inquisition enforced strict rules of due process, permitting the accused to face his accusers in most cases, insisting on evidentiary procedures, and so forth. I'm not volunteering to stick up for the Inquisition, God knows, but it's abuses can easily be overstated, and usually are.

I know it's a snow day, but running long screeds from a Jew for Jesus in the Corner? Come on. I won't deny that some of what he said makes sense, but anyone who believes both that he is Jewish and the Jesus is the Messiah is seriously mentally and theologically over-torqued.

Do people dislike reading reader email in the Corner? I will stop doing it if people think the Corner shouldn't be a bulletin board or something like that. But I think we pick and choose pretty well. Anyway, if you have strong feelings send me an email to VoteGfile@aol.com. Not to any other address please.

I LIKE THIS ONE:

Dear Jonah,

At the risk of sounding like an anthropomorphizing PETA-putz, I think the answer to your dogs-and-snow evolution query is a simple tautology -- liking snow so much confers an advantage on canines precisely because they find snow to be fun. Think about it this way: creatures who find joy in life are more apt to have an advantage over fellow members of their species who don't. The dog or wolf who's out frolicking in the snow probably has a better chance of survival overall than the canine who rolls over in his den and mumbles, "Snow AGAIN?!?" It's also a rationalist explanation for why humans find sunsets beautiful -- those of us who find beauty in life are more likely to make the neceessary struggle to survive than those who don't.

Or, like you, maybe God just likes to watch dogs play in the snow.

Lawrence of Arabia just started on AMC. Not that I ever watch TV during work hours myself.

Someone is selling talking presidential action figures, starting with George W. Bush, but others will follow. The possibilities are immense. The Nixon doll will be missing 18 minutes of its phrases, the Calvin Coolidge won't say anything at all, plastic Clinton will cause trouble with Barbie, the Carter will be attacked by a killer Bugs Bunny, and the Ike figurine will start ordering GI Joe around...

Via Drudge.

This totally violates my various fatwahs against long Corner posts, but it's a snow day and religion stuff seems to interest many cornerites.

Dear Mr. Goldberg;

Enjoyed your column, as always.

A few points:

1) Judaism and Christianity are both based upon separation of Church and State. It is clearly stated, in Deuteronomy, 'Your priests shall not be kings and your kings shall not be priests'. The religious authority was always to be separate from the civil authority. The tragic actions of the Spanish Inquisition were a direct result of the merging of Church and State by Christians, just as the abominations of John Hycranus and his successors was a result of the merge of Church and State by the Maccabees. Both were violations of the 'constitutions' of the respective faiths, i.e. their Holy Scriptures. It can be argued that the scriptures of Islam (Qu'ran and its commentary) promote merge of Church and State and are, according to Judaism and Christianity, wrong on their face.

2) Both Christianity and Judaism make it a point to have each person's choice of their faith to be a conscious, individual decision. A young Jew must make a choice for themselves if they will become Bot or Bar Mitzvot, thus freely accepting the Yoke of Torah. Likewise, no one is 'born' a Christian. According to Jesus, each person must make a free choice to accept Him or not. In neither faith is there a 'default' position that if nothing is done, you are a member of the faith.

Not so in Islam. Qu'ran clearly states that Islam is a born attribute
(although converts are accepted). If you are born to Muslim parents, you are considered Muslim unless you specifically renounce it (in which case, you should be killed. Nice Choice).

3) On a more theological point. I don't know if you are observant or to what extent (Orthodox, Traditional, Reformed?). I am a Messianic Jew, i.e. a Jew who has accepted the Yoke of Torah in the methodology of the Hasidic Orthodox and who also believes that Y'shua (Jesus, in Hebrew, like his ema called him) is the Messiah of Israel. As such, I can appreciate both the Jewish and the Christian perspective on these things. After all, the 'New Testament was all written by Jews and, until about 160 to 180 AD, Messianic Jews outnumbered Gentile Christians.

You should know that there was a large number of Messianic Jews in Spain during the Inquisition. They believed in the same Messiah as the Catholics (Yes, I know this was before the separation of Christianity into Catholics and Protestants, but Catholics had the problem of Church / State merge, not the Protestants), but because they did not follow the same 'Traditions' (i.e. Sunday vs.. Saturday Sabbath, Kosher foods, etc) they were viewed the same as the 'Heathen' Muslims and burned.

