From today’s Financial Times:

The EU’s constitutional convention is “an unparalleled exercise in European democracy”.

From today’s Daily Telegraph:

“There was no vote. M Giscard, famed for his autocratic style during 16 months of stormy debates, simply discerned consensus among the MPs, MEPs, and national envoys. Few were willing to spoil the party by crying foul.”

The same article contains these statistics:

“Many Europeans know so little about the EU that the convention's debates would mean nothing to them. A poll taken for Britain's Foreign Office in 2001 discovered that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was actually a member of the European Union, and 7% thought that the United States was in it. In Germany, a founder member of the Union whose serious papers devote acres of space to EU affairs, another recent poll found that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission, the EU's most important institution.”

Ha ha ha.

One of the constant complaints about the EU is its ‘democratic deficit’, a polite way of saying that it is a bureaucratic monster running way out of control. The underlying reason for this is simple – the lack of a genuine European political consciousness amongst voters. This should be no surprise. Outside the mandarin class, there is little notion of an authentic ‘European’ identity (in the EU sense) other than in some fairly superficial matters. We are English, Danes or Flemish (‘Belgian’ is a more questionable conceit) before we are Europeans.

As a writer in this week’s Economist (link requires subscription) points out, Giscard’s efforts to allocate more power to the European ‘parliament’ could actually make the EU even less legitimately democratic than before.

“If voters simply made a cold analysis of a politician's views and then voted accordingly, Europe's democratic deficit could be made good quite easily through institutional changes. In fact, all national democracies in Europe rely on a sense of community, a shared culture and, almost always, a common language. This allows voters to act as much more than desiccated policy-analysis machines. They respond to politicians by asking “Do I like this person?” or “Do I trust him?” As soon as a British, Italian or French politician opens his mouth, his compatriots will know many things about him: his social class, region, personal style, and so on. Such cues, so important in making personal and political judgments, barely operate across Europe's linguistic and cultural barriers.”

Well, lets hope that they do this time. Diamond Giscard’s crooked constitution should be voted down.

A reader writes with the following:

“Biotech, with its potential to insert genes that target specific problems, such as pest resistance and drought tolerance, holds enormous potential for Africa. USAID estimates that… a 1 percent increase in crop productivity will bring 6 million people out of poverty there. But for a variety of complex reasons, including the substantial influence of "environmental" groups and the EU, they have yet to benefit from biotech (which the exception of South Africa, who does not depend on Europe for trade and consequently has developed and planted several biotech varieties).

One specific case discussed [at recent hearings held by the House Committee on Science] was …telling of the green/EU stance: Uganda has developed a "Bt" variety of banana that is resistant to the Black Sigatoka virus, which is currently ravaging banana harvests with 60-70 percent yield reductions. But [the Ugandans] will not even plant field trials of the new variety because of EU threats to stop importing… bananas [from that country]…Insect-resistant Bt cotton, which has caught on very rapidly in China in the last 3 years [was also discussed]. Greenpeace claims the cotton is destructive to the environment, when in actuality it has reduced pesticide applications by 70-80 percent…To their credit…several of the Democrats that spoke at the hearing admonished…green groups for their efforts in stalling biotech acceptance in Africa.”

More seriously, I don’t see how allowing homosexuals some form of civil union has anything to do with the institution of heterosexual marriage, either conceptually or, for that matter, mathematically. I don’t know what percentage of the population is homosexual (the sometimes quoted 10 percent is junk statistics), but it’s probably no more than two or three percent. Given that only a minority within that minority will want one of these civil unions, I can’t see how it will have any meaningful effect on an institution (monogamous heterosexual marriage) that has endured for millennia.

On the ‘presumed standard point’, you misunderstood me (and I may have misunderstood you). What I was referring to was the notion that homosexuals are necessarily more promiscuous than heterosexuals. That may have been true in certain times and places, such as the San Francisco of the 1970s and 1980s described so well in And The Band Played On (Randy Shilts’ fascinating history of the early AIDS years), but I have no idea how much can be extrapolated from that.

