A reader writes:

Seventeen years ago my son was a three year old. We picked him up
from nursery school one day and the director told us he was playing an
interesting game with another youngster. He would climb on his buddy's
back, they would both scream "BOOM" and crash apart, apparently
imitating the shuttle Challenger explosion.

Today he is a senior aerospace engineering student. He called this
morning from Houston, where he is on a college co-op assignment at
Johnson Space Center this semester. It was our first word of today's
tragic news.

"These are the days of miracle and wonder," sang Paul Simon in the 1980s. It ran through my head all morning, from out of nowhere, and I think I know why. It has to do with the impossibility, the sheer implausibility, of the facts. We are on the verge of war in the Mideast, a war springing in its modern origins from the tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict; our president, a Texan, believes we must move on Iraq. The space shuttle that broke up today carried, for the first time ever, a Mideastern astronaut, an Israeli who won fame when he led a daring raid on a nuclear reactor in Iraq, 20 years ago. The shuttle broke up over the president's home state, Texas. The center of the debris field appears to be a little town called Palestine.

If Tom Clancy wrote this in one of his novels--heck, if Tim LaHaye wrote this in one of his Left Behind books--his editor would call him and say, "We're thinking this may be too over the top."

"We are happy that it broke up," government employee Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi said.
"God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans. They have encroached on our country. God is avenging us," he said.

Re-reading those lines by Magee, it is their sheer sense of fun that is so striking:

“Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, -and done a hundred things/You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung/High in the sunlit silence.”

Speaking on Fox News, one of the reporters has just been reminiscing about interviewing the Columbia crew as the shuttle circled our planet. The astronauts were, she recalled, exhilarated, “giggling,” excited, “like kids in a candy store”. Yes, we go into space to learn, to satisfy that urge to explore and to know that is one of mankind's finest features, but, for all the dangers (of which we have been so tragically reminded today) we go there to play too.

There’s an echo of that in a comment by Yuri Gagarin on his return to Earth after that first, glorious, orbit back in 1961:

“I could have gone on flying through space forever”.

I was deeply moved to learn this morning that Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut killed on the Columbia this morning, had taken into space with him a drawing made by a child in a Nazi concentration camp. It was the child's conception of what Earth looks like from the moon. That drawing survived the Holocaust and its aftermath, and was kept in Yad Vashem, Israel's national Holocaust memorial site. Now it has perished, along with Ramon and six others, on its way back from space.

Think about that drawing: that Jewish child lived in a death camp, yet he was still able to dream of space, and these dreams no doubt brought that child some small measure of comfort in a world overwhelmed by tragedy, suffering and loss. My own son Matthew, who is three, told his grandmother on the phone this morning, almost cheerfully, "The space shuttle Columbia blew up, but that's okay, because they're going to build another one." He's on the floor now playing with some kind of foam lawn dart he's turned into a rocket. "Five, four, three, two, one...blast off!" he keeps saying. Even this morning, he's still going on, as he has been for the past couple of months (when he first became obsessed with Neil Armstrong) about how he wants to be an astronaut.

Kids and their deathless dreams. God bless them.

On this terrible, tragic day, it's worth quoting the whole of the poem from which those lines from the Challenger speech were taken.

The poem, called High Flight, was written by John Gillespie Magee, a Spitfire pilot in the Royal Canadian Air Force:

"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, -and done a hundred things

You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung

High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,

I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung

My eager craft through footless falls of air.

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue

I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace

Where never lark, nor even eagle flew -

And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod

The high, untrespassed sanctity of space,

Put out my hand and touched the face of God."

John Magee, the son of an American father and British mother, was killed in a flying accident in December, 1941. He was 19.

The Feminist Majority joined a group of women’s rights, civil rights, consumer rights, environmental, labor and other progressive groups in a press conference Friday in Los Angeles to oppose President Bush’s nomination of anti-women judicial nominee Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kuhl, who has a long record of opposing reproductive rights such as contraception, is the latest example of Bush’s effort to stack the nation’s courts with far-right ideologues.
“Senator (Diane) Feinstein (D-CA) and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee must oppose judges who will take away women’s rights and roll the clock backwards,” said Katherine Spillar, executive vice-president of the Feminist Majority. “Carolyn Kuhl has openly stated that she believes Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided.”

