The Fens, Ely, Wisbech? That’s Cambridgeshire - miles to the west.

But, John, while we’re on the topic of those naughty poppies, here’s what Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote (in 1808) about your native territory:

"I shall deem it a sacred Duty to publish my Case, tho' without my name -- for the practice of taking Opium is dreadfully spread. -- Throughout Lancashire & Yorkshire it is the common Dram of the lower orders of People -- in the small Town of Thorpe the Druggist informed me, that he commonly sold on market days two or three Pound of Opium, & a Gallon of Laudanum -- all among the labouring Classes." (CL, iii 125-6)

There’s an intriguing story in today’s New York Times about Dr. Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s new minister of defense. Her father was an air force general who worked with the Allende government. He died in prison under the Pinochet regime. Appallingly, General Bachelet was tortured, torture that apparently contributed to his death. His daughter too was jailed for a few months and, disgracefully, tortured, “beaten and blindfolded”, herself. To that extent, her new appointment represents a satisfying turn of events, especially as (at least as portrayed by the always suspect New York Times) she appears a rather sympathetic character.

But the past is never straightforward and the Times’ piece contains rather more nuance than might usually be expected from that source. We read that the fact that General Bachelet was required to “work with” (“collaborate” would, I suppose, have been too loaded a word) “Cuban advisers and members of groups advocating armed revolution did nothing to endear him to his fellow officers.” Indeed. Torture, of course, is not exactly unknown in Castro’s Cuba, and we can suppose that any “armed revolution” in Chile would have been far from gentle.

Eventually, Dr. Bachelet’s mother was expelled and “the two women went into exile, first in Australia and then in East Germany.”

Australia, I can understand, but East Germany? The GDR, a grim, gray suburb of the Gulag, a country of barbed wire, political prisoners, and the Berlin Wall, was a curious choice for people (I would imagine) describing themselves as refugees from oppression.

Bachelet’s story is a reminder of the trickiness of history, that most essential of disciplines. Elsewhere in today’s paper, that point is underlined by a story (on a new museum dedicated to the British empire) concluding with this quote from Cicero:

“Not to have knowledge of what happened before you were born is to be condemned to live forever as a child.”

That’s something to remember the next time you read about dumbed-down history teaching.

British Blogger Michael Peach gets it.

Via Samizdata.

Speaking of Puritans, a number of people have written to complain that my recent post referring to the anti-smoking vigilantes of Bowdoin College as 'Puritans' was unfair. The original Puritans, I was told, were fun-loving folk, and one reader referred me to this website.

Is this true? I've no idea. In 17th Century England the Puritans were a pretty grim crowd. Perhaps they were more cheerful over here.

The British Labour Party is, now, selling Champagne. There seem to be worries that this may shock some of the puritanical folk all too often found on the left of the politics. It shouldn’t. There is an entertaining (and possibly even true) story about one of the Labour grandees (either Nye Bevan or Ernest Bevin, I forget which) of the early post-war years being criticized for being seen to indulge in Champagne with rather too much gusto. Champagne, it was felt, was too elitist a choice for such a supposedly egalitarian politician.

Bevin/Bevan disagreed. “Nothing,” he said, “is too good for the working class.”

In one respect, and one respect only, Stalin seems to have felt the same way. In pre-revolutionary Russia ice cream was associated with the richer classes. In the new Soviet paradise it was decreed that this delicacy should be available for all, and that is why (it is said), up until the mid-1990s at least, it was always possible (in Moscow certainly) to buy delicious, if slightly sinister-looking, ice cream from ladies manning little vendor carts near Metro stations and similar spots all over the city. The cost? A few Kopecks. The taste – delicious, particularly in winter.

That’s typical Derbyshire, that is, a new American always trying to claim that he was indeed one of the huddled masses. Don’t be fooled by his self-pitying depictions of a rain-lashed childhood amid the cobblestones, clogs and class resentment of Northern England. Piccalilli, indeed! The Derb was clearly brought up in conditions of sybaritic luxury. In the flatlands and marshes of East Norfolk we could only dream of such delights (it is, I somehow seem to remember – a one-off treat, doubtless – very good with ham).