As to changes in the law surrounding marriage, well, as a British conservative, would you have supported the abolition of the requirement that marriages could only be solemnized in church?

It wasn't too hard.

Interesting news from Teheran with the theocrats revealed - yet again - for the thugs that they are.

“Pro-regime militiamen armed with Kalashnikov rifles moved last night to crush student protests against Iran's ruling clergy, beating reformist demonstrators with iron bars and clubs on the fourth night of unrest in Teheran.”

The students, who are, observers in the West should note, behaving with astonishing bravery, have finally come to the conclusion that there can be no compromise with clerical rule. They are right.

‘Golden rice’ is rice genetically-engineered to include carotenoid. Carotenoid is a precursor of Vitamin A, which (as Matt Ridley explains in the second part of this article in the London Spectator) is “a crucial ingredient of vision. The genes for making carotenoids are lacking in human beings, which is why we must eat vitamin A or go blind. The gene is also lacking in rice grains, so a person who subsists largely on rice may go blind. Approximately 500,000 children in the developing world suffer this exact fate every year, and determined efforts by aid agencies to get vitamin supplements or green vegetables to these people have so far failed.

Along comes Ingo Potrykus of Switzerland with a simple solution. Why not genetically engineer a rice plant so that it has the genes to make carotenoids in its grains? So he took the necessary genes from a daffodil and put them into rice. In effect, he added the word ‘carotenoid’ to the rice plant’s book. He soon had a form of rice that was identical in every respect, except that eating just 200 grams of it a day gave you a daily sufficiency of vitamin A. (Further refinements, including the addition of vitamin E’s precursor, have since made the rice even more health-giving.) "

The reaction of the Greens? They are successfully opposing the introduction of this frightening 'GM' rice, a rice that can save sight.

Disgusting.

Reactions are coming in to Diamond Giscard’s proposed EU Constitution, launched yesterday amid taxpayer-funded fanfare and plenty of predictable enthusiasm from predictable people. In particular, French foreign minister de Villepin announced that it would enable Europe to play a “full role on the world stage.”

We know what that means.

Connoisseurs of (shall we say) not entirely democratic constitutions will note that the festivities were marked by a performance of the EU’s theme song, poor old Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, a tune also used by Ian Smith’s Rhodesia as the music for its national anthem.

Stanley, John, I hate to wade into this controversy, but surely comparing the ‘stability’ of homosexual relationships against some presumed heterosexual standard (is there such a thing?) is impossible in the absence of a legally recognized form of gay ‘marriage’. And that’s just the point that some of its supporters (quite reasonably) are making. As to the effects of such unions on the institution of marriage, I would think that they would be minimal. After the initial flurry of publicity, I’d be astonished if heterosexuals would pay much attention.

The real issue here is that the current state of the law makes it far less likely that gays will be able to establish and enjoy the advantages of long-term relationships, long-term relationships that would be good for the individual and, for those who see such matters in utilitarian terms, society. Worse still, it has to be recognized that the failure of the law to recognize such unions can lead to injustice in some rather more prosaic areas, such as the absence of the death tax exemption rightly enjoyed by all surviving spouses unless (ahem) they are foreigners married to Americans. I can’t see how such ending such inequities could be a threat to anyone – other, of course, than the IRS.

And who cares about them?

Here's another glimpse into the PR strategy of the Hillary book rollout. The Washington Post story on the political arguments in Hillary's book is quite interesting. Apparently Senator Clinton believes the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is a raving zealot and hack. But we haven't heard about that in all of the interviewsk, and now we kind of know why. According to the Post, Mrs. Clinton "declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book."

That's different than saying she declined to be interviewed. Rather, if the Post wanted to ask her about Monica Lewinsky or her "zone of privacy" mumbo-jumbo, Hillary would have said yes.

Isn't it odd that a feminist standard-bearer and US Senator refuses to discuss the political content of her new book? Maybe that's because she only wants to discuss her private life and her alleged victimhood. And the reason for that is this whole thing is political theater. One wonders what ground rules she set for other interviews.

ECHO!

HELLLLLLLLOOOOO!

