I must say I agree entirely with Ramesh. I think there are a couple points worth adding.

First, there's this passage:

"This begs the question: Why should U.S. citizens have to pay one additional penny for this rebuilding when Americans have already paid tens of billions of dollars for the liberation of Iraq with a huge military operation and more preciously, thousands of our own soldiers' blood?"

This will join nicely with the long line of examples of libertarians having a grave problem with foreign policy. There's a strain of utopianism which runs through libertarian notions of foreign policy which is no less severe than the strain the one which afflicts the left. The left believes that international norms of the rule of law -- as dictated by Olympian judges in Brussels -- should dictate the conduct of nations. Libertarians seem to believe that the rule of the market should as well. Both of these things would be great, or at least better than the reality (especially if the rule of law weren't so much Euro-liberalism) but the reality is what it is. Of course the United States shouldn't have to pay another penny for Iraq. Of course American soldiers shouldn't shed their blood. But that's the situation we are in. It would be great, even right, if the world sent us billions of dollars to compensate us for the hard but necessary work we've done in Iraq. But that's not the way the world is right now. Sorry. And to suggest that shouldering the costs of Iraq aren't worth the price is, in my opinion, dead wrong.

Which brings me to my second point. I do hope that all of the folks who email me claiming that NRO has a single editorial position on every issue from gay marriage to foreign policy will at least take note that we do have disagreements around here. That's one of the secrets of our success.

The Center for 'Science' in the 'Public Interest' has been on the warpath again - against snacks. The excuse? As always, 'the children' and that famous obesity of theirs. Writing for Fox News the Cato's Steven Milloy has more:

"There may or may not be more overweight kids today than 20 years ago. No one knows for sure.

None of the data are very reliable. They've been collected by telephone, not in person. Surveyors call random households and ask the heights and weights of children in the household. These "data" are then used to calculate a dubious indicator called "body mass index" -- a ratio of weight to height. Too high a body mass index and a child is assumed to be overweight.

Even assuming that the correct height and weight figures are offered up by whoever answers the phone -- none of the data are verified for accuracy -- body mass index is a lousy indicator of weight problems among healthy children…

A recent study in the British Medical Journal studied a group of children from birth in 1947 to age 50. The researchers reported, "Little tracking from childhood overweight to adulthood obesity was found … No excess adult health risk from childhood or teenage overweight was found. Being thin in childhood offered no protection against adult fatness, and the thinnest children tended to have the highest adult risk at every level of adult obesity."

None of this, of course, is to condone the drinking of Dr Pepper.

The problem is that although no cigarettes are safe, some are safer than others. Writing for UPI last year, John Bloom explained:

"… the government continued to treat all cigarettes alike, and to say that no cigarette was safer than another. In fact, if the FTC thinks a cigarette ad is even implying that it's safer than other cigarettes, that company will face a formal complaint and possible sanctions…Look at the ludicrous results. If you take the top ten brands in America, the three at the top of the list in terms of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide are Newport, Camel and Salem. Are we to think of these as dangerous cigarettes? According to the government, not really. They are neither more nor less dangerous than the brands that rank at the bottom of the toxic list: Virginia Slims, Doral, GPC, and SOME types of Marlboros.

Shouldn't it be stated somewhere on the product that these are less toxic? Is it out of the question to make the rankings clear enough so that a normal uneducated person can form the conclusion: "A Virginia Slim is much safer than a Camel."

But then we have the safest cigarette ever manufactured: the Carlton. At 1 milligram tar and 0.1 milligram nicotine, you would think its designers would be acclaimed as some of the greatest innovators since the guy who figured out how to decaffeinate coffee. Think again. They're required to put the following disclaimer in all their ads: "It is not our intention to suggest that a 1 mg 'tar' cigarette is any safer than other cigarettes."

Of COURSE it's safer! Why would you spend the money to process it down to that level unless it was a cigarette designed to alleviate health concerns?"

Intriguing. Perhaps the tobacco warriors would like to explain why this is wrong.

"Maybe we have reached the dead-end of this particular line. Wouldn't we all prefer the bad acting, the faux-bonhomie and the fauxempathetic quivering voice at bad news to be dropped? And wouldn't we all rather a return to the old style in which the politician did not have to display his real, feely, touchy, life-loving, people-hugging, Martini-ad-grinning credentials at every turn? I would. There is something infantile about wanting a political leader to be nice. Niceness is irrelevant to political effectiveness. Niceness is a private virtue and private virtues are distinct from public ones. Anyway, on the Stalin model, displayed niceness is scarcely any measure of a man. What is required in a public man is sanity, sureness, an enormous capacity to understand complexity and an overwhelming grasp of the real. He doesn't need to be nice. "

Indeed not.