If we are to accept the words of Paul, 'If anyone preaches a different Gospel than the one I have given you, EVEN IF IT FROM AN ANGEL, he is of the devil.'. this may explain a great deal. Mohammed claimed that the Angel Gabriel appeared to him an commanded him to recite the Qu'ran. Either Mohammed was lying or he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth than we was given a different 'Gospel' than the one Paul taught. How could this be. Wasn't Lucifer the most beautiful angel before he was cast down? Isn't Lucifer, which means 'light bearer', called the Prince of Lies? What better way to mess up G-d's work than to give a false message, one that confuses historical fact and twists the Bible, to a group of desert people and tell them to spread it at the point of a sword.

Germany's Gerhard Schroeder managed a narrow election win this autumn on the back of natural disaster (his response to severe flooding earlier in the year had been widely praised) and anti-American posturing. He must now be cursing his good luck. The economy looks ever sicker (not helped, of course, by years of over-regulation) and yet the 'stability pact' that accompanied the imposition of the Euro has now led the hapless chancellor to the conclusion that he should raise taxes - an unconventional approach to take in the face of a slowdown, to say the least.

Many Germans are not impressed. As this report reveals thousands are now quite literally mailing Schroeder the shirts off their backs. He's selling them and giving the proceeds to the unemployed. This is just as well - the number of unemployed has just passed the psychologically and politically important 4,000,000 number - nearly ten percent of the work force

In the Goldberg File according to one of my favorite regular correspondents:

"....You should go back and add one more crucial point.

If there are millions of Muslims out there who hate what is being done in the name of their religion, and they don't speak out against it for fear of criticism or threats from their co-religionists, then you know what they are? Cowards. A bunch of gutless cowards.

Mind you, I sympathize with their cowardice. If my skin wasn't so brown, I'd be yellow! And I don't level this charge at those Muslims who are unfortunate enough to live in countries where denouncing terrorism really could get them and their families killed. They have no moral obligation to commit suicide. Such people can't be blamed for keeping silent.

But in the US, Muslims who denounce terrorism would be welcomed by their fellow citizens with open arms. If, say, 10,000 Muslims marched on Washington, bearing signs reading "Not In Our Name" and denouncing Islamic terrorism, they'd be feted as heroes. And if any Muslims responded with threats, the victims would have the support of the cops, the neighbors, and if necessary the US Marines, to keep them safe.

So why haven't I seen just such a march on Washington, or some other mass expression of outrage from American Muslims? I can see only two reasons,equally shameful. Either they really are Osama-symps, or they're gutless.

We should demand to know which.

sets me straight. He writes:

Jonah,
I think you're way off on your response to the e-mailer who wrote to defend Irv Rubin. The e-mailer used all caps in the first sentence of his defense. In my book, there's nothing more indicative of a true statement than a statement put in all caps. No doubt you learned that from your previous experiences with Cynthia McKinney e-mailers.

Here's an interesting email:

Dear Jonah,

I was enjoying your article until I came to:

"Oh, and speaking of denouncing fellow Jews, I've done it plenty of times. For example, when Irv Rubin of the JDL was arrested for plotting a terrorist attack I denounced him in the strongest possible terms, as did pretty much every prominent Jewish figure in America within 48 hours. (See Jeff Jacoby's excellent column from December 20, 2001. You need to scroll down.) "

Of course, this supports your point [that the Jewish community denounces "its terrorists"], BUT...

DID IT NEVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT IRV RUBIN WAS FRAMED SPECIFICALLY TO "DEMONSTRATE" THAT NOT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS? There was absolutely NO evidence ever produced which would warrant an arrest, much less an indictment. And then Rubin was murdered, after 10 months of solitary confinement, rather than allowing him to stand trial in a public courtroom where the world could see the dearth of evidence against him. You don't believe he was murdered? How many people do you know who could slit their own throats, and then walk across the room, force open a window, climb up to the window sill, and jump to their deaths?

Prominent "Jewish figures" are far to quick to condemn their own. After all, we wouldn't want to make the goyim dislike us, or say bad things about us, would we?...."

I've heard this "Rubin was framed" story from quite a few people over the last year. To be honest, I haven't sleuthed it out beyond reading the news reports but I have a hard time believing it's true. Neverthless, if someone has a credible news source on the sbubject, I'd be interested in seeing it. In the meantime, Rubin was still a bad guy in my book.