Andrew Sullivan takes issue with my complaint about the DC judge who refused to sentence the gay Catholic activists convicted of trespassing, or somesuch offense, having to do with their refusing to leave a church after having been denied communion. The three were part of a protest against what they believe are the Catholic Church's unjustly discriminatory policies against homosexuals. The judge said she was sympathetic to the protesters' plight, and apologized to them for what the Church is doing to them. This is bigotry because it's none of the state's business how the Catholic Church decides to distribute communion. In Catholic teaching, churchgoers are not to receive communion if they are in a conscious state of mortal sin. In practice, most people who receive communion are improperly disposed, but the fault lies upon the communicant in that case. The priest assumes the communicant is in good standing. A judge may think this is crazy, but it's none of her business. The fact that she made it her business is to me evidence of prejudice against Catholicism.

In the case at hand, the three gay would-be communicants were attempting to use the holiest sacrament of the Catholic faith to make a political statement. The priest was right to deny them communion. The analogy is imperfect, but if, for example, Jesse Helms turned up at a parish of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church on Sunday morning, and demanded to take communion (assuming they have communion), and the minister decided that Helms was either a notorious public sinner (for his right-wing views on gay rights) or was abusing their sacrament to make a political statement, she would be well within her rights to refuse him. More power to her.

And if Jesse Helms had to be dragged out of the church, and was charged with and convicted of trespassing, the judge should give him a fair sentence. If the judge said from the bench, "Jesse, I don't like that gay church any more than you do. I'm not going to sentence you at all. I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's a shame how those people are" -- Andrew would scream his head off about how a judge has no business telling a religion how to operate. And he would be right to do so. Andrew -- and anybody else -- has a right to protest practices in his religion he finds offensive. But as long as no law is broken, churches should be free of the interference of the state in their practice.

Technically, I suppose, this judge didn't interfere with the practice of the Catholic religion in this parish, but if the state were to refuse to punish those who broke the law in attempting to interfere with the freedom of Catholics to worship according to their rules, the effect is no different, because it encourages lawbreaking.

Here we have these three bizarre positions from NOW's Super Bowl ad report: The first, from NOW itself, says there were too many men in the ads. The second, from one of their "monitors," says it's bad when there are too many women in the ads. The third, from their ranking, complains that one of the ads shows one man and one woman.

What NOW says: 1. Men were again the big winners in the Super Bowl ad extravaganza‹many more men than women were employed to act in the commercials, and much of the content of the ads was directed at the male viewer.

2. "I don't mind the number of male-oriented ads. In fact, I will get worried when the ads are more female-oriented. I prefer to think that not many women care about the Super Bowl."

3. #64: Anheuser-Busch ‹ Michelob work-out "Put an intimate portrait of two thin, attractive people, of course a woman and man, and everyone will buy the beer‹and lose weight while they're at it!!!" --- I think NOW is perpetuating the stereotype that women complain all the time because they can't make up their minds...

The new law allows marriage only to citizens of Belgium or the Netherlands, the first country to allow same-sex marriage, beginning in 2001. The Netherlands is seen as an avant garde country; however Belgium -- with its small population of 10 million -- has not been a leader in European affairs. It is not likely that other countries will follow the Belgian Parliament's lead.
The bill has taken four years to pass the Belgian Parliament governed by a left-leaning coalition. The coalition disregarded the country's top administrative court, which ruled marriage was the union of one man and one woman.
The law is scheduled to take effect in approximately four months

When mighty roast beef was the Englishmen's food It ennobl'd our veins and enriched our blood. Our soldiers were brave and our courtiers were good. (Chorus) Oh! the roast beef of old England! And old English roast beef. But since we have learned from all-vaporing France To eat their ragouts, as well as to dance, We are fed up with nothing but vain complaisance. (Chorus) Oh! the roast beef... etc.