I wasn't really trying to offend or even tweak Derb with the whole Islam-West thing. Rather, I just thought it would be a fun thing to debate, that's all. It didn't even occur to me that it might seem otherwise until I read a few emails from readers surprised that I would "go after" Derb that way.

I agree with Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. that private-sector approaches to combatting spam should be thoroughly tried before we even talk about federal regulation. But my biggest objection to Caldwell’s piece is his discussion of Internet taxes. Caldwell writes that “it is. . . a social necessity that the principle of taxing the Internet be established soon. This will mean retiring the (in retrospect) absurdly named Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which placed a moratorium on certain Internet taxes, and was extended in 2001 until November of this year.”

He continues, “It was always unfair not to tax business on the Internet, of course. There is no reason that Amazon.com should enjoy a pricing advantage (a de facto government subsidy) over a corner bookstore. But the most damaging part of the moratorium turns out to have been the most innocent-looking: that it banned charges for Internet access. Something like e-mail "postage" will be required if we are going to change the economic incentives that have invited pornographers, snake-oil salesmen, and other social predators into Americans' living rooms. . .”

The clear implication is that the Internet tax moratorium bars taxes on online sales. It does not. Chris Cox, a Republican congressman from California and a leading sponsor of the moratorium, emphasized this point in a conference call today on his efforts to make the moratorium permanent. (He also expressed some annoyance with Caldwell’s failure to contact him before writing the piece.) The moratorium touches online sales taxes only insofar as it bars “multiple and discriminatory” taxes on online sales. There has to be an offline analogue to any sales tax levied on Internet purchases. (The moratorium also let existing taxes that violate the bill’s principles stand.)

The real issue on Internet taxes has always been whether Congress should authorize the states to work together to tax one another’s citizens. That’s what Walmart (which is the real lobbying muscle behind that “corner bookstore”) wants: An Internet sales-tax cartel of the states, in which Amazon would have to help every state in the union collect sales taxes and in which a Maryland resident could no longer avoid Maryland’s sales-tax rates by shopping somewhere else.

Cox confesses that he cannot makes heads or tails of Caldwell’s tax-against-spam proposal. Nothing in his moratorium would seem to bar an Internet service provider from imposing such a levy if it thought customers would find the trade-off acceptable.

Cox thinks that there is a 90 percent chance that the Internet tax moratorium will be made permanent this year. Limited though the moratorium is, that’s a good thing.

Thanks for all the kind words about my Hillsdale address -- and for all the advice about how to give one. Several people have sent me this address by Conan O'Brien. If you never read it, it's really great.

Having seen Ramesh Ponnuru on scotch -- once or twice, during his bachelor days -- he looks a lot different than I would have expected on drugs.

I'm reading Derb's review of The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism in the lasted NRODT and he writes:

Religion, to which most non-Randian conservatives are at least well disposed, adds another complicating factor, since the sacred texts of all three major Western monotheistic faiths proscribe homosexuality in unambiguous terms.

I assume that Derb means Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So here's my question: Is Islam a religion of the West? Seriously, I'm just curious. We've always referred to the core of the Islamic world as "the Middle East." Whenever we talk about the "West and the rest" or the Clash of Civilizations etc, we separate the Islamic world and the Western world. Obviously, there are plenty of Muslims living in the West, but that's a relatively new development. And simply because they're in the West now, does that make them "Western" in orientation? We've got plenty of Budhists here now too and they ain't "Western."

A number of readers (particularly desperate college kids) are asking if I've filled the position of researcher that I mentioned a while ago. The short answer is I haven't and if you're interested you should send info to GFileCorrections@aol.com. The reason I haven't filled the position is that I'm looking to get an office somewhere, preferably at a think tank. Between the baby and working wife (and dog) at home and my need for a disciplined regime to write this book amidst all my other committements, I really want some place I can go to do it (that doesn't charge me rent). So, if I find a place that has room for me, I may need to arrange whatever research assistance I get through that insititution. If I end up working out of the house, then the whole dynamic changes -- in terms of how much (or how little I can pay) and whether the person even needs to be in DC. In case you're wondering, I'm writing this here so I don't have to write it 100 times to different emailers.