For more in this vein, please see the appropriate Monty Python sketch.

There's a long article in this week's New York Observer about cartoonist Art Spiegelman and his split from the New Yorker. Spiegelman is apparently preoccupied with producing a new comic strip, In the Shadow of No Towers, which he is quoted as describing as follows:

"Recollections of September 11, 2001, and the feeling of imminent death that it brought with it seen from further and further spiraling distances as we move towards a present where we're equally threatened by Al Qaeda and my President."

No further comment necessary.

Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is shortly expecting her second child, apparently has a craving for Marmite. Thanks to reader Kevin Orlin Johnson for sending me this important story. If any readers are intrigued by 'Branston Pickle', they should be. It's delicious.

I note that part of Ms Zeta-Jones' problems appear to come from the fact that she seems to be based in 'Los Angeles', a provincial spot located, I am told, somewhere in the west of this country. Here in Manhattan we face no such problems.

If you're waiting for the G-File -- which is long and odd like a Stanley Kubrick movie -- take it up with NR-NYC. I sent it in. And, yes, yes, it's largely about Lord of the Rings. And no, it's not a review.

Dear Jonah Goldberg: It's true that Al Pacino was the Commentary office boy for about a year--or maybe only six months or so--in 1960 or 1961. The magazine was then definitely in its leftwing phase, but I don't think Pacino cared one way or the other. He was then studying acting and probably took the job instead of waiting tables. Anyhow, he was good at it: cheerful and competent and willing to do whatever was asked of him. I haven't seen him since, except on the big screen, though if I remember rightly, there was a time when he told interviewers about having worked briefly as an office boy at Commentary. Yours, Norman Podhoretz

I'm going through some articles for my G-File today and I stumble on a piece by John Podhoretz from a few years ago. In this article John reveals that when Al Pacino -- yes that Al Pacino -- was 18 years old he was an office boy at Commentary magazine. I am still having trouble processing this. And, John, if you're reading this -- and I think I am speaking for everybody -- we would like more information. Before I can start making jokes, I need to know if this was during Commentary's radical Left days or during the neocon days. When the latest issue of Partisan Review came into the office did he yell, "Hoo-ah!"?

Check out this this press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FLORIDA JOURNALIST SUSPENDED OVER BIASED COMMENTS
Muslim advocacy group thanks newspaper for quick action

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/2/03) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) said tonight that a Florida journalist who made disparaging remarks
about Arabs and Muslims in an e-mail message has been suspended without pay
for one week.

In a letter of apology to the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), Tallahassee Democrat Executive Editor John W. Miller wrote:

"On behalf of the Tallahassee Democrat, I apologize to all of our readers,
and most especially, to members of the Islamic faith everywhere, for the
intemperate e-mail comments of political writer/columnist Bill Cotterell.
They absolutely do not represent the views and sensitivities of this
newspaper. Worse, they run counter to many of the values we hold dearest,
among them tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness.

"Bill spoke, via company e-mail, in anger and frustration to a reader.
Shortly after he sent the message, he realized his mistake, and he has
since apologized to all of his colleagues for the hurt and embarrassment he
knows he caused.

"'I was wrong and I am sorry,' he said in an unsolicited statement to his
editors. 'My remarks were grossly inappropriate and do not reflect my views
toward Muslim people.

"'It would be bad enough if my comments reflected only on my own lack of
judgment, but I realize that I have embarrassed the newspaper,' Cotterell said.

"He said that he should have stopped to consider that people would believe
he spoke for the Democrat 'rather than just for myself in an emotional and
ill-considered moment.'

"Bill has been a valued and respected employee of the Democrat for almost
20 years. But his actions - even though they were in a private
communication - cannot go unpunished. As of Friday, he is being suspended
without pay for a week."

