Britain has a massive problem with burglary, a problem compounded by the indifference of the police and the frequently hostile attitude taken by the authorities to the householder who tries to defend himself. There’s a good editorial on this topic in the latest London Spectator, but no mention, alas, of something that might help sort out this problem.

A law giving Britons rights roughly equivalent to the Second Amendment

What's wrong with the EU 'consitution'? Noel Malcolm explains. In addition to the familiar – and valid – objections, there’s this:

"But if this draft European Constitution is in some ways a typical federal constitution, in other ways it is one of the most disturbingly untypical constitutions ever written. The purpose of any constitution is to set out the fundamental structure of authority of the state - the powers of the parliament, government and judiciary, the basic rules for elections and citizenship, and so on. A constitution is about legality and political authority. It is not about the particular policies which a government, once it was legally elected, might or might not wish to pursue.

This constitution, on the other hand, is stuffed full of policy statements. The third of its four main sections is actually entitled "The Policies and Functioning of the Union". These policies are mostly defined in terms of "objectives", which range from the sublime ("peace" and "social justice") to the ridiculous ("protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen").

They include full employment; "high levels" of health protection and consumer protection; "dialogue between management and labour"; reducing disparities between the regions; raising the incomes of farmers; and, by the by, eradicating poverty in the developing world. In addition, there is a lengthy "Charter of Fundamental Rights", which contains a further wish-list of policies (workers' consultation, the universal right to strike, and so on).

Most of these matters are the sort of thing which, in any democratic state, are left to the politicians to deal with. Some are necessarily contentious (imagine the howls of protest if Mrs Thatcher had tried to impose a British constitution which said that governments must not make full employment their priority). Others, even if universally approved, must still be subject to political decisions, because resources will always be finite. Yet in the new Europe, these policy "objectives" will be constitutional imperatives; the European Parliament will be able to "request" that they be implemented; and, most crucially of all, "the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives". "

Democracy? Not if Brussels gets its way.

The nuns, presented as consistently evil, money-grubbing, merciless hags, have no emotional depth. They are as exaggerated in their sadism as Ingrid Bergman is in celestial benevolence in "The Bells of St. Mary's" -- the film Sister Bridget sheds a crocodile tear over at a Christmas screening. Not one ounce of human kindness -- not to mention Christian compassion -- can be found under any wimple or collar.

This painting with broad brush strokes is better suited for the propagandist than the dramatist. Regrettably, drama is jettisoned along with objectivity since this kind of stacking the deck drains the narrative of any inner tension. The result is a cavalcade of cartoonish vignettes which present to viewers about as nuanced a picture of Irish nuns as 1915's "The Birth of a Nation" did of African-Americans.

According to one who attended, Shriver, a veteran journalist for NBC News, sat at one end of the table, the action star at the other. "She ran the meeting," this agent said of the grilling, which continued even after Schwarzenegger left the room.

The message: To win Arnold, you had to win over Maria.

Shriver's strong hand in Schwarzenegger's professional choices suddenly looms as a factor in California's political future. As Schwarzenegger deliberates a run for governor on the Oct. 7 recall ballot, nearly a dozen business intimates say the decision will be heavily influenced by a wife who has often functioned as a de facto personal manager.

FMCSA finds no inconsistency in its authorization to States to offer CDL tests in languages other than English, while at the same time requiring motor carrier employers to ensure a level of English proficiency for drivers on our public highways. The tests, training and study manuals associated with obtaining a CDL are complex. Therefore, the administration of the CDL test in languages other than English is justified.

So the question for the Americans is not whether you want to send 2,000 boys in to get picked off for a few months, until whichever warlord is willing to be bought can be installed as head of a provisional government after a token ‘election’ for the benefit of the international community (Taylor held his in 1997). The question is whether you want to commit yourself to fixing West Africa.

I know how most Americans would answer that. But the Bush administration thinks more about the Dark Continent than its predecessor did. Disease in Africa, for example, has been identified as a potential national security threat. An American diplomat recently described to me the war on terror as a Saudi civil war that the Saudis had successfully exported to the rest of the world. What would it take to export West Africa’s troubles to the world? For some no-account nickel’n’dime operator, Charles Taylor has done a grand job of destabilising a region. Where’s next? Benin? Togo? If you don’t think West Africa can be contained, it’ll have to be cured, and that’s a 30-year project. Otherwise, George F. Kennan’s argument against intervention in Somalia holds for the west of the continent, too: ‘This dreadful situation cannot possibly be put to rights other than by the establishment of a governing power for the entire territory, and a very ruthless, determined one at that. It would not be a democratic one, because the very prerequisites for a democratic political system do not exist among the people in question.’

On the other hand, if anyone in the Bush administration were to start talking about Liberia in those terms, you can pretty much guarantee that Howard Dean, Bishop Griswold and all the other enthusiastic interventionists would be marching up and down chanting, ‘It’s all about diamonds!’

The Rolling Stones (sorry, David) have been performing in Prague. Amongst the highlights, an appearance by Vaclav Havel. He appeared on stage and presented a T-shirt to Keith Richards. The T-Shirt's slogan?

"F--k the Communists."

Press reports note that the T-shirt drew "laughs and applause" from the audience.