Technical issues having to do with Monkey Pox. There will be two items from me on Monday. Indeed, Monday should be a pretty exciting day around "here." Quotations marks are required because this place does not in fact exist in space and time.

Oh, yeah. I'm a prolife conservative who doesn't want the government to tax me. There are issues that I'm so frightened of—1.2 million abortions a year scares the hell out of me. Oftentimes when I see these superstorms forming, you know, sometimes—I wouldn't be honest if I didn't think it was retribution. I also am opposed to big government. Now, you would argue: Well, how could you support a government interfering with the rights of a woman over her own body? But I would argue: No. That all life is sacred. Abortion is the issue that really motivates me.

I don't know, and frankly, don't care much about the issue. Let federalism reign! Even when it comes to diabolical road names. But I do like John's attempt to give a news peg by linking this to Gregory Peck in the Omen. So, let's make with the reproductive cloning posts since Peck also starred in The Boys From Brazil. And surely Roger Clegg can find a link to "To Kill a Mocking Bird." Adler -- something about the fisheries pegged to Moby Dick. I don't know what, but I have sense Derbyshire could do something with Old Gringo. Brookhiser: Night People. For the drug legalization crowd, there's 12 O'Clock High. Michael Ledeen surely has something to say about Roman Holiday (Ledeen's an Italian scholar). There's even something for Cosmo: Pork Chop Hill.

I'm totally behind Rummy's swat at the Belgians yesterday. But, it seems to me, we could solve this whole Belgian court problem quite easily. The Belgians claim their courts have jurisdiction over our government officials and military officers. Fine. We should simply declare that we do not recognize this law and that any attempt to detain, abduct or arrest an American official -- current or former -- will be seen as an act of piracy and kidnapping and hence tantamount to an act of war. Who cares what laws they pass? If Iran said it has a law that justifies jailing Dick Cheney would we say "Oh, we didn't know that. Can we send him care packages?" No, we'd unload the Arsenal of Democracy on 'em. I don't think we need to declare war on Belgium or anything. But there's no harm in making it clear that if they lay a finger on one of our guys it will spell bad news for the Belgies. Period.

But wait, it's Friday 13th today - I must go and take some precautions.

Che Guevara was a good-looking guy with a crackpot - and malevolent -ideology, a mass murderer who became a cult hero.

Here’s a much-needed antidote from the New York Observer.

In Euroland, it’s even worse. The lunacy of a one size fits all currency has played no small part in Germany’s gathering economic crisis. Here’s a fascinating (but lengthy – be warned!) piece by Adam Posen that argues that Germany may be going the same way as Japan. It’s a thought-provoking read. Some of the conclusions are a little zany – the notion, for example, that the EU bureaucracy could still be the force for economic liberalization that it once (sort of) was is no longer realistic. The mandarins of Brussels may dislike the nation state, but they are still irredeemably statist.

Here's an extract:

“Until 1999 Germany monetary policy was quite flexible and helped stabilize the real economy, while German fiscal policy was well within G-7 norms for counter-cylicality. Since European monetary unification at the start of 1999, however, German monetary policy has been set by the European Central Bank, and German fiscal policy has been constrained by the eurozone’s Stability and Growth Pact. With the ECB replacing the Bundesbank, Germany has suffered from a centrally set monetary policy aimed at the eurozone in general, rather than set to its own needs. While the German inflation rate has averaged 1.5 percent annually since January 1, 1999 and averaged just below zero percent over the last six months of 2002, the ECB has been reluctant to cut interest rates, referring to harmonized inflation rates above the 2 percent target.”

The result? Germany's rates are too high and the country may be looking at raising taxes and cutting spending at exactly the moment that it tips over into deflation.

Madness.

Via blogger Brad DeLong.