"We thank the Tallahassee Democrat for its swift action in response to this
troubling issue. The newspaper's forthright apology goes a long way toward
re-establishing its journalistic credibility with the Muslim and
Arab-American communities in Florida," said CAIR Board Chairman Omar Ahmad.
Ahmad added that he hoped the Muslims in that state could now enter into a
more constructive and reciprocal dialogue with the newspaper's editorial board.

"We will continue our strong support for the First Amendment right to
freedom of speech. But we also believe that with freedom, comes
responsibility," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. Awad also thanked
all those who contacted the newspaper to express their concerns about
Cotterell's remarks. "We encourage people of conscience to stand up for
what is right and not to be discouraged by the rising tide of Anti-Muslim
bigotry in our nation," said Awad.

In an e-mail to a concerned Muslim, Cotterell had written: "Except for
Jordan and Egypt, no Arab nation has a peace treaty with Israel. They've
had 54 years to get over it. They choose not to. OK, they can squat around
the camel-dung fire and grumble about it, or they can put their bottoms in
the air five times a day and pray for deliverance; that's their
business. And I don't give a damn if Israel kills a few in collateral damage
while defending itself. So be it."

In December, CAIR called for an apology from the Tallahassee Democrat for a
Doug Marlette syndicated editorial cartoon, headlined "What Would Mohammed
Drive?" showing a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad driving a nuclear
bomb-laden truck similar to that used by Timothy McVeigh in the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing. Thousands of concerned Muslims contacted the
newspaper to complain about the cartoon. SEE:
http://www.cair-net.org/images/mohammeddrive.gif

--
"But his actions -- even though they were in a private communication -- cannot go unpunished"?!?! Good grief! Personally, I don't see what's so outrageous about the journalist's words that they required him to be suspended for a week. Is that what 20 years of service gets you from p.c. newsroom employers? I can see how it would make the CAIR faithful mad, but saying just about anything negative about Islam makes them mad. Honestly, these grievance-industry hotheads could hang a jar of fireflies from the end of a stick and chase your average oh-so-sensitive news editor from here to Timbuktu.

“I find myself at exactly the right place for a reporter tonight. I’m annoyed at both political parties, and you can’t be more fair and balanced than that. Last night’s event in Minneapolis [the Wellstone service] — calling it a memorial insults the dead — was totally tasteless....Equally shameless has been the reaction received here. There may in fact be non-partisans upset with the event, they may in fact exist. They did not make themselves known in our in-box today. Instead, what we received was a series of identical letters....I don’t mean thematically identical; I mean literally identical. Word for word....So here is what last night proved: One side can be tasteless and the other side has the computer skills to cut and paste under the guise of genuine outrage. Which is worse? To me it’s a tie.” — Anchor Aaron Brown’s “Page Two” commentary at the start of CNN’s NewsNight, October 30.

“There is hardly a troubled place in the world he hasn’t visited, worked in, in a quest to bring peace and spread democratic values....Jimmy Carter told Larry King today he is slowing down some, cutting back. Age makes globe-trotting especially hard. But in many places, dusty and difficult places, James Earl Carter has brought hope and dispelled, as well as anyone alive these days, the vision of the ugly American.” — Aaron Brown on CNN’s NewsNight, October 11.

Anchor Daryn Kagan: “You know what, Kate? Shame on all of them. They’re sitting there playing politics in Washington. I know we have a lot of viewers at home, a lot of older people who their simple, simple request is just to be able to afford the drugs that they need.” Reporter Kate Snow: “Yeah, they will say it’s a lot more complicated than that. And, you know, that there, again, there are policy differences and it’s hard to get agreement when you don’t agree on how to do it. That’s what they’ll say to that, but I think you’re right, that I think a lot of seniors are going to be disappointed.” Kagan: “Tell that to our grandmothers and grandfathers and uncles and aunts who are just trying to kind of put together the bottom line.” — Exchange August 1 during CNN’s “Breaking News” coverage of the end of Senate efforts to create a new prescription drug entitlement for senior citizens.