When I first met Hank he kept saying, "I want to tell you. There's something I want to tell you." Each time, he'd back out. Finally, one day we were at my dad's and we were sitting on the grass, and I said, "Hank, you've got to tell me what it is on your mind." He said, "It's my mother." I was so innocent then, I didn't know if she was dead. He said, "I want to take you home and introduce you to her," then he said, "You know what she's gonna say when she meets you? She's gonna say, 'Where did you meet this whore?'" I said, "Hank, your mother couldn't possibly say that. I know she couldn't." You know, we walked in, and that's the first thing she said. I ran back to the car. Hank and his mother fought like men would fight.
Hank's mother, Miz Lillian, was a piece of work. She raised two kids on her own in the Depression, in rural Alabama, and "We never took relief." If she had nothing to feed the kids for lunch, she'd go out in the morning with a shotgun and get a rabbit or a squirrel.

Amherst city council votes against war with Iraq.

A reader reminds me that instead of the lion joke below I could have used this exchange from the Simpsons:

Homer: No bears since the bear patrol. Lisa: Dad, that's rather specious reasoning. Homer: Thank you honey. Lisa: No Dad, I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: How does it work? Lisa: It doesn't, but you don't see any tigers around do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy that magic rock.

There's a pretty useful summary on the differences between the United States and Europe in the The New York Times today. As luck would have it, my
syndicated column is sort of a response to many of the points made in Bronner's essay. There are a few stolen bases in his piece. For example he says that in the airport in Basel there are "fewer armed guards visible than at any major airport in America." Well, that may be true. But if it is it's a very new development. For most of the 1980s and 1990s Americans would arrive in Europe only to be shocked at the number of soldiers walking through airports with sub-machine guns slung over their shoulders. American airports didn't have armed soldiers in them until after September 11. There may be fewer armed soldiers in West European airports than there were -- thought I doubt it -- but if that's the case it's because Europe decided to start appeasing and buying off terrorists groups not because it talked, say, Abu Nidal into pacifism.

Also, Switzerland is famously neutral and the country least likely to fear terrorist attacks. Bronner writes his piece from Paris, but he chooses a Swiss airport for his example. Could it be because Paris airports are actually filled with soldiers armed to the teeth -- and for good reason. Richard Reid, for example, boarded his plane in Paris.

Regardless, while Bronner seems to get it right in terms of the attitudes separating Europe and America, he glosses over a lot of history to reach his conclusion. When he writes, "Through common economic interests, education and relentless talk, the Europeans have forged a new world for themselves," he downplays a single enormous fact. Europe could afford to cultivate its penchant for "relentless talk" because America was guarding the gates and ports of Europe. It's one thing to take security for granted while you push a lot of paper around. It's another thing entirely to believe that it was the paper pushing itself which secured your safety and prosperity.

It's like one of those stupid jokes where the guy pats his head to keep lions away. Another guy says, "But there are no lions in Cleveland." The head-patter responds, "See? It works." If Europeans actually believe their hotel-room symposia created their zone of peace, they're sadly mistaken.

This is worth a look.

I'm really sorry that you are so stupid. What you wrote abour French is dismaying. Everything in your so-called article smells hate and racism. You're disgusting. Poor guy. If we want that people like each other, you really do the contrary! Do you want to bolster hatred ? Hopefully, as French, I like America, and I do not despise american citizens like you do for french ones. Je ne vous salue pas.

Leaders of women's groups that oppose any changes to how the law is enforced were angered by the panel's recommendations. "We are deeply troubled by the commission's action," said Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of the Washington-based National Women's Law Center. "This authorizes the secretary of education to radically restructure current practices. . . . The proposals recommended are every bit as damaging as any that have been put on the table." Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, said, "The commission has opened the barn door for the Bush administration to weaken Title IX. This gives the education secretary license to do pretty much anything he wants."

Here's a must-read WaPo column by Robert Kagan, in which the Brussels-based writer explains for American readers why the pro-American stand taken by Berlusconi, Blair, Aznar et alia is tremendously brave. In Europe today, writes Kagan, "the suspicion, fear and loathing of the United States couldn't be thicker. In London, where Tony Blair has to go to work every day, one finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the 'neoconservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy. Britain's most gifted scholars sift through American writings about Europe searching for signs of derogatory 'sexual imagery.' In Paris, all the talk is of oil and 'imperialism' (and Jews). In Madrid, it's oil, imperialism, past American support for Franco (and Jews). At a conference I recently attended in Barcelona, an esteemed Spanish intellectual earnestly asked why, if the United States wants to topple vicious dictatorships that manufacture weapons of mass destruction, it is not also invading Israel.