Is Bush spending too much money? Possibly. It may be heresy to say so (at least around here), but there is one area where the Feds may not be spending enough, and that’s in helping the states through their current fiscal crises. There’s no doubt that the states went on an irresponsible spending binge in the 1990s, and there’s no doubt that repeated federal bail-outs of the states run the risk of creating a significant moral hazard, but government is about facing matters as they are – not as they should be. There must be a significant danger that any chance of a sustained recovery will be choked off by a forced contraction in the states’ spending and/or tax increases at the local level as the states confront their budgetary shambles. Raising taxes and cutting spending at this stage in the economic cycle makes very little sense and may well offset the stimulative effect of tax cuts at the federal level. The administration, however, doesn't seem too concerned.

It should be.

Obituaries, sports pages for the morbid among us, are one of life’s pleasures – someone else outlived!

This event must have been to die for.

More useful points from a blogger.

Andrew Sullivan has a nice article in the New Republic on the threat that a united Europe poses to American interests. He believes that it is wishful thinking to expect new members to make the EU and looser and more liberal federation. But there are, he thinks, a few steps the United States can take. “Above all, the United States can let its most reliable European ally, Britain, know that it prizes the relationship, that it does not necessarily believe British adoption of the euro is a good or necessary thing, and that it values Britain’s independent military capacity immensely. Keeping Britain both in the USE and outside of it militarily, diplomatically, and monetarily should become a prime U.S. objective in foreign policy. Without it, the United States could lose its most valuable military and diplomatic ally.”

This is a bit of change from 1996, when Sullivan was recommending in the same magazine that Britain pursue “the project of a liberal, federal Europe” and bashing the “romantic isolationism” that led Margaret Thatcher to say, well, the sort of things that Sullivan is saying now. He wrote then: “The truth. . . is that the United States has no interest any longer in a particularly ‘special’ relationship with Britain; and certainly not in a relationship ‘special’ enough to prefer to a bond with a core group of European states, headed by Germany, or with the growing markets of China and Asia. . . . [T]he most natural and challenging role for Britain in the future is staring it in the face: the economic and political liberalization—the Americanization, if you will—of European institutions. . . . [T]here is no reason not to join a common currency.” It appears that 9/11 and all that has followed it has awoken Sullivan, as it has many others.

We disagree on some immigration stuff. But I think it's an interesting point. But it seems to me that it's easy to deport illegal Arabs and Muslims during a war on terrorism. The politics change completely when you start talking about deporting illegal Mexicans. I'm not saying that illegal Pakistanis are more or less "deserving" of deportation than illegal Mexicans or El Salvadorans. But as a political matter they're just very different things.

I'm really trying to avoid getting too mired in the Hillary book drek, but I have to say I think Simon and Schuster is lying. I've talked to a couple people in publishing and I know a little about the trade myself and too much sounds fishy. For example:

The "leak" to the Associated Press was bogus and almost certainly came from Simon and Schuster. It helped book sales, generated buzz and was timed perfectly. The idea that they were angry didn't pass the laugh test.

Simon and Schuster claims they printed 1 million copies. People I've talked to say this is probably a lie.

Simon and Schuster claimed yesterday that they sold 20 percent or 200,000 copies of the book on its first day. Not only do I think this is impossible, given purely anecdotal information, I'm confident it is impossible that Simon and Schuster could actually know if they sold that many books. Such numbers are notoriously difficult to collect months after the fact. The idea that S&S got same-day data strikes me as bizarre. How come we've never gotten same day info like this before? Will we ever get it again? I don't think so.

If they really printed 1 million copies, why does S&S need to order another 300,000 copies? Why is it saying that they're making another reprint order next week on top of that? Surely, they don't think the 800,000 books remaining on the shelves constitutes a low supply?

I think this is all a very well-orchestrated campaign to create the impression of a much greater groundswell than actually exists. Hillary's motive for this is obvious. She needs to appear extremely popular. Simon and Schuster had to do it this way because -- other than the three or four leaked (dishonest) paragraphs about her finding out about Monica from Bill -- there is actually zero interesting, controversial or salacious material in the book. If you can't sell the book because of the content, you've got to sell the event. I think it's a con and I would love to see one of the breathless reporters covering Hillary actually do some truth-squad work on this.