Daryn Kagan: “As that reporter was telling us, from Berlin, this isn’t over. They’re not sure if just the one gunman or there’s other gunmen out there and so the search and the situation at the school still goes on.” Leon Harris: “It’s incredible, incredible.” Kagan: “Not the kind of thing we want to export from this country.” — Exchange on CNN about a school shooting in Germany, at about 10:25am EDT on April 26.

A reader observes:

Did you ever wonder why airlines serve food and drinks in the first place?

Even on short flights? Because when they were regulated on price, they had to find other ways to differentiate their service. But now that prices are no longer regulated, airlines have been reluctant to change their food service policies because - I assume - people expect it, no matter how bad it is. Sort of like trying to get rid of an obsolete government program.

Anyway, I think you'll see more of this as airlines struggle to find ways to make a buck in what has always been a cut-throat business.

A Reader settles it:

I may put myself in the running for nerd of the (new) year here, but Stoors are a sub-type of hobbits. There were three types, characterized by their physical attributes and tastes (river folk, tree folk, etc). I think that Gollum's folk are stated to be akin to hobbits, and Stoor-like in their habits, but it is not said definitively whether they are hobbits or not.

A reader sends me this:

Stoors are hobbits.

Quick, somebody distract K-Lo or LOTR discussions will end up verboten like "Kirk would kick Picard's ass in a stand up fight."

A reader notes:

Jonah,
Having just read the LOTR+Hobbit series for the first time in my 32 years, I want to correct something:

Gollum was a Hobbit-like creature but not a Hobbit. I believe the name of his species was a "Stoor." They liked to swim and eat fishies, hence the big feet and hands.

Gandalf's hard work in studying obscure creatures like Hobbits and Stoors (as JRRT studied obscure myths and linguistic matters) was part of why he was able to stay ahead of Sauron's plans. One of his key insights was that these simple creatures were somewhat more immune than Men to the corrupting influence of the Ring. Even Gollum had a shred of conscience left after spending such a long time with the Ring and he did not try to take over the world when he had it. Early in the book, Gandalf presciently notes upon learning that Gollum escaped, that he may yet have a constructive part to play in the story so that its not such a big deal that he got free.

The commercial that annoys me more than any other these days is the one for Cottonelle toilet tissue. You've probably seen it, if you spend any time watching TV. It features all sorts of scenes of people from all walks of life, wagging their butts in the air like they just don't care. Oh, they're wearing pants, fear not. But they wiggle their tushes around on the bowling alley, at the airport, etc. Why are they doing this? Because their toilet tissue is especially efficient and comprehensive in achieving the things we've come to expect from toilet tissue. You can watch the ad like a thousand times and not think twice about it, but once you listen to what they're saying you realize how disgusting it is.

But now get this, I go to the Cottonelle website website in search of a link to one of the commercials. I click on the icon of the little TV set. But instead of the ad, I find out it's a chat room. Am I the only one disturbed by the image of people hanging out in a toilet paper chatroom? And I'm not talking about The Daily Worker either.

Here's an explanation that works for me from an amazing site.

Okay, okay. Here is the official storyon where Gollum’s name comes from. I confess to not remembering that his name comes from the clicking – gollumy— sound he makes with his throat. But that’s not my point. I knew there had to be a reason in the text for his name. What I’m looking for is the sub-textual reason Tolkien used the name "Gollum," if there is one. For example, John Miller recently wrote about how the "secret fire" (of which Gandalf is the keeper) was actually in Tolkien’s mind the (Christian) Holy Spirit. There’s little or nothing in the actual book which can prove that, but Tolkien apparently said it was so. What I’m curious about is whether Tolkien – who most certainly must have known of the Golem myths (which inspired Frankenstein) – was making something of a metaphorical statement about the nature of Man, or in this case, Hobbits. Gollum was originally a hobbit who was turned into a pitiable creature through the power of the ring. The Golem was a living creature made from clay. I’m just wondering if maybe Tolkien was saying something about what happens to man when he loses God’s grace, or some such, and is therefore reduced to something less than man, a creature made from the same stuff as man, but contemptible nonetheless. Just something I was pondering.

