There seems to be some confusion among our readers. A number have written in to claim that the Brits were the evildoers in Star Wars. Ridiculous. That implies that audiences were meant to root for that rebellious rabble led by the insipid Skywalker. Surely no-one can have done that.

Others have written in with explanations for British bad guy syndrome. These have included the suggestion that contemporary Hollywood primarily recruits actors for their looks and thus it’s too much to expect its stars (at least in the early years of their careers) to attempt the complexities of a truly wicked character. That’s a huge generalization, of course, but there may something to it (although anyone who thinks that American actors can’t do evil need to check out a few Christopher Walken videos).

Another correspondent puts it down to accent:

“It's the accent, no question. Bad guys tend to wax philosophical and give spectacular dressings-down to their lackeys and other subordinates, all…while taunting the hero. Come ON -- is any of that going to fly with an Alabama drawl? “

There’s something to that too. Part of the answer, however, must be (and I hate to use this jargon) that we like to see villains as ‘the other’, and in our PC times the English are the last acceptable ‘other’.

Now I have to go out lunch with Vader. ‘The Darth’ is always such good company.

OUTRAGE OF THE WEEK Bush's Picks Ultra-Conservative Again for Federal Bench (WOMENSENEWS)--President Bush Friday nominated Californian Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., second only to the Supreme Court in power and prestige, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Brown is considered the most outspoken conservative member of the California Supreme Court. The 54-year-old justice is perhaps best known for her 2000 decision upholding Proposition 209, the voter-approved initiative that bans preferential treatment for women and minorities in public contracts, hiring and college admissions. If approved, Brown will take a seat on the bench often a potential steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Brown is one of a handful of judges the Bush administration is rumored to be considering once an opening occurs on the nation's highest court.

To Brok: To live in a state halfway between complete delusion and total sycophancy.

Thanks to blogger Terrance Coyle for bringing this remarkable individual to my attention.

Thanks to the readers who sent me this article from the Guardian. The piece (on Hollywood's distressing tendency to cast Brits as the bad guys) comes complete with the usual Guardian baggage, but it’s worth reading (Derb, you may be an American these days, but I think you will agree that the writer has a point):

“Jesus is usually an American in biblical epics. Judas, meanwhile, is just as likely to be a Brit. In The Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus was a Swede (Max von Sydow), but the formula held good for David McCallum's blond betrayer. And if they're not playing Judas, then the Brits will be all over the Roman imperial power structure, raining vicious blows down on the heads of Jesus and his 12 Americans.

Heston's Judah Ben-Hur faced off against Ulsterman Stephen Boyd as the gimlet-eyed Marsalla. Kirk Douglas's live-free-or-die-tryin' Spartacus gave Lawrence Olivier what for as the fascistic Crassus, and there was just no reasoning with David Bowie's Pilate in The Last Temptation of Christ. Even in Gladiator the formula was intact, despite the presence of an Australian hero and an American villain. Joaquin Phoenix may be as American as apple pie, but in order to pull off his villainous role he had to be fitted with a lisping English accent to underline his irremediable moral degeneracy…

…From all this it's a short step to Hitler the Englishman. Was there not a single American actor prepared to play young Adolf in the recent NBC mini-series based on Ian Kershaw's biography? Of course not, so they called on Robert Carlyle, a grown-up who fancied a challenge. And for Max, a film about Hitler the art student? Noah Taylor got the job. Heydrich in HBO's Conspiracy, about the Wannsee conference? Kenneth Branagh. You were expecting Alec Baldwin?

And even when it comes to such quintessentially American bad guys as Richard Nixon, they call on us again. Anthony Hopkins will never be topped in the role, but was there really no American actor interested in such a challenging job? Likewise Michael Gambon as LBJ in John Frankenheimer's excellent The Path to War, or even Emma Thompson as an ersatz Hillary Clinton in Primary Colors. Kennedy is always played by an American, just like Jesus, but Lee Harvey Oswald? Call Gary Oldman… “

Yup.

Thanks to my e-voting guy for this story from North Dakota, where, to their credit, officials were disturbed by the recent study that “concluded that Diebold's machine could be easily manipulated by someone with little computer savvy.