Count me among those who are extremely grateful Hillary wrote her book. Her book tour means she's not on Capitol Hill making this train wreck of a piece of legislation on Medicare and prescription drugs any worse than it's shaping up to be. Now if only Republicans would write books and get off Capitol Hill, too, so they don't make this piece of garbage worse.

Do you trust Hillary? "I don't trust any politicians. Well, I guess I have to trust my boss (an unnamed US Senator), but that is about it."

You work in the Senate; they’re in session right now. Shouldn’t you be at work? "What my boss doesn't know, doesn't hurt him. This is just a really long lunch break."

Does it matter that Bill cheated? "Oral sex is not a sin."

Why is it ok that Bill lied about Monica? "It takes a superhuman strength to tell the truth. I lied to my wife for 35 years of marriage. Until I came out as a gay man and divorced her."

Do you fault him for lying? "What's the use of being President if you can't get a little head once in awhile?"

Were all of the allegations against the Clintons spawned by a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? "Maybe 10% were valid. But not enough to decapitate the White House."

The most obvious reason to support Hillary for President? "Men have been screwing [the presidency] up for years, it's about time we gave a woman a chance."

And the number one reason to buy Hillary's book? "I'm getting it as a Father's Day present to torture my Republican father-in-law."

Reuters is reporting that the US will block further spending on NATO's new headquarters in Brussels because of a Belgian law that gives Belgian courts the power to try foreigners for 'human rights crimes' regardless of whether those crimes have any connection with Belgium. Donald Rumsfeld is quoted as saying that "It would obviously not be easy for US officials...to come to Belgium for meetings. Therefore our position is that it would not make much sense to build a new headquarters if they can't come here for meetings".

Quite right. Warsaw, I'm sure, would be more than pleased to fill the gap.

The Daily Telegraph notes that, "as tempers frayed at the final session of 105-strong forum, Mr Hain was booed for pledging defiantly that the Government would never agree to give up the veto on foreign policy or taxation." Charming.

The British government has the power to veto this whole wretched constitution. It should now do so.

I'm told our spam piece will be up tomorrow. Here TechCentralStation weighs in.

Maybe all this stuff about the power of blogs and the influence of NRO is for real. The excerpt I posted below is now gone from the obit that's up there. Good thing I saved a copy of the original or I'd have no proof.

At the end of the ABCNews.com obit for David Brinkley it says:

Sandwiched between conservative George Will and outspoken Sam Donaldson, Brinkley was the objective moderator. But he revealed a bit of himself at the end of each show in a short commentary. "

So conservative over here, "outspoken" over there, objective in the middle. What else could "outspoken" mean? Of course, I kind of like the implication. No ideas, no ideology: just a lot of loud talking.

Bush spends too much money. Period. This is one of the downsides of so-called compassionate conservatism, because inherent to the very concept is that the governmemt should do something to prove its "compassion." Combine this wih the Rovian desire to expand the Republican base to constituencies who want more -- rather than less -- from government and you have recipe for vast expansions in government spending. I think Bush is a good president and I think he's a conservative president. But he is also a big government president in many respects. There's less of a contradiction there than some think, by the way, but that's a conversation for another day.

That's the topic for the Dry Toilet 2003 conference in Tampere, Finland.

In her review of Evan Thomas’s new biography on John Paul Jones, the New York Times’s Janet Maslin makes a shocking comment about America’s first naval hero: “Thus galvanized to commit feats of what now look like terrorism, he [John Paul Jones] challenged Britain's complacency about its naval power.”
Which of Jones’s victories “look like terrorism”? A genuine hero of the Revolutionary War, Jones raided British commerce and won a series of stunning actions against the vastly superior Royal Navy, notably against HMS Drake (1777) and HMS Serapis (1779), all of which were completely legitimate acts of war, both then and now. This kind of offhand relativist smear is sad, especially at a time when the Navy Jones helped build is engaged in a struggle against real terrorists. President Theodore Roosevelt’s remarks at Jones’s tomb in the U.S. Naval Academy chapel offer a good rejoinder to Maslin:

"The future naval officers, who live within these walls, will find in the career of the man whose life we this day celebrate, not merely a subject for admiration and respect, but an object lesson to be taken into their innermost hearts. . . . Every officer . . . should feel in each fiber of his being an eager desire to emulate the energy, the professional capacity, the indomitable determination and dauntless scorn of death which marked John Paul Jones above all his fellows."