Czech communists are, reportedly, offended by this gesture. Well, Havel is right, f--k 'em. Their party was responsible for the murder, jailing or exile of tens of thousands of people - and that's really something to be 'offended' by.

Stan - I agree that Canada's policies on gay marriage are significant, but they do not constitute an irresistable undertow for the United States of America. We are different countries. If Canada were our future we would be holding bake sales for the Pentagon budget and the Post Office would be running health care. Americans and Canadians have many things in common but they also have a great many things not in common. Arguing that Canada is leading the way for the US must be demonstrated. And the historical record on major issues like health care, foreign policy, the United Nations, taxes, etc etc suggests that such a demonstration would be at least difficult.

As for the American Law Institute, I don't know enough, but I don't see why we have to let the American Law Institute settle these questions for us. You assert that the Law Commission of Canada and the ALI are "rough equivalents" in your Standard piece. I take you at your word, but I do know a little about the Canadian Law Commission's power and influence -- as well as Canada's general acceptance of rule by the courts -- and I must say I'm a little skeptical that the ALI has the same authority here.

And as for slippery slopes, I have a long record as a skeptic of such arguments, but all I'll add is that I agree with Noah Millman. If you are going to use them at all, you need to demonstrate very carefully that A must force B into existence and that B requires C and so on. You cannot simply say that B is more likely once A happens, or that it would be intellectually consistent if supporters of A also campaigned for B. People aren't consistent and they don't follow through on their convictions simply because a straight-line prediction of their rhetoric suggests they should.

Andrew floats a compromise: a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that states wouldn't have to recognize one another's same-sex marriages. (He says he doesn't support it but offers it as a suggestion. I'm not sure on what grounds he does not support it wholeheartedly, given the federalist case he makes for it.) I might support his modified marriage amendment if it were modified again, to reach down to bar state judiciaries from imposing same-sex marriage. Andrew doesn't seem to object to such judicial activism.

He writes, "Much bigger majorities opposed inter-racial marriage in 1967, when it was finally protected, than now oppose same-sex marriage. But then those evil judicial activists imposed equal marriage rights on an unwilling populace." Does anyone have any numbers on this? Had no states democratically lifted their prohibitions on interracial marriage in 1967? Did sizable majorities think that interracial marriage was not only something to be avoided, but something to ban?

I am a business lobbyist (and lifelong NR reader) and I will be speaking before a group of college-age students from Arab nations.

I've read so many NRO column... that I can't remember the most salient one on the development of the Arab world, esp. the need for mitigating civic institutions (independent judiciary, mosque/state separation, secure property rights, and so on).

Could you please recommend the best items from the NRO archive so I can use them as handouts for my students? I just learned a few minutes ago that I'm up against the state political director of AFL-CIO, who has truly far-left views on government intervention in the economy.

Nicholas Antongiavanni of the Claremont Institute is miffed that various respondents to his post about John have failed to understand its nuances. It is the constant lament of a writer. In this case, the headline over Antongiavanni's post contributed to the confusion (if it is a confusion). My own disagreements with Antongiavanni--always leaving open the possibility that I too am insufficiently attuned to his deeper meanings--are several. (I will leave aside his assumption that he knows the ins and outs of personnel decisions at National Review.)

First, he conflates paleoconservatism with foreign-policy realism. The paleos may like realism better than neoconservatism, and some of them may even think of themselves as realists, but there really is no reason to treat a realist turn as a paleo turn. Calling the paleos isolationists isn't exactly right either, but it's closer to the truth than calling them realists--and surely nobody needs instruction on the difference between realism and isolationism?

Second: Having characterized the National Interest's philosophy on the basis of three articles contained in one issue of it, Antongiavanni goes on to complain that his views are being attributed to Claremont as an institution. I think it much fairer to say that the journal has been open to various views, with a strong tilt toward a non-paleoconservative realism. John is friendly with various paleos, and I do not doubt that a few of them will be published in the National Interest. But I wouldn't go further than that.

Finally, I don't believe it is true that O'Sullivan has a "paleo-realist background," unless opposition to continuous mass immigration is all it takes to be a paleo (in which case I'm one too). Certainly National Review under John's editorship was not a paleo mag.

“I have degrees in electrical, mechanical and metallurgical engineering and a certification in nuclear engineering and I can find no flaws in the technology. They are going on-line at a Con-Agra plant in Missouri this week, making turkey offal into #2 diesel and water…. When I first read about it, I thought it have the sociological impact of manned flight... I still think so.”

Nice profile of Mickey Kaus. Personally, I want to read one about Derb.

Sugar, if you think that's porn browsing you've got to change the filters on your browser. But if you must know a "friend" sent it to me.

Andrew, I'm with you. As I mentioned Monday, I think it will be very interesting to see how people respond to JOS's stewardship of The National Interest. For years, people have called the National Interest "neocon" solely, it seems, because Irving Kristol founded it and it is the sister publication of the Public Interest. But this has always been a superficial and lazy categorization. I mean, just look at the name. It's the National Interest. If it were the "neocon" publication the ignorant claim it is, you'd think it would have some other title like maybe "The Human Interest." The magazine has always been realist with a tolerance for certain neoconservative arguments when they dovetail with America's national interests. Also, many observers have long misunderstood Irving Kristol's foreign policy which has always been less "neo" than, say, Bill Kristol's. Irving was for US withdrawal from NATO when such suggestions elicited cries of "isolationism" from Norman Podhoretz and the Commentary crowd when offered by others. In fact, it would make a great article to see how much Irving and Bill Kristol disagree over foreign policy. My guess is they disagree a lot.