"Common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal," it said. "As a society, we must carefully consider the risks inherent in electronic voting, as it places our very democracy at risk."”

That’s right. The answer? A paper ballot and a ballpoint pen.

No, of course Schwarzenegger is no conservative, but Hugh Hewitt makes the case (just scroll down) why he may well be worth supporting by those who are.

And pompous nonsense such as this (from an article in the LA Times - needs annoying registration) will do nothing to discourage Arnie's army:

"Making his announcement on Jay Leno's "The Tonight Show" rather than a legitimate news venue was an insult to everyone who takes politics and California's problems seriously, indicating a candidacy more about self-promotion than public service. "

Oh, come off it.

Tim's comment on the Corner yesterday was dead right, however, Arnold has to do much better than he did on Friday morning's shows if he wants to win this campaign

If this report is right, John Ashcroft’s Justice Department is trying to smuggle in drug war legislation under the guise of fighting terror. Idiots.

As Instapundit puts it, “To be trusted with wartime powers, an Administration -- and an Attorney General -- needs to demonstrate trustworthiness and self-discipline. This effort to sneak in a pet DoJ issue that has nothing to do with terrorism fails the test.”

And not for the first time, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, in another reminder that this administration still doesn’t take the terrorist threat seriously enough, the Bush administration is dawdling over the certification of pilots who want to carry guns on commercial flights.

In the words of , Capt. Bob Lambert, president of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance "It just seems like we haven't learned very much from Sept. 11."

Seems not.

Jamie Gorelick sits on the 9/11 commission. She’s a Clinton era Deputy Attorney General, who now works as a litigation partner for the Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. So far so good. Now here’s the twist (via blogger Dwight Meredith). Wilmer, Cutler have reportedly agreed to represent ‘prince’ Mohammed al Faisal, a potential defendant in the litigation being brought by the 9/11 families against various prominent Saudis.

Now the ‘prince’ is entitled to legal representation, but you don’t have to be paranoid to think that there’s a clear problem here with conflict of interest. Remember that there doesn’t have to have been any actual impropriety to find a conflict. The mere potential is enough, or, in sensitive cases, even its perception. If investigating 9/11 isn’t sensitive, what is?

Gorelick should resign from the commission.

And while we’re on the subject of the commission, how about those 28 pages?

In yet another theocratic trash update (although in this case, it’s ‘alleged’ theocratic trash), the Guardian is reporting that the mothers of eight Russians held at Guantanamo have begged Washington not to extradite their sons to answer terror charges in Russia, fearing that conditions in their jails are worse than those at Camp Delta. Now, that shouldn’t be taken as the most ringing of endorsements (the Russian prison system is brutal) and the prisoners in question are hardly likely to want to alienate their American jailors at this point, but this quote from one Andrei Bakhitov is still worth repeating:

“Everything is fine with me…They give me books here and I am held in a clean place. The food is tasty. I want for nothing but freedom. Good people are sat around me."

Quite how Mr. Bakhitov defines “good people” is an entirely different matter.

It may be time to summon the men in white coats for some of the folks over at the Guardian. Writing in Saturday’s paper (to be fair, the headline is more alarmist than the text) Simon Tisdall implies that the Bush administration may be setting out to wreck its own diplomatic initiatives. The reason? The desire to use the threat of confrontation (or maybe even confrontation) to oust the regimes in Pyongyang and Teheran. A quick glance at the atlas (check out where Seoul is located) would suggest that this is nonsense. Pressure is not the same as warmongering.

Under secretary John Bolton (“human scum” according to Kim Jong Il, a man who knows a thing or two about that topic) comes under fire for describing North Korea's leader as a tyrannical despot and extortionist who "lives like royalty", Bolton said, while hundreds of thousands of his people were locked up and millions more endured a life of "hellish nightmare... scrounging the ground for food in abject poverty".

The Guardian obviously has a problem with diplomats who tell the truth, preferring to quote figures such as former ambassador James Goodby who has argues that “security assurances and economic incentives were what was really needed” to calm things down. This is nonsense. As a practical matter, Kim Jong Il probably could have had this some years ago, but he’s taken a different course, probably because the survival of his dictatorship depends, at least to an extent, on maintaining war psychosis at home.