"Yes, I know, there are Americans who ask such questions, too. We have our Buchanans and our Gore Vidals. But here's what Americans need to understand: In Europe, this paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Americanism is not a far-left or far-right phenomenon. It's the mainstream view."

Aaargh! Terrible idea. Even I, an unconditional fan of Bush and decided supporter of his actions on Iraq, feel the hear in the back of my neck stand on end when I think about labeling my Spain "Bush country." These countries support America for all kinds of good reasons but they are not America. The support is freely given by nations that consider themselves equal to and not subservient to America.

France could post a map of the USA with California and New York labeled in French Blue. They could call them Chirac states. You might think that the idea is funny, but I don't think that it would do much to help France's cause among Americans, or even Californians.

PS, I am allowed to say Spaniard, right?

Aaargh! Terrible idea. Even I, an unconditional fan of Bush and decided supporter of his actions on Iraq, feel the hear in the back of my neck stand on end when I think about labeling my Spain "Bush country." These countries support America for all kinds of good reasons but they are not America. The support is freely given by nations that consider themselves equal to and not subservient to America. France could post a map of the USA with California and New York labeled in French Blue. They could call them Chirac states. You might think that the idea is funny, but I don't think that it would do much to help France's cause among Americans, or even Californians.

Great idea from a reader:

With the emergence of the letter of support for the U.S. from 8 European countries shouldn't we get a big map of Europe and paint those countries red and lable them Bush country such as we did during the election for each state that voted for him? I mean I understand the uneasiness that comes with painting European countries red since we were fighting against that for so long but, hey, we won the cold war

If you're wondering how to respond to pro-French arguments when it comes to foreign policy, this picture is worth a thousand words.

Here's Peggy Noonan on the State of the Union address. Excerpt:

This, truly, is a good man. And that is a rare thing. Agree with Mr. Bush's stands or disagree, there can be no doubting the depth of his seriousness and the degree to which he attempts to do what he is convinced is right, and to lead his country toward that vision of rightness. We have had many unusual men as president and some seemed like a gift and some didn't. Mr. Bush seems uniquely resolved to be as courageous as the times require and as helpful as they allow. There is a profound authenticity to him, and a fearlessness too.

A steady hand on the helm in high seas, a knowledge of where we must go and why, a resolve to achieve safe harbor. More and more this presidency is feeling like a gift.

In the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Caitlin Flanagan has a must-read essay surveying recent books about sexual dissatisfaction in contemporary marriages. She finds that couples with children are paying a big price for two-earner households: sexless, or sex-starved, marriages. The idea is that by the end of the day, after dinner is made, homework is supervised, and the kids put to bed, the working woman can be too tired for sex. Here's Flanagan commenting on a popular new novel:

"If I Don't Know How She Does It, a book about a working woman who discovers deep joy and great sex by quitting her job and devoting herself to family life, had been written by a man, he would be the target of a lynch mob the proportions and fury of which would make Salman Rushdie feel like a lucky, lucky man. But of course it was written by a with-it female journalist, so it's safe, even admired. Allison Pearson, we have been given to understand, is telling it like it is. And what she's telling us, essentially, is that in several crucial aspects the women's movement has been a bust, even for the social class that most ardently championed it."

I'll tell you what my son's stay-at-home mom is doing this week: potty training. It's hard, demanding work for a mom, and tough on a little kid (I had no idea kids would be so emotionally sensitive about this). This is going to sound stupid and cheesy to people who don't have kids, but I'm going to say it anyway: I'm so grateful that my little boy is being trained and taken care of in this by his mom, who loves him, and whom he trusts. I can see with my own eyes what a difference her being there to guide him through this is making -- it's a pitifully small thing from an adult perspective, but a Very Big Deal for three-year-olds -- and what a difference her presence makes in his life every day. Ours is a culture that undervalues the labor stay-at-home moms do. About the only real thanks they get are the hugs and kisses and "I love yous" from their children. It is a labor of love, and such thanks are priceless. I guess you have to see it for yourself to appreciate it.