As for John O'Sullivan, I may disagree with him on some issues, but the idea that he's a "Paleocon" of the Buchanan variety is also a distortion and I'm surprised anyone at Claremont would say such a thing. As a close observer of the NI (Full disclosure: I dated three female editorial staffers there (at different times), and the best man at my wedding is a former Managing Editor), I think JOS is both an exciting and logical choice for the job.

Too many people talk about "neos" and "paleos" like they're names on baseball cards -- identifiable by a team name and a uniform and little else. But don't get me started on that.

Technological savvy could turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year.

I don't want to get too deep back into the gay marriage stuff. But I thought it might be helpful to point out something: just because queer radicals -- or whatever they're called -- want to open the floodgates to let the entire Star Wars cantina into the institution of marriage does not mean they will be successful (and again, I'm not in favor of same-sex marriages, but I do favor some compromise on unions).

First of all, the radicals are right that marriage -- same sex or hetero -- is an inherently conservative institution. The slippery slopists too often take for granted that pro-marriage homosexuals will be enemies in the fight against polyamory, incestuous marriage and the like. But it's just as likely that many of these folks would be allies in such a fight -- as the radicals fear. It is human nature to protect what you have. And I suspect that many same-sex couples would suddenly become quite "conservative" on some of these other assaults.

Second, anti-marriage radicals have not won their arguments on purely heterosexual terms either. For example, when I was the producer of the PBS series "Think Tank," we did a show on whether divorce is too easy. One of our guests was Ellen Willis, a radical feminist, left-libertarian. I don't have the transcript, but she made one incredibly memorable comment which has always stuck with me. The gist of it was that when she was younger she'd hoped to have children one day in a communal arrangement where her neighbors and friends saw no distinctions between her children and their own. My child is your child and vice versa. She was dismayed that when she finally did have children no such communities existed. Of course, this runs entirely counter to human nature and is baldly absurd. I remember thinking at the time that this was how certain breeds of penguin raise their offspring. If a mommy penguin takes five babies penguins into the water, she must come out with five baby penguins. But they don't have to be the same ones she went in with.

Now, I may be butchering my understanding of the chick-rearing behaviors of penguins (I'd learned all that on a nature show, I think). But I'm fairly certain I've got the spirit of Willis' remarks right. My point is that radicals believe in all sorts of crazy guano, not just crazy stuff about gays. And, they are rarely fully successful and even more rarely completely satisfied. The assumption I think many of the opponents of gay marriage are making is that if the radicals are successful on A, they will also be successful on B, C, D, E, and all the way through Z. But each success breeds a response and changes the dynamics of the debate. We saw this with feminism and loads of other isms. The radical feminists wanted the moon and their opponents believed if the feminists succeeded at any stage of their campaign they would succeed at all of them. But the reality was that after their first major successes -- voting, for example -- the appeal of their movement and their arguments withered because the context changed and the radicals lost popular support. Static analysis doesn't work in economics and it doesn't work in culture either.

Bishop Fred Caldwell said he will pay $5 per hour for Sunday services and $10 an hour for the Thursday service. The idea came to him during his sermon Sunday. “Our churches are too segregated, and the Lord never intended for that to happen. It's time for something radical."

"I just want the kingdom of God to look like it's supposed to," he said. "There ain't going to be ghettoes in heaven."

Porn star action figures. Obviously, this link isn't for everyone.

Al Hunt offers a nice round-up of the conventional wisdom in his WSJ column. The only thing that bugs me is that he starts from the premise that because partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats are deeply split -- pro vs. con, obviously -- on George W. Bush that therefore Bush must be a deeply polarizing figure. There are a whole bundle of assumptions behind this very common thinking. First, it assumes that the country would be better off if the President always split the difference between black and white. Second, it assumes that this is somehow surprising or unnatural in a country evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. There is this bizarre notion that saw full flower during the McCain boomlet that "indepedent" thinking -- i.e. a little conservative, a little liberal, some Democrat, some Republican -- is somehow more intellectually honest than being all on one side of the issue or the other. Of course, some issues are more complicated than the party lines sometimes suggest, but there's no reason to believe that simply shmushing (not a word, but you get me) together the two "extreme" positions is any less simple-minded.

The economy grew by a better than expected 2.4% in the last quarter.

UPDATE: Woops. I should have said the economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.4%. The economy isn't growing at 10% -- yet.

“ A 24-year-old man was sentenced to death in Bangladesh for throwing acid on his nine-year-old bride, disfiguring and blinding her for life, prosecution lawyers said on Tuesday….

The Acid Survivors Foundation, a charity working for the acid victims, said the use of acid in domestic violence is on the rise in Bangladesh. The victims of acid attacks are usually women and girls…

Child marriages are banned in Bangladesh under the law, but the practice is nevertheless prevalent mostly in rural villages.”