A real class act.

How does Erica Jong breathe up there? From the NY Observer:

"The woman [HRC] is stronger than Queen Elizabeth I of England, a greater strategist than Catherine the Great of Russia, braver than Boadicea or the Amazons of old. And yet the demands of fame in America are such that she has to grovel to the appalling level of reality TV to get our undivided attention. The fault, dear readers, is not in Hillary, but in our ghastly mass media, which only applauds brainy women when we are reduced to tears." -- Eric Jong (link via Andrew Sullivan)

Sorry to correct even further, but ALL the battelships have been decommissioned. Wisconsin could possibly be re-commissioned, but Iowa, New Jersey and Missouri have been either damaged (Iowa, 1987 explosion) or demilitarized for museum display to an extent that they would be really, really hard to reactivate. Damn it.

KING: Clear up something for us. You've written this details of how he told you, the morning he told you, the grand jury. Others are saying you had to know before. There's a book out that said David Kendall told you before. Now no one knows it better than you.

KING: What do you make of the stories that you knew before?

KING: Didn't read the paper?

KING: Didn't watch the news?

KING: So when he told you is when he told you?

KING: A few more items. Why did you not discuss the pardons?

KING: Didn't you as citizen have some thoughts about it?

KING: Didn't bother you at all?

KING: How did the Rose Law Firm's Whitewater billing arrive into the White House?

KING: You don know how they got there?

KING: How do you feel about Susan McDougal?

KING: In the Senate yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff came up to be a federal court appeals judge. The vote was 88-1. You were the one.

KING: Why?

KING: So you didn't think him worthy of a judgeship then?

KING: Could have skipped the vote, couldn't you?

KING: So you were making a statement?

KING: Would you describe the marriage today as strong and healthy? Or am I putting words in your mouth?

When Schumer asked Pryor whether he stands by an earlier comment calling the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law," Pryor said he still believes that.

Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked the nominee whether he would vigorously follow Roe v. Wade as current law, even though he opposes it.

"You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman," Pryor said.

Schumer: "I am disappointed to say that [Judge Pryor] resembles the nine nominees I have voted against. In many ways he is an amalgamation of [Bush's recent nominees]. He looks like Sutton on states rights issues. And he looks like Kuhl and Owen on women's rights. He is a stitching together of the worst judges I have opposed."

Schumer: "It's not enough to say 'I will follow the law.'...I need to see that your personal ideology won't influence your decisions."

Schumer: "[Pryor's] beliefs are so deeply held that it's very difficult to believe those views won't influence how he follows the law. A person's views matter."

Schumer: "I find it difficult to believe his incredibly strong ideology won't impact how he rules."

Schumer: "I believe a judge can be pro-life and follow Roe v. Wade. Some people can separate their personal views. But not everyone can pull this off. I've got some real concerns that [Pryor] can't."

Schumer: "Your record screams passionate advocate, but doesn't so much as whisper judge."

Schumer: "I don't think ideological warriors should predominate on the bench. If we have a Supreme Court justice nominee, I hope he looks like Richard Wessley, and less like he comes straight out of the Right-Wing Wheel House."

Schumer: "Pryor has a long way to go to prove he is a fair and impartial judge."

Schumer: "When you believe abortion is murder, how can you convince the public that you are capable of being fair?"

Feinstein: "I believe one can be a strong advocate and can be a good, impartial judge. But in this case, my theory is put to the test. In virtually every area, you have strong beliefs. Your comments on Roe make one wonder if you could step aside from those views."

Kennedy: "You want to roll back the Constitution to fit your agenda. You're an advocate so extreme that your statements at times are intemperate."