Today's G-File is in the bowels of NRO. As today is a NRDT production day, it may take the pixel-stained wretches a while to post it. In the meantime, the topic is about this whole Islam means peace business. I didn't get to use this in the column but I thought some folks might find this discussion from my stint on last Sunday's "Final Round" on CNN. I think Ms. Malveaux's argumentation speaks for itself. You can find the full transcript here (scroll to bottom):

PETER BEINART: Look, conservatives don't like the fact that a lot of liberals and a lot of people in the media say in a kind of superficial way, "Islam is a religion of peace," because they think that's the kind of nice thing to say. And that's true, that's a stupid thing to say because most of those liberals and people in the press don't know anything about Islam.

But neither do the conservatives. It's just as stupid to say Islam is not a religion of peace. If you can't read the Koran in it's original form, if you don't know anything about the way -- about the methodology in which you would even understand the Koran were you to try to read it, it's nonsense. Everyone who knows anything about a religion knows that you can't, in a two-second kind of way, try to encapsulate that religion. I wish we'd just get off this topic altogether.

JONAH GOLDBERG: Fair enough, Peter, and point taken. At the same time, I will have a lot more sympathy for the people who say Islam is a religion of peace if the people who believe it is a religion of peace, meaning moderate Arabs, moderate Muslims, come out and start denouncing the things that other Muslims are doing in their name.

JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Oh, Jonah.

GOLDBERG: It is...

MALVEAUX: Who is denouncing Christianity when it's warful?[sic] Come on, you cannot have...

GOLDBERG: No, I...

MALVEAUX: You cannot have a standard for people's religions. You cannot do that. That is just so absurd.

ROBERT GEORGE: Julianne, how about the fatwah that was put against the woman who wrote about the beauty pageant in Nigeria? Where are the moderate Muslim leaders saying that it is wrong to basically put a death sentence on a writer because they write about a beauty pageant?

MALVEAUX: Oh, well, what about the utter starvation that conservatives impose on poor people?

Lots of people have been writing in to point out another problem with Kerry's position on the death penalty. In the words of one correspondent:

Jonah: I think you made some good points about Kerry's preferred penalties, but you miss an obvious one: He doesn't like the death penalty because "it is applied unfairly," but is prepared to confine those unfairly sentenced folks to a small concrete and metal cell for the rest of their lives - a fate he calls worse than death. Isn't that a little contradictory?

I did think of this, but I figured Kerry probably meant that you could always redress a false conviction if you didn't execute the convict. However, if Kerry does in fact believe that the death penalty is unfair simply because it "disproportionately" punishes black people who are nevertheless guilty than yes, you guys are right. He'd rather sentence blacks -- disproportionately -- to a fate worse than death. Which is another odd thing for a liberal to say.

Dear Jonah... I am a former "correctional officer"/hack/guard, etc in the federal prison system. Worked in an all male high security penitentiary, not the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, IN with its death row. Anyway, worked around several "lifers": Mafia types convicted of multiple murders, drug murders,child molesters/murders, etc. I support the death penalty for several reasons: (1) contrary to many a Christian, these people in for life do NOT spend their days or nights pondering their crimes. No, everyone in prison is innocent or framed by "the man." These epeople do not wake up in the middle of the night and suddenly realize what a horrible thing they did. These people are criminals who operate by a different set (or lack thereof) of moral standards or controls than the rest of us, hence, they're in prison; (2) all these do-gooder liberals who are against the death penalty really wouldn't want any of these poeple living in their homes or neighborhoods being "rehabilitated"; (3) these same liberals would not want their spouses or children or themselves working in these prisons. Oh no, what "demeaning" work. Well, someone has to do it. Why not them? Or is prison work only for poor whites living in some rural backwater? I worked with mostly white males, many of whom had at least a four-year degree and some even with masters (note: BOP has had a difficult time recruiting qualified blacks because of the stigma of a black person working for the system who oppresses his brothers; (4) I am a college graduate and former Naval officer who used my employment in the Bureau of Prisons to get my foot into the door of federal employment and when you have criminal justice degree, what else is there? (5) unlike robbery, how can a murderer or rapist, for that matter, make amends? Theorectically, the bank robber can repay the money he stole, but the murderer? One cannot bring back the dead.