Has anybody read anything on what the source of the name "Gollum" is? I was wondering if it's supposed to allude to Golem -- i.e. the Jewish mystical creatures. I don't remember reading anything about this, but we do know that Tolkien took words and language very, very seriously.

From today’s New York Times :

"Bowdoin College already has the requisite alcohol-free dormitories, vegan entrees in the dining halls and state-of-the-art fitness facilities. Now smoking…has been banned from dorms and other student housing.”

Oh, good grief.

One student, “a fan of the new policy", intones that, “You obviously don’t respect yourself if you smoke and destroy your lungs,” a remark so devoid of originality, tolerance and psychological insight that one can only despair, yet again, about the state of the American education system.

There’s an interesting – and revealing – article in today’s New York Times about how “outflanked Democrats” are looking for ways “to play catch up in media battles”. The spin? That the blame for recent electoral defeats can at least partly be attributed to the way in which liberals are allegedly outgunned by a (doubtless "vast") conservative presence in this country’s media. What presence? Fox News, apparently, and a chorus of “prominent, outright partisan media voices”. By contrast, when it comes to identifying their sources of reliable media backing, the poor old Democrats can, apparently, only point to ‘a scant few’ outlets.

This is nonsense (and it shows the unease felt by a Left confronted, at last, with some debate), but it is, in particular, worth paying attention to that reference to “outright partisan media voices.” The key word is “outright”, better translated as “honest”. That there is a liberal bias in much of today’s media seems undeniable, but, if there’s one notable thing about it, it is that it is not “outright”. Rather, it comes in under cover, camouflaged as ‘public television’, objective ‘reporting’ (Dan Rather, are you paying attention?) or as a sub-text of much of today’s entertainment programming. The political agenda is there, but it's not admitted to.

If liberals want a more ‘partisan’ presence in the media, that’s fine (particularly if it could be provided by the likes of Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand), but they should have the decency to acknowledge the outlets that those far from ‘outflanked’ Democrats already have.

I'm over my speechlessness. The G-Philers are hemming and hawing now about the name of their site. I kind of know how they feel. I feel very awkward when people tell me they read my column. Psychologically, I still write the thing as if no one is reading it except a few friends, which in a sense is sometimes true. So when I see things like this site, I'm more than a but stunned. And deeply, deeply flattered. Thanks very much. No aplogies are necessary and the least I can do is check in from time to time.

Indeed, I am establishing a new policy: All sites which name themselves in a laudatory way after a NRO-nik will get mentioned and noticed here in the Corner. So yes, that means if tomorrow TheDerbFiles.com sprouts up, it will be mentioned here, so long as the context is complimentary. We will not be paying heed to RichLowryIsCheap.com -- however much I would like to applaud such an effort. But K-LoRocksBlogSpot.com, ImpromtusWatch, CorneritesRus.com etc. These things will get our attention.

A reader from Abilene, Texas has a lab-grown bone to pick with me. I'm not sure I buy all of this, but it makes for interesting reading:

Jonah,

You wrote:

"After all, the suffering of farm animals would be sharply curtailed if not eliminated. Forests wouldn't need to be cleared for cattle and billions(?) of acres of forest land around the world could be allowed to revert to wilderness, improving the quality of our air and water."

Please tell me this was tongue in cheek.

If, on the outside chance that you really do see things this way, I have two words for you....

Apical Dominance.

This is a term all conservatives should know about when discussing environmental issues such as overgrazing, deforestation etc.

Let me describe it briefly. In most plants there is a thing called a node. This is the place that new stems or leaves sprout from. In the tip of leaves, there is a region which produces a hormone which suppresses new growth in the node that its attached to. When you clip off the end of the leaf, that hormone is is temporarily removed from the plant's system, and growth at the base node is no longer suppressed. In shorthand, this is why the grass you plant in your yard spreads runners more actively when you mow it often.