I've never met Mr. Pryor, but his political life is a matter of public record. He has served the State of Alabama with distinction, enforcing its laws and court decisions fairly and consistently. This is why President Bush nominated him to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and why the Senate Judiciary Committee approved him last Wednesday for consideration by the full Senate.

But the committee debate on Pryor was ugly, and the vote to advance his nomination split exactly along party lines. Why? Because Mr. Pryor believes that Catholic teaching about the sanctity of life is true; that the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision was a poorly reasoned mistake; and that abortion is wrong in all cases, even rape and incest. As a result, Americans were treated to the bizarre spectacle of non-Catholic Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions defending Mr. Pryor's constitutionally protected religious rights to Mr. Pryor's critics, including Senator Richard Durbin, an "abortion-rights" Catholic.

According to Senator Durbin (as reported by EWTN), "Many Catholics who oppose abortion personally do not believe the laws of the land should prohibit abortion for all others in extreme cases involving rape, incest and the life and the health of the mother." This kind of propaganda makes the abortion lobby proud, but it should humiliate any serious Catholic. At a minimum, Catholic members of Congress like Senator Durbin should actually read and pray over the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" before they explain the Catholic faith to anyone.

You would think that if any member of the Senate Armed Services Committee understood a thing or two about futures markets, it would be the Cattle Queen of Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not only did Clinton display Soros-esque market timing during her days as a futures speculator, but she's a native of Chicago, home of the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. (It was the Merc where she famously turned $10,000 into $100,000 on cattle futures.) But the junior senator from New York was derisively dramatic when she described the Pentagon's proposed futures market for predicting terrorist strikes as a "futures market in death" as if it were a financial version of the death match in Stephen King's Running Man.

How we ultimately deal with the present crisis in our Church will do much to define us as Catholics of the future. If we do not flee from the cross of pain and humiliation, if we stand firm in who we are and what we stand for, if we work together, hierarchy, priests, religious and laity, to live our faith and fulfill our mission then, we will be a stronger and a holier Church.

This should be of some consolation to those victims who have opened old wounds in their own hearts by coming forward. Your pain will not be in vain if our Church and our nation become a safer place for children. I am pleased that so many victims have come to this installation Mass. The healing of our Church is inexorably bound up with your own healing. You are the wounds on the Body of Christ today. I am sure that many are skeptical and think that the Church leaders are like Simon the Cyrenean who carried the Cross only under duress and not from a genuine desire to help. Perhaps the journey began that way, but what we see in the community of faith is a spirit of repentance and a desire for healing. Despite the understandable anger, protests and litigation, we see you as our brothers and sisters who have been wronged. For this crisis has forced us to focus on what is essential, on Christ, on the saving power of the Cross and our call to follow in His mission to make the loving mercy of our Heavenly Father present in this world.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been given too much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.

“Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction. Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual behavior in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking "Do you want to have sex with me?" is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.”

A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex. Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape.

… If someone has initially consented but then stops consenting during a sexual interaction, she/he should communicate withdrawal of consent verbally (example: saying "no" or "stop") and/or through physical resistance (example: pushing away). The other individual(s) must stop immediately.

Eli Lehrer comes to the rescue.

Schwarzenegger out of California recall race

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger will not run for California's governor as part of the October vote on whether to recall incumbent Gov. Gray Davis, state Republican sources said Wednesday.

Schwarzenegger is expected to back Richard Riordan, a former Los Angeles mayor who unsuccessfully sought the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2002. Riordan said yesterday that he would not run if the star of the Terminator movies, who turned 56 on Wednesday, entered the race.

Davis faces an Oct. 7 recall vote that could unseat him. Voters will pick a successor as part of the same ballot.

The recall drive has been led by Rep. Darrell Issa, who hopes to replace Davis as the state's next governor. Bill Simon -- who narrowly lost to Davis in the 2002 election -- and state Sen. Tom McClintock also are likely GOP candidates.

Political gadfly Arianna Huffington has said she is considering running as an independent. -- CNN Political Editor John Mercurio in Washington contributed to this report.

A reader concurs:

Jonah,
I've been waiting for someone from NRO to address this news item. The media has (like Congress) reflexively rejected the futures market. I find this so depressing. I have my own view on the "whether" question concerning this proposed marketplace and I respect the fact that many have a differing view, but I'd like to intelligently debate it before it gets dismissed!!!

None of the issues raised (which are soooo interesting) were ever discussed. What a shame. Hopefully you or someone on NRO can dedicate some good thought to this.

Is the pricing of a life insurance contract any less morbid/moral than the pricing of an assassination? Why/why not? Why is one so accepted and the other denounced?

If terrorists profiting from their attacks is the most disgusting possible outcome from an events futures market, how can you not accuse all financial markets of the same potential atrocity? If Al Qaeda wanted to profit from its attacks it could have shorted anything in any stock market in the world on September 10th.

I don't know if my answers to these questions are the 'right' answers for us or the civilized world, but I sure would like to hear some intelligent discourse on the matter.