And, finally, there’s this last little bit: Kerry qualifies his position by actually favoring the death penalty for terrorists. He argues, somewhat plausibly, that enemies should be eliminated. Fair enough. But since he thinks death is nicer than life-imprisonment, he in effect favors mercy for his enemies but maximum cruelty for American criminals. This, it seems to me, is a form of Gore-Clintonism which employs sophistry to be on the popular side of every issue. Or at least that’s what I argue in my syndicated column.

So let’s parse this. Kerry doesn’t believe that the death penalty is morally wrong or anything like that. He is opposed to killing innocent people. But here’s a news flash: so is everybody. His real case is that he favors life sentences because they are, in effect, more cruel than capital punishment. There are a number of obvious problems with this. First, who cares what Kerry thinks is "worse"? Actual criminals – with very few exceptions – disagree. That’s why they cut deals to have the death penalty taken off the table on "Law and Order" every other week. Second, the families of victims don’t think life sentences are the more severe punishment either. Kerry could believe that making murderers and rapists watch Caddyshack II is the most severe punishment imaginable. Who cares? What matters is what the reality is.

Now, I am comfortable with the idea that punishment – and the severity thereof – should be valid criteria for determining the fate of criminals. But that’s hardly the liberal line. Still, if Kerry is truly interested in coming up with things worth than death for rapists and murderers well, hey, he might be one step closer to getting my endorsement. But somehow, I think what he’s really trying to do is sound tough and manly while taking the soft, liberal, position.

Last Sunday, John Kerry announced he was running for president on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Next week he’ll announce bears crap in the woods. Anyway, he once again reiterated his bizarre position on the death penalty. Here’s what he said:

SEN. KERRY: I'm opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it's applied unfairly…and because I'm for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to be paroled. Now, I think that's tougher. Let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn't Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington--why shouldn't they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what's worse. I've seen people die and I know what it's like to almost die. I don't think that--you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you're alive and you're deprived of your freedom each day and you're in tough circumstances--and I'm talking about tough circumstances. I'm not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I'm talking about tough. But if you're deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that. Now, I don't think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people….

I happened to catch part of Charlie Rose's show last night when his guests were Peter Jackson, Elijah Wood, and Viggo Mortensen. Check out Rose's website for a picture of Rose and the 3 members from the LotR crew. They wasted at least 15 minutes of the interview discussing Mortensen's homemade "No More Blood For Oil" shirt that he wore on the program and which is shown in the photo on the site. Mortensen stated he was tired of hearing people make comparisons between the events in the film and the current world political situation. (He actually may be the first person I've heard make this comparison.) He went on to say that if a comparison is to be made, the US would definitely not be the good guys. Also raised the tired line that there has been no discussion about why we are going to war. Went on ad naseum. Almost enough to make me not want to see the film.

[Robert]Novak and [Jonah] Goldberg are plugged in to Republican senior officials. Their views echo the unspoken words Bush's White House officials are too well trained to utter in public.

This, just in, from the State Department:

Press Statement

Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman

Washington, DC

December 3, 2002

Saudi Arabia: Cooperation on Terrorism Financing

The United States is pleased with the continued cooperation we have received
from the Government of Saudi Arabia in the Global War on Terrorism.

We welcome today s announcement by Saudi Arabia of enhanced mechanisms to
monitor and control financial flows from the Kingdom. We believe that such
improved oversight of financial transfers is essential to reduce and impede
financial support for terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia. We strongly
support comprehensive monitoring of charitable organizations based in the
Kingdom to ensure that well-intentioned donations are used for their intended
purpose, not to finance or abet terrorists. We believe that such monitoring,
especially of donations leaving the Kingdom, can prevent those who would assist
terrorists from using the charitable generosity of Saudi citizens as cover for
their activities.

The United States is encouraged by Saudi efforts and will continue to provide
technical cooperation to Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region as they
work to improve their capabilities in monitoring and countering the financing
of terror. We expect continued and comprehensive exchanges of expertise with
Saudi officials.

The United States also looks forward to convening the upcoming meeting of the
U.S.-Saudi Joint Working Group on Terrorism in early January in Washington. We
believe that this will further improve and formalize our cooperative efforts in
countering terrorism. Chaired for the United States by the Department of
State's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Ambassador Cofer Black, this Working
Group will serve as the primary mechanism for the coordination of joint
activities, the exchange of information, and setting mutual priorities in the
battle against terrorism.
[End]

Released on December 3, 2002

Lowry asked me if I have any ideas for big, long term projecty kind of pieces, a la ANWR or Canada. Typically, they should involve me going some place and pulling back the curtain of liberal propaganda on them. Please note: I will not be going to Saudi Arabia. National Review is not a popular publication there. If you have any ideas in this regard lemme know. Put "Big Pieces" -- but no dirty jokes -- in the subject header and send to them to me here.