Why does this matter? Because this happens in nature when herds of ungulates graze on grassland. Grass reproduces through either sexual or vegatative means. Since grazing forms the principal stimulus to vegatative reproduction via the interruption of apical dominance, the absence of grazing actually impedes the propogation of plant species.

The bad science of modern environmentalism doesn't discern between grazing and overgrazing, one of which is good and necessary, the other obviously bad. In any case, the idea that if cattle were removed from the environment, air and water quality would axiomatically improve, is, bullshit. Which as you know has its own merits. In fact, the elimination of grazing, which seems to be the objective of a lot of folks, would actually cause the damage that is cited as a reason to eliminate it.

Further, anyone that studies rangeland will tell you that tallgrass prairies contain a significantly broader diversity of life than an old growth forest, mainly because of the arboreal shade which prevents low growing species to flourish.If you want to improve the biodiversity of a forest, by all means cut it down every now and then.

As for the suffering of farm animals, consider this. Whenever you go outside at night in a cold winter rain in D.C. remember that there are millions of farm animals that live outside in such conditions all the time, registering no complaints. If you seriously consider the daily life of a cow or a hog (and everyone should from time to time!) you'd have to conclude that a modern feedlot, ugly as it is to your average city folk, is like a night at the Plaza for these critters. In fact, anyone who spends much time around cattle or hogs knows that to the extent they can exhibit what we would call happiness, you'll see it no more clearly than when they are in front of a feed trough awaiting execution.

Have a nice new year. Reading your stuff has been a wonderful addition to my 2002.

Fascinating article about steaks grown in the lab.

Maybe it's because I've read the Dune books so many times (remember slig meat?), but I've long thought that we'd eventually be able to replace farm grown meat with lab, or factory, grown meat. Now I don't think it's necessarily an entirely good idea. As with all new technologies, there are pluses and minuses. But I am curious what the animal rights and eco-types would say to the proposition of lab grown meat -- assuming they could get past their deep luddism. After all, the suffering of farm animals would be sharply curtailed if not eliminated. Forests wouldn't need to be cleared for cattle and billions(?) of acres of forest land around the world could be allowed to revert to wilderness, improving the quality of our air and water.

Of course, even if we perfected the technology overnight (which we wouldn't), there are some obvious downsides: millions of farm animals would probably have to be killed since their would no longer be much economic utility in feeding them. Worse, billions of people around the world would have their traditional social, political and economic arrangements shattered. Our attachment to the land would be even more attenuated. Whole new quasi-religions and political movements would develop around the need to eat "authentic" meat. Anyway, it's an interesting topic for lazy-day pondering.

Lots of liberals -- Ralph Nader, Peter Beinart come to mind -- hinge their opposition to "Star Wars," or National Missile Defense, on the assertion that it just doesn't work. This has always been an unsatisfying argument since all new technologies don't work until they work. Why spend money on a cure for cancer since, so far, the cures don't work? Saying missile defense doesn't work is a fig leaf argument used to conceal the fact that liberal opposition to missile defense is based on a love of parchment and arms control arrangements. They know that saying America shouldn't defend itself against missiles because it will anger other countries just won't fly.

But I do find myself making similar arguments about cloning. It is almost inconceivable that the Raelians -- Hale Boppers without the good sense to take themselves out of the gene pool -- succeeded in cloning a human being, especially on the first try. But I find it very difficult to reach a conclusion on the larger issues around cloning. So, I simply point out that it should be banned for now because it doesn't work and attempts to clone a baby today would likely result in scores of mangled and deformed mistakes before a single successful baby was produced. My thinking on the subject has been heavily influenced by my very good friend Ronald Bailey. Ron is a hardcore libertarian and decidedly in favor of cloning and pretty much every other form of biotechnology. But he favors a temporary ban on cloning because scientific ethics and plain old morality demand one. See his latest piece on the subject here.

Ron is absolutely right that eventually scientists -- not cults -- will figure out how to clone successfully and he can't wait. I'm still ambivalent -- and in search of a better argument against it.