"People in Cuba are far, far better off than people in places like Honduras, Brazil, Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua," he argues. "The kids do not drink bad water. They go to school. That's not to say that Cubans aren't pissed off about a lot of things. "

No word yet on whether Castro makes the trains run on time.

Blogger Rand Simberg is right not to be impressed:

"For now, the best course is caveat emptor. By the time they're signed up, cryonics patients are made extremely aware of the promise, and risk of the process. If someone makes fraudulent claims (e.g., guarantees of reanimation), then they can be prosecuted for that, but short of that, no one right now is smart enough to regulate this industry."

My own funeral plans remain unresolved.

"We are taking a step toward reducing the number of children who begin to smoke."

And then there's this:

"We are taking a step toward limiting the kinds of advertisements directed at our children."

And this:

"We are taking a step toward finally giving the FDA to fix the problem of youth smoking."

Making it illegal for youngsters to buy tobacco products is not, apparently, enough.

Amongst the other provisions in the nauseatingly named "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Bill" (inserting the word 'family' in the title of some dumb legislation does not, Senators, make it a good law) are "incentives to help those who want to quit" (the prospect of painful disease, lingering death or both is not, apparently, enough). It's also claimed that the bill will ensure that consumers are "better informed" about the risks associated with tobacco use. As Sullum shows, it will do the opposite.

Thanks, guys.

I'll back up that he was funny. It's strange to see him on television, though -- he always seems less dorky than I imagine him when I read his stuff.

I do hope you're currently asleep... [me too!]

I've given up trying to debunk most of these nonsensical and clichéd stories about neocons (you can see my endless series on the neocons here . But this "fortress like" thing is new. I should point out that when I started working at AEI that same building was then the MCI building. It housed some offices for Disney and Arthur Anderson as well. It doesn't look remotely fortress-like and is almost entirely indistinguishable from the gaudy businesslike piles of bricks all over downtown. However, since we're on the subject of Washington Architecture I should note that the AFL-CIO building is a perfect candidate for the headquarters of some movie villains. It looks like S.P.E.C.T.R.E holds meetings there.

TIM RUSSERT: "I was surprised, Matt, that he [Ah-nold] took the debate from Arianna Huffington and got down in the mud there a little bit. The L.A. Times this morning described this as a combination between WWF and a pie-fight. And if that’s the perception of the voters across California that doesn’t help any of these candidates.”

MATT LAUER: “Well, well that, that’s interesting, I mean does it hurt their credibility when you get into that whole discussion over this is how you treat women, Arnold, and he does the Terminator line? Does that hurt their credibility?”

RUSSERT: “Yes, and those are the soundbites that we’re hearing today..."

Education: Stand up to George Bush
Business climate: Fight George Bush
Illegal Immigration: Mock Arnold Schwarzenegger, Say no to George Bush
Etc.

I solicit and listen to the opinions expressed by my colleagues and look at the statements of the nominees. I also review decisions the nominee made in the past, and examine the transcript from any nomination hearing that may have occurred. I have done all this in this case, and in fact, have gone one step further to meet with Judge Pickering to discuss some issues of concern with his nomination.

Finally, just weeks before he died I took counsel from a very dear, long-term friend of mine, the late Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Fred Parker. Judge Parker informed me of his personal knowledge and respect for Judge Pickering, and his belief that Judge Pickering was well qualified to serve on the federal circuit court of appeals.

From my review of all the information, I believe that Judge Pickering is qualified to be a federal judge, and I will vote accordingly. I understand, and fully respect, that some of my colleagues have come to a different conclusion.

He-Man says "I have the power!!!" not "got". Sheesh, I would have thought you'd know that. (I just had to join in the flood of He-Man corrections you must be getting at this point. I will venture to guess that I'm one of the few writing on this subject who do not have a Y chromosome.) Ann Haker Los Angeles, CA blog

There's no question that this White House see political advantage in the war. You can see it in Karl Rove's speeches to Republican strategists. Just this morning, the New York Times reports that "the White House goals is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's reelection campaign.

WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (AFP) - A second member of the US Air Force has been detained by the US military because of a security-related matter at the Guanatanamo naval base in Cuba where hundreds of Afghan war detainees are being held, a US defense official said Wednesday.

The Israeli government has vowed to expel Yasser Arafat , calling him an "obstacle" to peace. But the 72-year-old Palestinian leader is much more than that; he is a career terrorist, trained, armed and bankrolled by the Soviet Union and its satellites for decades.

Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this." He would have voted for the war to give "leverage" to the UN a la John Kerry, but Howard Dean is also right. "I didn't want to go in there either."

Milwaukee, WI—The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation announced today that the inaugural Bradley Prizes to honor outstanding achievement will be awarded to Mary Ann Glendon, Leon R. Kass, Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell.

“These outstanding individuals are being recognized for achievements that are consistent with the mission statement of the Foundation, including the promotion of liberal democracy, democratic capitalism, and a vigorous defense of American institutions,” said Michael W. Grebe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bradley Foundation.