I just did a quick debate over at CNN for "Showdown Iraq." Debate is a bit grandiose for what it was. I was on with Norman Solomon, a syndicated columnist. It was an amusing exercise. His position seemed to be that the UN and the weapons inspectors teams should do their work unfettered by inconvenient war talk from the United States. Now, I understand how delightful people on the left think the UN is, but I do wish these people could at least acknowledge that none of this would be happening if the US wasn't threatening war. Good cops are not effective without bad cops. I don't know why this is such a complicated principle.

"I'm still getting about a half dozen angry emails a day from Canadians and two or three positive ones. Here's a fun angry one (yes, the comstockish asteriks are mine):

Yeah sh*thead, we apologize for even you a**holes' enjoyment in blowing everyone up. Typical american war-mongering rhetoric, who can we carpet bomb next, gotta keep our arms manufacturers rich! We'd all much rather be the UN's good son for MORAL reasons, many of us have the opinion we should pull out of NATO and NORAD all together and just concentrate on peacekeeping, we have priorities up here that do not include stomping on anyone who doesn't bow down to us, oh, and Chretien could win another majority election because we all agree you deserved it and your president IS a moron, something, by the way, that has gotten more press coverage down there than your dumb-a** pilot's friendly fire incident, or have you not heard about that? Keep up the good work, the less friendly terms we are on the better."

Leftist cartoonist Ted Rall is interviewed in yesterday's edition of the Columbia Daily Spectator, a paper published "for the Columbia University Community".

In response to a question as to whether the war in Afghanistan had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, Rall reportedly replied as follows:

Rall: "[The war in Afghanistan] certainly followed the World Trade Center attacks. And Al Qaeda certainly had bases in Afghanistan, as well as other hard-line Islamist groups like the Islamist Movement of Uzbekistan. But Afghanistan was just a sideshow to what happened on Sept. 11. The truth is the guys who pulled this off were all Egyptians and Saudis. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever that ties Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban to what happened."

Interviewer: Really? Isn't it taken for granted at this point that all these three entities were involved?

Rall: "No, seriously .... Look at The Guardian. Look at a lot of mainline European media."

No further comment necessary.

I know lots of us disengaged from the news cycle over Thanksgiving, but isn’t this story worth a second news bounce? Not only is one of our weapons inspectors inexperienced he’s also the sort of guy who, if given a choice, would pass on being tickled with a feather in favor of being tickled by the whole chicken. From the Washington Post:

An Internet search of open Web sites conducted by The Washington Post found that McGeorge is the co-founder and past president of Black Rose, a Washington-area pansexual S&M group, and the former chairman of the board of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. He is also a founding officer of the Leather Leadership Conference Inc., which "produces training sessions for current and potential leaders of the sadomasochism/leather/fetish community," according to its Web site. Several Web sites describe McGeorge's training seminars, which involve various acts conducted with knives and ropes.

There's a tremendous piece by Ian Buruma in Tuesday's Guardian on the cringing self-abasement from some in the West in response to the 'Miss World' riots. Possibly most repellent of all are comments attributed to Julia Morley, one of the principal organizers of the show. She has apparently blamed this killing spree on the journalist who wrote the offending column. Apparently it was the journalist who had "made this problem."

Wrong, Julia. It was the murderers who made "this problem".

I read your daily entreaties to subscribe to NR and I am despondent that I am the proximate cause of the poor heating conditions in your office and, no doubt, the sole reason you eat only canned tuna as opposed to the more pricey, fresh fish. The latter is quite good, incidentally, when prepared with cajun herbs and spices.
The reason I have resisted subscribing as a result of your outstanding efforts is that I am a long-time subscriber to NR. Indeed even before subscribing, I bought it off the newstand-- back when they newstands still existed and when I was in college and when it infrequently appeared-- the 1960s. Then, I did not have the enormous sum necessary to subscribe.
All of which, together with the fact that I have no idea what to do with two fortnightly copies of NR, leads me to offer this explanation of why I have not succumbed to your entertaining reasons for me to do so.
I enjoy your reasons for subscribing almost as much as I enjoy watching Jonah Goldberg being flogged for not meeting deadlines. Please do not cease publishing either.