Next week, I leave for another Alaska fishing trip. This trip will be boys-only, leaving from Valdez, Alaska. My father-in-law will be the skipper and there will be adventure aplenty. After the fishing, me and a couple of my boys will be heading to Denali National Park to tease the grizzlies with our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches ("Hey Yogi: I bet you'd like some of this, well you can't have any!") Upon my return to the lower 48 the Fair Jessica, Cosmo, Lil' Lucy and I will be heading to Maine for the last two weeks of August. I'll probably post to the Corner sporadically through much of this and there may be a surprise G-File or two, but mostly I'll be out of touch, reading and writing for my book, drinking beer and getting ready for some full-tilt-boogie for freedom and justice at NRO in the Fall.

No U.S. Servicemen have been killed in the last 24 hours (knock on wood). This is very good news for several reasons. First, and most obvious, it's always good news when our troops don't get hurt. Second, the "resistance" knows that there is a huge PR value in killing at least one American every day. The "daily toll" story line is their greatest asset. Third, no US troops have been killed since Saddam's tape came out confirming that Uday and Qusay are dead. According to various broadcasts, this confirmed for millions of skeptical Iraqis that the pig boys were really dead. Saddam (or his sound alike) were clearly hoping their deaths would inspire more "martyrs" but maybe it had the opposite effect.

And, by the way, what in the world is wrong with "selective legitimacy" in the first place? We practive selective legitimacy in every sphere of life, don't we. We decide as a society and express through our laws the view that some people should be permitted to run for President (over 35 year-old, non-felon, native US citizens), we selectively decide who can vote (though we're probably not strict enough here), we selectively decide who can serve in the armed forces, who can drive a car, and so on and so on. The issue isn't selectivity. The issue is the criteria by which we make those selections. This strikes me as similar to those who denounce "censorship" but don't mind the rules preventing hardcore porn from appearing on family time broadcast television.

Nick - I largely agree with you. Look at the backlash in the polls on the gay stuff, the society is recoiling from what it sees as a rush to mainstreaming. This is just one more indication of why we shouldn't rely on the courts for issues like this.

But what I would add is that I'd have a lot more respect for Levine's position if I believed her and her kind when they say they want to privatize all social institutions. But, the fact is that if the private sector (aka the civil society) -- churches, schools, neighborhoods -- started to stigmatize club crawlers and drag queens, the sexual liberationists would claim that the state must step in and stop the private sector "oppressors." They would demand that the St. Patrick's Day Parade be forced to allow transgender biker sluts or whatever. They would insist that local merchants couldn't refuse to hire drag queens. In other words, I just don't believe many on the liberationist left when they say they want the government to "get out" of the "selective legitimacy" business. What they want is for the government to save the deviants from the application of selective legitimacy wherever it rears its judgmental head. I know that Charles Murray's form of libertarianism allows for the Burkean "little platoons" to apply selective legitimacy when necessary.

I come to you--in the midst a great global conflict against evil--with a simple message: "Be Not Afraid."
I do not say this as a foreigner, cavalier in my estimation of the dangers that surround you.
Instead, I say it as an ally, in spite of the terrifying predators who threaten all free nations, especially Israel.
My country is not ignorant, nor are we indifferent to your struggle.
We know our victory in the war on terror depends on Israel's survival.
And we know Israel's survival depends on the willingness of free nations--especially our own--to stand by all endangered democracies in their time of need.
We hear your voice cry out in the desert, and we will never leave your side.
Because freedom and terrorism cannot coexist.
Terrorism cannot be negotiated away or pacified. Terrorism will either destroy free nations, or free nations will destroy it.
Freedom and terrorism will struggle--good and evil--until the battle is resolved.
These are the terms Providence has put before the United States, Israel, and the rest of the civilized world.
They are stark, and they are final.

Hey look, I think this terror market stuff was a dumb idea politically, bureaucratically, and diplomatically. But I wish Democrats and me-too Republicans and the media generally would stop talking about it as if it is transparently idiotic scientifically. I listened to an NPR report this morning that made the idea sound as dumb as making aircraft carriers out of twine and water-soluable glue. First of all, the guys at DARPA are very, very smart. Second, economists, mathemeticians, statisticians etc all agree that markets are very clever at figuring stuff out that individuals cannot. I'm not saying I think this is a great scientific idea, I am saying that I don't know enough to dismiss it as scientifically stupid on its face. And, I don't think many of these Senators or talking heads know enough either.

Rich - Isn't it possible this is all b.s.? I mean the Saudis need some cover, so they publicly beg the Bush Administration to release the 28 pages to clear their "good name" but privately ask them to keep it quiet. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but this does sound pretty consistent with how the Saudis operate.

But marriage—forget the "gay" for a moment—is intrinsically conservative. It does not just normalize, it requires normality as the ticket in. Assimilating another "virtually normal" constituency, namely monogamous, long-term, homosexual couples, marriage pushes the queerer queers of all sexual persuasions—drag queens, club-crawlers, polyamorists, even ordinary single mothers or teenage lovers—further to the margins. "Marriage sanctifies some couples at the expense of others," wrote cultural critic Michael Warner. "It is selective legitimacy."

The fact that Durbin and company would tar others the same way they abuse Pryor doesn't excuse their bigotry, it just illustrates how expansive it is. No one who takes seriously a theologically conservative faith need apply. Anti-Catholic, anti-Evangelical, anti-Mormon.