Anyway, like I said, this week is Potty Training Week around my place, so if you come over, watch where you step. On my way out this morning, Matthew told me not to tee-tee on the floor at National Review. What, does this kid think we're a bunch of libertarians over here? Happily, his Uncle Rich runs a pretty tight ship, as these things go, so the lad worries in vain.

I just received the following email from a reader. Seems legit (It would be a pretty lame thing to make up):

Hey Jonah,

On the editorial page of the Times I bought in Astoria queens yesterday morning, I was especially irritated by one paragraph of Maureen Dowd's column ("The Empire Strikes First"). I was happy to see Ramesh Ponnuru take her to task for it in the Corner yesterday ("Dowd's State").

Imagine my surprise when, visiting my parents at their home on the Connecticut River later in the day, I attempted to back up my contention that Ms. Dowd was barking mad by quoting the offending paragraph, and it wasn't the same!

>From the column in the paper purchased in Queens (and remarked upon by
Ramesh): "...as long as the region plays ball with the new sheriff. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism. And then, with an American spigot, the oil will flow free--except to the French, who will pay dearly."

>From the column purchased by my parents in Essex, Connecticut: "...as long as they do what America wants. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism and everyone from the Tigris and Euphrates to the Jordan guaranteeing more security for Israel. And then the oil will flow free, under American guidance."

Is the Times afraid of frightening the mild-mannered folk of Connecticut with the fiery language of Dowd's original column? Or do the regional editions go out first, with red meat being mixed in later for city liberals?

Or is it simply standard practice for a column to vary this dramatically from one edition to another?

Military intervention in Iraq would be "legitimate" even without the approval of the UN Security Council, a French MP said. Alain Madelin, a former economy minister from the ruling party, was the first French politician so far to have voiced such a stance. "Our place is at America's side," he said, and compared the Iraq crisis to the situation before intervention in Kosovo.

I share Andrew Sullivan's exasperation with media outlets serving as transmission belts for the views of "real Iraqis." Almost every day some newspaper or TV show interviews a man or woman in the street in Baghdad who manages to say virtually exactly what the regime wants said. It feels like the New York Times getting man in the street interviews about Stalin in the 1930s. What else are they going to say?

When John F. Burns, The New York Times reporter who's done some of the best and most honest reporting from Baghdad, was still in Iraq he always made it clear that getting an honest read from people in Baghdad was hard. But it wasn't until he came back that he gave an indication of how hard it really is. Here's what he had to say about the goons who accomapny Western reporters everywhere. From last Sunday's Times:

"Minders," the men who watch visiting reporters day and night, are supposedly drawn from among the regime's harder men. But even they break down, hands shaking, eyes brimming, voices desperate, when reporters ask ordinary Iraqis edgy questions about Mr. Hussein.

"You have killed me, and killed my family," one minder said after a photographer for The New York Times made unauthorized photographs of an exhibition of statues of the Iraqi dictator during a November visit to Baghdad's College of Fine Arts.

But we're supposed to take some "hard-hitting" interview by Lester Holt in Baghdad seriously? No offense to Holt, but we consider interviews with paid spokesmen unreliable, how about interviews with people who think their families will be killed?

I have some suggestions and I would love it if we could get a groundswell of pressure against news outlets to enforce them. First, reporters should strive for "equal time" from Iraq. If one person is against liberation they need to interview someone else in favor for balance. If they can't do that, they should repeat what Iraqis are telling them in private. Also, the camera should always -- always show the minder standing there enforcing Saddam's will. Print reporters should always make it clear to the reader that the "man in the street" has a man from the government watching the interview.

But my biggest suggestion -- I'd call it a demand if I could enforce it -- is that all of these reporters go back to Baghdad and re-interview the exact same average Iraqis after Saddam is gone. If reporters think they'll be exposed as megaphones for a dictator down the road, they might voice their skepticism more. Or they might just stop doing these bogus interviews altogether.