The story also reports: "Most members of Mothers Against War are grandmothers in their seventies whose lives are already full. Yet they spend hours a day on the Internet, reading and spreading information on Iraq and the United States and planning for marches, e-mail campaigns and teach-ins. Having lived through the Vietnam antiwar movement, which took years to build, the Mothers Against War are buoyed to find themselves part of a fast-growing movement of people from every walk of life, from every political stripe."

Translation: Aging peaceniks with too much time on their hands. It must depress the Nation so much that leftwing movements are glorified potluck dinners for aging hippies. So much for never trusting anybody over thirty.

The lead story in the Washington Post this morning is headlined, "Antiwar Effort Gains Momentum" and profiles "Mothers Against War," a group led by a "retired Hampshire College drama teacher," named Daphne Reed. Ms. Reed, the Post reports, "e-mailed about 15 parents in her address book. Reed reached people such as Elaine Kenseth, whose five children include a son she adopted from the killing fields of Cambodia. Aileen O'Donnell, a veteran of the women's movement. Joanne and Roger Lind, whose son was a Vietnam War conscientious objector. And Elizabeth Verrill, who had never been involved in political causes. Before long, Mothers Against War had 50 core members, and thousands of supporters around the country and the world."

Um, call me crazy, but this doesn't exactly sound like a swath of people ripped from the American heartland.

Rod, I think the reason the guy hasn't been chucked out is that the UK would probably have to deport him back to Algeria, where his reception would almost certainly prove somewhat, er, unfriendly. This might be welcomed by some, but it would doubtless go against numerous international conventions for the Brits to send him to meet his fate there.

The welfare? I'm not sure, but I believe that the reason is that asylum seekers are not allowed to be employed, so there is no real alternative to providing some sort of state support.

The whole asylum situation in the UK is a complete mess, and its implications for the war on terrorism are tricky, to say the least.

The London Sunday Times (link requires subscription) has a story that an Algerian 'cleric' by the name of Abu Obeida has told British Muslims that they have a duty to fight allied troops in the event of an invasion of Iraq. The paper reports that in a subsequent interview Obeida softened his line, saying that British Muslims should not actually attack targets within the UK. Those who were in the country applying for asylum or on visas should also not attack their hosts. Well, thanks for that Mr. Obeida!

Needless to say Obeida is himself an asylum seeker in the UK, a country he appears to despise. The Sunday Times reports that he and his family are on welfare.

Of course they are.

There's a thought-provoking review in today's New York Times of Lost Discoveries, a book on "the ancient roots of modern science - from the Babylonians to the Maya". In the reviewer's opinion Lost Discoveries is a "timely reminder of how much of the foundation of modern scientific thought and technological development was built by the mostly overlooked contributions of Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Polynesians and Mesoamericans," a piece of vaguely PC boilerplate that is a little misleading both in the detail (is it really fair to say that, for example, the Arab contribution to mathematics has been "overlooked"?) and in another, critical, respect: it underestimates the intellectual effort in, so to speak, reinventing the wheel and, indeed, the consequences of that reinvention. Physicists in Third Century BC China may well have "pretty neatly summarized Newton's first law of motion", but I would be very surprised if they were the source of Sir Isaac's ideas - and it was Newton's discovery (or rediscovery) that was to prove infinitely more important in the development of contemporary technology.

Other civilizations can, clearly, boast of some astonishing scientific achievements. To claim (as some have done in the past) that the West has some sort of monopoly on scientific creativity would be nonsense, but it is equally absurd to try to downplay the West's massive contribution to the foundation of the world as we find it today.

To put it somewhat simplistically, the Mayans may have been superb astronomers, but they played almost no part in the chain of events that took Neil Armstrong to the moon.

It's not necessary to agree with everything that is written in this article from the London Observer to find it a fascinating and perceptive read. Amongst the key ideas:

"...there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of where the sophistication of Jihad International comes from. It is not in its ingenious and despicable skill in butchering innocent civilians, or even in its apparently formidable organisational skills, which in reality may be far less formidable than assumed, but in syndicating and marketing its brand of terror. This is not the old terrorism of the IRA or ETA, with structures, doctrines and pseudo-military organization. What Bush and Blair and all their allies do not understand is that is the idea of al-Qaeda, not its physical reality, that is the key, an idea which has taken deep root in countries from Afghanistan to South East Asia and Africa."

There's a lot to this, I fear.