As for Iran, it’s surprising to read a writer in such an exquisitely correct newspaper criticizing Tony Blair for “highlighting human rights issues.” Notice too the obvious unease with which Tisdall contemplates the overthrow of the mullahs. Now, Iran is a difficult case and there are some gung ho sorts who need to remember that wading in with too heavy a hand would almost certainly be a mistake. At the same time it’s no crime to at least hope that the theocratic trash that makes up that country’s leadership ends up where it belongs.

In jail.

Dear Peter:

Steve Hayward is right that Colorado is largely a replay of Proposition 1. [In 1992, voters in Colorado enacted a measure limiting increases in state spending to an amount equal to no more than increases in the state’s population plus inflation. The measure was very similar to an earlier ballot initiative in California, known as Proposition 1, that was supported by Milton Friedman and then Governor Ronald Reagan.] After the failure of Proposition 1, Lew Uhler, who had been in charge of drafting Proposition 1 for Reagan, persuaded a group of us to found the National Tax-Limitation Committee which is still in existence. For years we tried to get the requisite number of individual states to request a constitutional convention for the sole purpose of adopting a tax-limitation amendment. Obviously it was hopeless to get it supported by Congress. We got very close, within one or two states, but every time we got that close the opposition increased exponentially and we were stymied again.

I have not been very active in it in recent years so I am not sure what is going on, but what I am sure of is that an amendment of that kind which covered both taxing and spending would be a very good thing for California. It is interesting that Colorado is almost the only state in the country that is not having serious fiscal problems right now, and that is entirely because of the amendment it passed.

Cordially,

Milton

A conservative philosophy in football is wide open and based on the pursuit of excellence, individuals working as a team. The liberal philosophy, if it were applied to football, would be you spend most of your time blaming everybody for why it didn't work.

The White House is simply not going to be able to get away with the same old secrecy. The furor over the Administration's recent insistence on redacting 28 pages of a 9/11 report related to the Saudis has made that clear enough. The Saudi question has finally given opportunistic Democrats a chance to get to the President's political right on fighting terror.

We are not indifferent to the worry that destabilizing the regime in Saudi Arabia could lead to its replacement by one far more hostile to U.S. interests. But if Saudi foot-dragging these last two years has taught us anything, it's that the divided royal family in Riyadh will never be able to muster the resolve to assist on terror without more or less constant U.S. pressure.

I agree with your reader's take on the passengers of Flight 97, but not on his or her take on the media.

My take on the media is that they recognize an obligation to report on this as news, but are scared to death to be seen as discrediting the passengers. The reporting I have seen has been in full kid-glove mode.

My belief is that the media should be given credit for how they have handled this so far. They are responding to their obligation to report on this, knowing that no matter how they write it some will see it as attacking the passengers.

I will repeat my mantra. There is enough real bias in the liberal media. It is not necessary or helpful to see it all the time, everywhere, in everything they do.

There's a disturbing current in the way the media are reporting today about Flight 93. You can feel the attempt to discredit or at least discount the actions of the passengers.

Unless the liberal media and their buddies can convince us that the terrorists wanted to crash in a field in Pennsylvania, the 9/11 report in no way changes the heroism of the passengers.

Whether the passengers crashed the plane themselves or their actions prompted the terrorists to crash the plane really doesn't matter.

What does matter is that on the morning of 9/11, American civilian volunteers who knew their country was under attack began fighting back in the War on Terrorism. That same war is being fought today by Amercian civilians who volunteered to serve their country in the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are heroes, all. And let's remember the civilian volunteers who stopped the shoe bomber on another airplane.

Let's continue to roll! Right now I'm in the mood to roll over the liberal media too. The liberal media just can't stand to see anyone volunteering to fight for America or for freedom.

Speaking of theocratic trash, the Guardian has a useful summary of offenses for which someone can be executed in ‘Saudi’ Arabia (it’s in focus because the Kingdom has just released some Brits it had been holding on various trumped up charges – not before a little torture, of course):

“Witchcraft, adultery, sodomy, highway robbery, sabotage, apostasy (renunciation of Islam) and "corruption on earth.”

The fascinating thing about that list is not just its cruelty and intolerance, but the depths of superstition that it reveals. “Witchcraft,” indeed.