Sen. Sessions et al are not suggesting the committee Dems discriminate only against Catholics. Rather, they are protesting that every committed, obedient Catholic will be rejected because of his views. Is it mitigation, or grist for Cohen's diatribe that the committee would treat other believers the same way? I think not. You're scoring a lawyerly debate point and missing the valid criticism of a bigoted and outrageous tactic.

After linking from your Corner post to the Reuters story about the possible tape of Saddam mourning his sons, I clicked on the associated photo showing their bodies lying in a morgue. The Reuters caption referred to "two bodies said to be the corpses" of Uday and Qusay Hussein (emphasis mine). I thought it interesting that Reuters is so skeptical.

Perhaps he was trying to do the right thing, perhaps he was just searching for gloire, or perhaps it was a bit of both, but Dominique de Villepin seems to have been involved in murky business on the Colombia/Brazil border. The aim was to assist in the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt, the Colombian presidential candidate (she also has French citizenship) kidnapped by FARC terrorists last year. The plan? Betancourt would be handed over to her sister and a local priest and then flown out to safety on a French military plane. Sadly, for reasons that are not altogether clear the handover never took place, leaving Ms Betancourt in the hands of her captors and a large number of unanswered questions, of which the most interesting are whether there was a side deal to take a FARC leader to France for medical treatment, and why, exactly, the deal was aborted.

The other mystery? Whether anybody informed the Brazilian and Colombian authorities or, for that matter, Jacques Chirac, in advance. A number of denials, clarifications and enigmatic statements from the principal parties don't shed much light on the matter. There doesn't seem to be a great deal in English on this strange saga (the London Times has something, but the link requires subscription), but there's this from the BBC and the more linguistically adventurous may want to try here and here.

Sure is nice to have Lowry back around.

Why does Verizon DSL stink today. I keep losing connections -- and Corner posts. Someone must be punished.

Andrew - Isn't this story good news? Don't we want the international left to lose its patience and start filing complaints at the good guys as much and as quickly as possible? What better way to discredit this stuff early?

"I'll be your best friend." "You can have the rest of my ice cream." "Pretty please with maple syrup on top." "I'll tell you my secret if you tell me yours"

These are just some of the words not being overheard coming out of the interrogation room where they're "debriefing" Saddam's bodyguard.

Do you remember when we met That's the day I knew you were my pet I want to tell you how much I love you

Another of my syndicated columns launched from subjects discussed in the Corner. I've found the Corner especially useful for test-driving ideas for work elsehwere. So, well, thanks.

(Sorry, my feminist Randian side made its quadrennial appearance).

The first UK stockbroking service complying with Islamic law has been launched. Britain's 1.8 million Muslims will be able to enjoy a tailored stockbroking service which will be equipped to advise on whether an investment complies with Sharia law.

John Poindexter, the Pentagon division chief behind the notorious Total Information Awareness mega-database, is at it again. Now, he's heading up an effort to build a kind of stock market for terrorist strikes. The New York Times reports, "traders bullish on a biological attack on Israel or bearish on the chances of a North Korean missile strike would have the opportunity to bet on the likelihood of such events on a new Internet site" established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Information Awareness Office.

Bill Clinton Declares California Residency William Jefferson Clinton, a professional public speaker, said today that he is officially a resident of the state of California. Mr. Clinton said his move "is" unrelated to the gubernatorial recall election coming up this fall.

"I've always been a Californian in my heart," said Mr. Clinton. "Although I had not heard of the recall situation, I am, of course, a servant of the people. Let the will of the citizens be done."

Perhaps the readers are correct in a technical sense. However, I was calculating California's expenditure growth if a Colorado-style expenditure cap had been in place. The Colorado limit is clearly inflation plus population growth. The text of the Colorado measure:

"(7) Spending limits. (a) The maximum annual percentage change in state fiscal year spending equals inflation plus the percentage change in state population in the prior calendar year, adjusted for revenue changes approved by voters after 1991."

Subject: Wrong on Pine Tar Rich- Please see [this link]. I have known this since the Pine Tar incident in 1983, as my friend had just gone to camp to try and become an MLB umpire.

MacPhail really sandbagged the both Yankees and his umpires with his decision. Brett had actually broken 2 existing rules:

=> 1.10c, which regulated the permissible amount of Pine Tar and

=> 6.06d, which defined the penalties for use of an illegal bat, which include being called out and being ejected.

Whether it was the "spirit" or not, it was in the written rules. Billy Martin and the umps were actually "Strict Contructionists," while Brettwas the beneficiary of an "emanating penumbra.

That's outstanding news about JOS taking over the reigns of the National Interest. I think he'll do a great job. Though without meddling in the office politics of the NI, I should say I thought Adam Garfinkle was doing a great job from the perspective of an outside observer. That said, good for O'Sullivan. Maybe -- just maybe -- the press will stop referring to the National Interest as a "neocon" magazine now.