The answer to Punkvoter.com: GOPunk.com

There was an episode of Cheers where the gang goes bowling. Norm ducks into the bowling alley bar and the regulars there all shout "Norm!" When Norm returns to the Cheers gang, they ask what was up with that. He says, "I do have a life you know" -- or something like that. Well, I have another "life" as a syndicated columnist. I get very different email over there, because my syndicated column appears in newspapers around the country and hence is read by more liberals and the like than NRO (NRO has lots of liberal readers, but most of them tend to be people genuinely interested in reading the other side's point of view).

Anyway, my column on the DNC layoffs appeared in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. Here's a typical response:

Dear Right Wing Propaganda Tool,

What a joke you are maligning the DNC, lame as it may be, about reverse racism (the DNC 10). Let’s not forget, YOUR party is the party of Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc. etc. YOUR party just got Sonny Perdue elected in Georgia on the promise of reinstating the Confederate Battle Flag. YOUR party got black voters DROPPED FROM THE ROLLS to elect Bush in 2000. YOUR party does not have one African-American representative in congress nor a senator. YOUR party uses code words like “state’s rights” to get out the southern white racist vote.

Using your ill-gotten Inquirer platform to harangue the DNC about racism is so typical of the blistering, festering HYPOCRISY that makes up right wing ideology. At some point people will see through it, and you and your kind will be exposed as the liars you know you are.

Sincerely,
[Name withheld]

Punkvoter.com.

First, let me say that I am a huge fan and faithful reader of all things NR. So it pains me to have to send this correction: There are no "battleships" currently deployed to the Persian Gulf, or anywhere else. A "battleship" is a specific type of warship, of which the U.S. Navy has only three that are currently commissioned (four, if you count the U.S.S. Missouri). All are essentially on display somewhere, and are not ready for active duty. Whenever I hear this, it sets my teeth to grinding at a furious rate. John Scott on FNC used this term so much, I had to go see the dentist. I have the same reaction to the term "fighter jets". It sounds like a fourth-grader talking. My teeth and I would be grateful (sorry) if you would pass this tidbit on to everyone else.

I like the idea that one can read something and end up knowing less about the subject matter afterwards. It reminds me of the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode of Star Trek where the animals starved to death by eating vast amounts of the poisoned quadrotriticale. Anyway, I agree there are big problems with the piece. I was really just trying to keep my powder dry until I wrote about it -- and be cordial to Caldwell. But I do think the piece is worth reading and I do think it's interesting. It's interesting because it further bolsters the complaint -- fair or unfair -- against the Standard as a champion of statist conservatism. It's worth reading because it reveals how one would go about fixing the problem (and I do think spam is a problem) once you decide that Uncle Sam is the right handyman.

A German of Polish descent who converted to Islam nabbed by the French for a bombing in Tunisia. It's like Hell's version of a busy day at the Epcot Center.

My dad hasn't had a license for 40 years. I didn't get mine until college. Just one more of many, many reasons NYC isn't like the rest of America.

Rick - All true. But the good news is she's already slipped to #3 on Amazon. Expect her book to disappear once the word of mouth gets out that it's as dull as she is.

Chris Caldwell has a very interesting cover story on email spam in the current Weekly Standard. I'm thinking about doing a G-File about web stuff, so I'll leave my quibbles for another time. But I do think it is worth reading even if I don't agree with all of it.

I just listened to CNN's Bill Schneider report on their latest polls on the Clintons. One item struck me as particularly silly. Schneider noted that 49% of Americans said that we are better off under George Bush than we were under Bill Clinton. Forty-six percent said we were better off under Clinton. Schneider seemed to be saying that this "tie" revealed a "wave of Clinton nostalgia" in part due to the Hillary book-blitz. Come on. It's certainly plausible for lots of folks to say that we were better off without a war on a terror and with a booming economy under Clinton than we are today. That hardly means people are nostalgic for Clinton. They might be nostalgic for the peace and prosperity (hollow though they might have been) of the 1990s. Meanwhile, hypothetical match-ups between Bush and Clinton have Bush winning by a mile.