Finally, there are some Hispanic voters who intensely resent getting campaign literature addressed to them in Spanish. These highly-assimilated, English-speaking Hispanics are natural Republicans. Today's bipartisan Spanish-first campaign style repels those folks. Does the GOP truly wish its message to be "assimilation is a bad thing"?
Posted at 06:30 PM

ISSA ON ICE [Tim Graham]
So does this mean now that Issa's funding of the recall will look more magnanimous?
Posted at 03:46 PM

ISSA OUT [KJL]
APNEWSALERT: Republican Rep. Darrell Issa says he is pulling out of the California governor recall election.
Posted at 03:31 PM

RE: DRIVEL [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
It was late. Maybe he meant to say BHT is a liberal.
Posted at 02:45 PM

DIFI DRIVEL [Tim Graham]
Ken Shepherd notes CNN's Jeff Greenfield suggested last night that "I have no proof of this but, really, it's late at night--- the withdrawal of Dianne Feinstein, her absolute statement, 'I will not be in the race,' may have tipped the scales for Schwarzenegger, because she's a moderate Democrat, they share some views." Ken notes her lifetime ACU is 12, her lifetime ADA 86.
Posted at 02:31 PM

DEBRIEFING [John Derbyshire]
Just cleared the last of a huge e-mailbag following yesterday's blogs about Bishop Robinson. Reading that much material leaves you with general impressions. (To which, of course, there are many particular exceptions.) One that I especially think worth noting is, that the commitment of homosexual activists to free speech is about one millimeter deep. I got a strong impression, time after time, that the reader believed I SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY the things I said. A couple of readers said so flat out. Veiled threats to try and shut me down were common. ("Does Mr Buckley know the kinds of things you say on The Corner? Perhaps he should be told...") Make no mistake about it: there is a serious, strong current of thought out there that believes ANY objection to homosexuality is "hate speech" and ought to be criminalized--or, if it cannot be criminalized, shut down by any means that come to hand. I say again: there are many exceptions, and I thank those readers who, after identifying themselves as homosexual, went on to argue with me in a thoughtful and civilized way. But I now know something I did not know 48 hours ago, or knew only vaguely and imperfectly: gay fascism is real, and strong, and determined. If this Political Correctness cannot be stopped, we are going to lose our freedoms.
Posted at 02:28 PM

HALLMARK CARD? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Ouch, Andrew.
Posted at 02:26 PM

OLD AGE [Andrew Stuttaford]
Nick, Leon Kass can keep his Hallmark card homilies, I'd rather go for a longer life or, I suppose, failing that, maybe this.
Posted at 02:25 PM

MORE ARNOLD [Andrew Stuttaford]
Tim, yes, you are right that we haven't heard too much from Arnold on policy detail, but in a way that's rather refreshing. The Sarandons, Baldwins and Penns of this world relentlessly use their celebrity status to get a hearing for their views (and who can blame them?) without ever taking the trouble to try and get elected. Schwarzenegger has taken a more modest approach. Up to now, he's been an actor and a businessman, not a politician - and, as such, he has shown some restraint in proclaiming his opinions. That, presumably, will now change.
Posted at 02:19 PM

DEAN RETRACTS [Andrew Stuttaford]
So much for radical Howie. As we live longer and more healthily, a gradual increase in the retirement age makes an enormous amount of sense. It's a shame that Dean doesn't have the guts - or the principles - to stick with his earlier view.
Posted at 02:18 PM

BUSH, SCHUMER & THE SAUDIS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Rick, in his Observer column:

Defenders of the administration would say that Mr. Bush understands the Saudi problem and knows what he is doing. He is pursuing a hidden-hand strategy, asking for cooperation while quietly cutting our old links to Saudi Arabia, removing our bases and looking for oil in other parts of the world, such as West Africa. If, while doing so, he has to keep an incomplete investigation under wraps, so be it.

Isn’t it possible, though, that the administration and its critics can work on parallel lines? Even if Mr. Bush is as discreet as the Godfather and as relentless as Inspector Javert, it is good to have a noisy and impatient claque reminding us, and the Saudis, what the score is. Congress can be the bad cop; Mr. Bush can be the cop whose goodness or badness the crooks must guess at.