I've found that if California had limited expenditure increases to the inflation rate plus population growth, then the state would have saved $58 billion since 1998. This could eliminate the $38 billion deficit and leave $20 billion for tax cuts. My calculations run as follows:

Year Population Actual spending Limited Spending Savings plus inflation

1998 0.0% $52.9 billion $52.9 billion $0

1999 3.7% $57.8 bilion $54.9 billion $2.9 billion

2000 9.0% $66.5 billion $57.7 billion $8.8 billion

2001 13.9% $78.1 billion $60.3 billion $17.8 billion

2002 17.6% $76.8 billion $62.2 billion $14.6 billion

2003 21.5% $7.81 billion $64.4 billion $13.8 billion

Total savings: $57.9 billion

Jonathan, don't worry, you really do have a choice whether or not to eat a Big Mac. If you're in any doubt, try this word game : ask someone who tells you that burgers are as addictive as heroin (a claim that some appear to be making) if he really thinks that heroin is no more addictive than a burger. The Wisconsin study appears to be a touch more subtle, but only a touch. Claiming that certain combinations of fat, sugar or salt can release "chemicals that are similar to drugs like heroin and morphine" in the brain may sound scary, but what does it actually mean? Not much. The fact that we may have "an emotional response to" this food is just a fancy way of saying that we enjoy it - a lot. The notion that this makes such food "addictive" reveals nothing more than the fact that our notions of addiction are hopelessly - and unscientifically - vague. There is another, better, word and it is nicely demonstrated by another expert cited in that article - one Jim Smith of Indiana. Smith claims to wonder whether burgers are addictive, noting that he couldn't stop at one. "I have to to have two. Same with French fries".

The word Jim should be looking for is not addiction, but gluttony.

I just saw the questions that you posted on NRO's The Corner about California's fiscal condition. I just authored a Cato Institute Briefing paper on this very topic.

To answer your questions:

A) In fiscal year 1998 the California state budget was $52.9 billion. In FY 2003 it was $78.1 billion. This is an increase of 47.6%.

B) Between 1998 and 2003 state population has increased by approximately 8.9%

B1) You need to consider inflation which has gone up by 12.6% between 1998 and 2003

C) If spending had increased by population growth plus inflation since 1998 (21.5%). Fiscal 2003 Spending would be at $64.3 billion. This is $13.8 billion less. Hence, the deficit would at least be $13.8 billion smaller.

*However* if spending were held in check, surpluses would have accumulated in previous years. These surpluses could also be used to reduce the size of the deficit. Assume *all* the surplus revenues from previous years 1998-2001, were placed in reserve. The reserve funds could be used to pay down the deficit and today California would likely have a small surplus left over.

The Brits need our help. They've started the British version of the Young Americans Foundation. Do what you can.

This is a great test of your Middle East geography skills. I did better than I feared and worse than I should have on the first try -- the only try that counts. Something tells me Derb will ace it.

I have to confess, I’m starting to change my mind about the Davis recall. I was against it, and I still have big problems with it. But after spending the weekend reading about the whole thing, I’m beginning to change my mind. I confess that my thinking is partly motivated by the fact that Davis really is such an incredible weenie. This is more of an important point than it sounds because it demonstrates that this recall isn’t merely typical voter fickleness or partisanship. Davis's lying weeniehood seems to meet the threshold set forth in the California Constitution for removing über-weenies from office. More important, while my principles incline me to being against it, I can’t shake the fact that if I lived in California I would probably vote to recall him. In other words, I think that an informed person living under the yoke of his ineptitude would be compelled to give him the heave-ho. Anyway, I’m still pondering.

Matt Jeffries, the designer for the original Star Trek, has died. The New York Times obit is fine, but for some reason it leaves out that the "Jeffries Tube" was named after him.

Fox Butterfield of the New York Times is famous for his ongoing astonishment that crime can fall while prison building increases. In August 2000, he wrote a story: "Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction." In 1998 he wrote "Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops." In 1997 he observed: "Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling." Well, it looks like the Times has been selling it's Kool Aid: here's the headline for an AP story in today's Washington Post : "Number Of Prisoners Rises as Crime Drops." Here's how it begins:

America's prison population grew again in 2002 despite a declining crime rate, costing the federal government and states an estimated $40 billion a year at a time of rampant budget shortfalls.

The inmate population in 2002 of more than 2.1 million represented a 2.6 percent increase over 2001, according to a report released yesterday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Preliminary FBI statistics showed a 0.2 percent drop in overall crime during the same span.

Professor Andrei Marmor of USC Law School, who also teaches in Israel, argues that under the principles of liberalism Israel has a moral obligation to commit suicide by permitting Palestinian refugees from Israel’s 1948 War of Independence and perhaps their descendants to “return” to Israel.

The FDA said it approved the treatment for the shortest 1.2 percent of children. For 10-year-old boys and girls, that would correspond to a height of less than 4 feet 1 inch. Their expected adult height without treatment would be less than 5 feet 3 inches for men and 4 feet 11 inches for women.

OK. Now, once those children have been given growth pills, somebody else will be in the bottom 1.2 percent. And once those children have been given growth pills...

Randy Newman once sang "Short people got no reason to live." Don't worry, Randy. We are about to be engineered out of the human race.

NOT roundabout at all. Presume you were traveling from New York City. The principal rail route to Toledo would always have been the New York Central (slogan "The Water Level Route -- You Can Sleep"), which would take you through Buffalo. Other routes such as the Lackawanna would wiggle through mountains. The NYC's biggest competitor, the Pennsylvania, was shorter to Chicago by 13 miles (so their slogan was "You Sleep Restfully") but that would not take you to Toledo. The Hudson valley is indeed lovely but best by car when we drive south towards NY on one side and return north on the other, avoiding both the NY Thruway and the Taconic Parkway. But come up this way and admire Interstate 87's scenic Adirondack route north towards Montreal (or the day train if you must).