That debate is over. After a months-long period in which the Bush Administration went to the Security Council - as the Senator called for last fall; secured a new Council resolution demanding Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations - as the Senator called for last fall; and pursued patient diplomacy while educating the American public about the threat Iraq poses to our interests - as the Senator called for last fall, I agree with him that, ‘Much has changed in the many months since Congress last debated war with Iraq.’

What has changed is that the Administration has pursued the careful diplomacy the Senator had urged on it and has refrained from using force unilaterally against Iraq. The President has worked to make the case for Iraqi disarmament to America and the world. The Administration was able to unite the Security Council behind our demand that Iraq disarm or be disarmed. And the Administration has worked diligently to assemble a coalition that will stand with us in the event military action is necessary.

Iraq has provided more evidence of its intentions, and its defiance, by its failure to provide anything resembling an honest declaration of its arsenal of banned weaponry, and its failure to cooperate substantively with the U.N. inspectors, as Hans Blix has stated. By its own actions, Iraq has placed itself before the world in material breach of the Security Council resolution the Senator from Massachusetts demanded the Administration seek, and honor, in the Congressional debate last fall.

Marty Peretz has a pretty good Diarist in the latest New Republic. I think he overreaches stylistically in parts, but I've always liked his writing style. Anyway, he attempts to identify the reason for French anti-Semitism. He writes:

"The sins of the Jews, after all, are obvious. They are in the American camp. They are at peace with science, technology, and the rule of law. They create material wealth. But all this still leaves a large question: What is the grand "progressive" vision for which the French left fights, which the Zionists and Jews are insidiously holding back? In the grand conflicts of the last century, there was always a left-wing structure of Manichaeanism. On the one side: imperialism and capitalism. On the other: a compelling and revolutionary dream. The dreams turned out to be nightmares. But they were dreams, nonetheless. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, always a man and a movement saying they aimed to build a better world, which they actually tried to describe. In the end, of course, the better world did not arrive: In its place were death camps, mass deportations, forced famines, massacres, reeducation programs, prisons of the body, and greater prisons of the soul.

So what dream do the Palestinians propose to their own people and the world? Nothing--save their purported innocence against the all-powerful Jews. What hero of the struggle have the Palestinians produced to inspire those whose aid they covet? No Gandhi, certainly. No Mandela. And no Weizmann or Ben-Gurion either. Their present hero is Saddam Hussein. Do they envision a classless society? No. A transparent society, a democratic society, an accountable society? No, no, and no again. Will they transform and free the lives of women, of despised tribes, of gay people, of skeptics? Not a chance. By what vision then will they judge themselves? Nobody says because nobody knows.

Which is why I believe that the many in France and the others in Europe (and the puny few in the United States, such as the Episcopal bishops of Massachusetts) who are entranced by the Palestinian cause, who are called and call themselves peace workers, are drawn to the empty idea of Palestine simply because they despise Jews. C'est ça. This, at least, explains their fervor. Nothing else can explain it, and nothing does.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with all of this, but I do think Peretz raises an excellent point. The Left -- like all "movements" in a way -- desperately needs to be struggling against something. But not just "something" -- because "something" could be a cold impersonal force like disease or bad weather. No, they need to be struggling against someone. There needs to be a human will behind the problems of the world. They can't just be "problems" they need to be crimes. Unfortunately, most Western governments, universities and large institutions, with the alleged exception of multinational corporations, largely agree with the aims if not the means of the Left. And, as Peretz notes, the radically exciting conduits for rebellion have imploded. So what remains?

As for causes, there's national liberation, particularly Palestinian liberation, which Peretz notes is a category more than a cause. And, in terms of criminals there are always the corporations, sure. But they seem too cold and impersonal -- like the weather. But there are also the Jews. Once victims, they now prosper while other members of the coalition of the oppressed allegedly don't. They have human will and they use it to the supposed detriment of the Palestinians. As villains, they may not be as convenient as the Robber-Barrons and Fascists of old, but they'll do. Indeed, they can be turned into Robber Barrons and Fascists with just a few dabs of painted on propaganda. That's why we so many pictures of Jews in Nazi garb or Hitlerite mustaches. Of course, we see Bush and Cheney similary doctored-up. It's not clear whether their crime is to be the dupes of Jews orr the allies of Jews. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because they'll do as either.