The $250,000 prizes will be presented in a ceremony that will be held at the Library of Congress on Tuesday, October 7.

The 2003 Honorees include:

Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University. A distinguished public intellectual, Professor Glendon is an influential teacher and an internationally respected expert on family law and human rights law. She is widely acclaimed for her scholarship on moral reasoning, cultural politics, the impact of feminism on the status of women, and the subordination of law to rights. Professor Glendon was appointed by Pope John II as an advisor to the Vatican and by President George W. Bush to the President’s Council on Bioethics. She received her J.D. degree from the University of Chicago.

Leon R. Kass

Leon R. Kass, M.D., is the Addie Clark Harding Professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago and the Hertog Fellow in Social Thought at the American Enterprise Institute. His earlier research in molecular biology led him to contemplate the human consequences of science, an area of inquiry in which he has been engaged for more than 30 years. In particular, Dr. Kass’s scholarship has focused on the broader moral and cultural questions raised by biomedical advances. His powerful books and essays on the prospects of, and problems with, biotechnology unguided by ethical and philosophic reflections have contributed significantly to the public debate. In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Dr. Kass Chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics. A Chicago native, Dr. Kass was educated at the University of Chicago where he received his B.S. and M.D. degrees and at Harvard where he earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry.

Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer, M.D., is a Pulitzer Prize winner for distinguished commentary, a journalist, and media commentator. He writes a nationally syndicated editorial page column for The Washington Post and is frequently published in Time, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, and other magazines. He is also a contributor to FOX News. Widely respected for his penetrating clarity of thought on foreign policy, national defense, politics, bioethics, and other topics of broad public interest, Dr. Krauthammer articulates a public philosophy in the best tradition of American thought. He was educated at McGill University and Oxford University, and holds a medical degree from Harvard University.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow in Public Policy at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace and one of America’s most perceptive public intellectuals. Trained as an economist, Dr. Sowell is the author of 30 books and an influential syndicated columnist whose writings address subjects ranging from race preferences and cultural differences to the origins and ideology of political conflict. An ardent spokesman for personal responsibility, governmental restraint, the genius of the marketplace, and the essential goodness of America, Dr. Sowell is a formidable presence in the nation’s intellectual life. He is well–respected for the quality of his work, intellectual rigor, and fierce independence. Dr. Sowell received his education at Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago.

These individuals were selected based on nominations solicited from more than 100 prominent individuals. The winners were ultimately chosen by a selection committee that includes Michael W. Grebe (Chairman), former U.S. Senator William L. Armstrong, Wall Street Journal Editor Emeritus Robert Bartley, The Honorable Robert H. Bork, William F. Buckley, Jr., Paul Johnson, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dianne Sehler and James Q. Wilson.

“Each year, through the Bradley Prizes, we will recognize individuals who have made outstanding contributions and hopefully, encourage others to strive for excellence in their respective fields,” said Mr. Grebe.

Founded in 1985, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it. Its programs support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, cultural activity; and a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions. Recognizing that responsible self-government depends on enlightened citizens and informed public opinion, the Foundation supports scholarly studies and academic achievement.

Thank you!

Finally, after making this suggestion to Jonah a couple years ago, I can now read NR on-line....I just started my digital subscription...

"It has been a common saying of physicians in England, that a cucumber should be well sliced, and dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out, as good for nothing."

(attributed to Johnson by James Boswell in Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides)

I'm with Dr. Johnson on that one.

Via Reason's blog.

Samizdata has more.

"All his military background does is keep military matters at the forefront of the campaign.

He will be asked why he got fired from the Nato job, why his buddy Bill Clinton declined to save him, why neither his civilian nor uniformed bosses - Bill Cohen, the Defence Secretary, and General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - attended his retirement ceremony, a huge public snub for a four-star general.

It is hard to argue that Iraq was a disaster when, in the crappy little war you, General Clark, presided over, the most powerful military on the planet took 78 days of aerial bombardment to destroy just over a dozen tanks; hard to argue that our boys shouldn't be getting picked off on the ground in Iraq when in your war they stayed up at 15,000 feet, nights only, bombing hospitals, commuter trains, refugee convoys, the Chinese embassy, etc; hard to argue that Iraq wasn't worth it when, by most accounts, there's more ethnic cleansing (Muslims against Christians) going on in "liberated" Kosovo than there was in Slobo's day.

If General Clark's the candidate, he'll be the embodiment of ineffectual Clintonian warmongering."

It's possible to disagree with much of what Steyn has to say, but the underlying point is right. General Clark has gotten an entry ticket into this election on the basis of an impressive military career. That's fair enough (and I wouldn't be calling anyone with his record of wartime heroism 'General Jello'), but that does not mean that that his record of command should not come under scrutiny.