What is the difference between the picture on a passport and the picture on an ID card? The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that the people objecting to women’s ID cards are doing it for another reason: to restrict a woman’s freedom and make her dependent on a man. That is not religion. That is pure male chauvinism.

So displaying dead bodies in public is against Islam, eh? Fair enough, but we didn’t hear much in the way of outrage from the mosques of the Middle East when this happened (the bodies, we read, were left out 'to deter others'), or this (before his hanging Najibullah, the former Afghan dictator had been castrated and dragged around town behind a jeep. His corpse was later put on display). And while we are on the topic, why the lack of criticism of the repulsive treatment of the slain Americans in Mogadishu or, for that matter, the silence after Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali publicly toyed with the corpses of Americans killed in the attempt to rescue the embassy hostages in Teheran?

Hypocrisy, that’s why.

Greenpeace is apparently now worried about the environmental consequences of nanotechnology. No great surprise there, but it’s still revealing to see the language used by the chief ‘scientist’ of Greenpeace UK (as reported in the Wall Street Journal):

“What we want to avoid is the situation where a small group of financially and technologically interested people develop something and thrust it on the rest of the world.”

Yikes, there go Gutenberg, and Ford, and Watt and...

Three women with criminal records broke into and vandalized a nuclear silo as some sort of a protest. Now they are in jail. Good. The women, who are nuns, appear to believe that their faith should exempt them from the law. The slippery slope argument is, of course, one to use with care, but the corollary of these nuns’ attitude is, ultimately, the right to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us regardless of the democratic process - theocracy, in other words.

Well, at least their sentences will give them time to reread the Bible. They should start with Luke 20, verse 25.

‘Alien abductions’ are a fairy tale for our times, an ancient superstition brought up to date for a technological society. ‘Recovered memories’ are scarcely more believable. These ought to be uncontroversial statements. Sadly, Harvard’s Susan Clancy found out that this was not the case. The New York Times magazine tells what happened to her.

Germans were, apparently, ‘offended’ by Berlusconi’s stupid remark in the European ‘parliament’ but not, it seems, by this:

”At least 30 people were killed during the [Red Army Faction’s ]long terror campaign that began in the 1960s. Despite this, its star logo is now in vogue in Germany, adorning T-shirts. The magazine Der Spiegel recently ran a Prada-Meinhof fashion feature in which models posed as terrorists, and a novel about the romance between Baader and a fellow terrorist Gudrun Ensslin is a best-seller. “

Or this:

"[An] exhibition of Red Army Faction memorabilia is being planned at a time when "terror chic" is on the rise in Germany, with catwalk models flaunting the crushed velvet flares and Ray-Ban sunglasses favoured by the late Marxist guerrilla leader Andreas Baader."

This looks to be a movie that is well worth seeing, but it’s difficult not to feel somewhat uneasy about it nonetheless. The Telegraph’s writer notes that “the old Communist world is in ruins, remote like Ozymandias himself, “ but then asks “how glorious is the world that has replaced it?” Well, not very (we are a most imperfect species), but it’s a lot better than what went before.

There are concerns in Russia that (RFE reports) antitotalitarian works by writers such as Boris Pasternak, Andrei Platonov, Anna Akhmatova, and Osip Mandelshtam have been removed from required-reading lists, while Soviet literary icons such as Mikhail Sholokhov continue to be taught. That’s worrying, and still more evidence that those who lived under Communism (or their descendants) have yet to come to terms with the horrors of the collectivist past. It's also worth remembering that until they do, nor will we.

Via blogger Amy Phillips, who also has some sensible views on vacation travel.

Definitive commentary on the BBC from this football (oh, “soccer”, sorry) writer:

“It's insane but we live in a country where it's illegal to watch - or even own - a television unless you pay the BBC money.

You can't argue about it.

You can't demand money back for all the years they paid Sid Little's wages. You can't demand a rebate because you don't want to see the bloody Proms or because Peter Sissons has a pointy head or because you think Andrew 'sexed up' Gilligan is a liar.

You just have to pay. No arguing.

The BBC can and does put people in jail for not paying them money to watch TV. Even if they don't watch the BBC much, or even at all.

You wouldn't think that watching TV is a crime punishable by imprisonment would you? But it is.

Once the BBC has our money, they spend a lot of it pompously telling us how we should 'get a different perspective'.

Of course, every weekend millions of us get a different perspective not by watching Jim Davidson on the Generation Game but by taking ecstasy and other mind-bending intoxicants, which is frankly the only way to endure much of the BBC's output.

They also spend a lot of time and money interviewing each other about how impartial, perceptive and wonderful they are, even though it is increasingly untrue. “

Way to go.

Via Andrew Sullivan

So Mick Jagger turned 60 over the weekend. That’s depressing news in its own right, but it's even sadder to read the following:

“He works out every other day in the gym, avoids fatty food, doesn’t smoke and drinks only the occasional glass of red wine.”

If it’s any consolation, Keith Richards, also turns 60 later this year. His health regime is, I believe, very, very different.