By clicking here. (Thanks to OxBlog for the link).

Ramesh - I hadn't seen that. Foxman's being absurd. Frankly, I've often found the way the ADL deals with these things to be a bit embarrassing. Does Foxman really think a Senior Editor at the New Republic(!) is somehow holding back a more forthright apology for sinister reasons? If the ADL did anything to foment a climate at ESPN or Disney which resulted in this decision, he should apologize to Easterbrook. Indeed, creating a climate where offending Jews automatically results in your termination will do far more to hurt Jews in this country than anything which might have resulted from Easterbrook's original comments.

The Times version of my column says "On second thoughts" not "On second thought."

Is the plural "thoughts" A) a typo B) the way the British say it or C) is the way everyone says it except me because I'm an ignoramous.

I await Mr. Stuttaford's help.

My column is up today, but it remains well-hidden by the high financial barrier they put up around it. The first half is recap about Rush. Here's how it ends:

On second thoughts, maybe it's silly to think Limbaugh hatred actually has much to do with what he says. After all, compared with his many copycats, Limbaugh's rhetoric is fairly tame. No, the reason Limbaugh infuriated so many is that people listened to him. He was an alternative information source to what was until recently a liberal media monopoly. For all the excitement about the internet challenging "Big Media" in America, AM talk radio beat it to the punch by more than a decade.

Indeed, despite studies that show talk radio listeners - some 70 million Americans - are more informed and affluent than non-listeners, elite journalists sniff at talk radio as if it's no more reliable than the gossip scribbled above the urinal.

NBC's Bob Faw once pondered whether "talk radio is not democracy in action, but democracy run amok".

Whether Limbaugh recovers, physically or professionally, is still an unknown. And he's certainly got bigger problems than the cackling of his enemies. But that cackling seems a bit forced, like that of an outnumbered soldier who's delighted to learn an enemy general has been wounded even as his own position has been overrun.

I'm almost sorry Easterbrook apologized the way he did. Or at least I'm sorry it got so much play (I saw mention of it on Fox News tonight) -- because I have no doubt it was an innocent miscommunication. I criticized his comments about Jewish movie producers, but I never thought for a moment he meant anything truly sinister. Rather, I was just surprised that a guy who's always come across as such a decent and, more relevant, clear writer seemed to get tongue-tied. I have no idea if the story has legs but, even though he has spoken ill of NRO (for which he shall be punished), I have no doubt that his apology is sincere and his biggest and only mistake was writing something that was uncharacteristically vague where clarity was required.

A loyal reader, Jeremy Yoder, designed this. Me likey. In fact, it gives me an idea. For the foreseeable future -- or until I discover that for reasons I can't see right now -- I will post a link to all tasteful, cool and favorable to NRO-related logos, animations, videos etc. The reward is the link and the subsequent thousands of visitors plus our admiration, our discussion in the Corner and maybe just maybe some sort of symbolic prize. Maybe we will even end up using the best entry ourselves and the quasi legal status of this whole proposition will result in lawsuits all over the place.

Sound like fun?

So: all of you web folks out there who want to get noticed or who are just bored, let's see what you can do. Put "cool stuff" in the header and send it to me or K-Lo (man, I hope Kathryn likes this idea).

I have been in contact with an officer in the Thai army that has provided myself and others with some information regarding this practice (though perhaps not this particular instance) via Thai military operating with the Coalition in Iraq.

While the jist of the story is correct, important and relevant details are left out. It seems that Iraqi "resistance" fighters are using orchards and such as cover to launch attacks on Coalition forces traveling on roads passing near the trees. American commanders are reluctant to destroy private property, so they offer the orchard owners a choice. They may provide information on the attackers themselves and allow American forces to pursue and destroy them, clearly the desirable option, or have the orchards near the road destroyed, thus making it more difficult for the resistance to find cover from which to launch attacks.

If the owner is unable or unwilling to help, the Americans have little choice but to destroy the orchards. If the owners are unable to provide the information requested, this is certainly sad, but ultimately necessary. Mercian forces must be allowed to defend themselves and make their environment safer. Clearly some Iraqis may walk away from such experiences feeling that they have been blackmailed and subjected to collective punishment, but that's not the whole -or real- story.

You might point out that "Rich Lowry's LEGACY" has some great anagrams, like
A SLY, WRY CIRCLE HOG
WHO'S A GIRLY CYCLER?
A WRY, CHIC, GORY SELL
A COY CLERGY WHIRLS
CHEWS A LYRIC GLORY
WHY CLOG A SLY CRIER?
SHOWY CRY? RIG A CELL!
A SCREW? CRY, "GO HILLY!"
SO GREW A CHILLY CRY
LEG WHILRS, A COY CRY
and several featuring CIGAR.

Cubs - OUT

Red Sox - OUT

Must find something to do in evenings now.

......I know, read an autographed copy of Legacy. Problem solved. I'm ordering now.

Jonathan Rauch: "Only four candidates have a shot next year. They are President Bush, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. The rest are history. Sorry, Dick. Sorry, John. Sorry, Dennis, Joe, Carol, and Al. Turn off the lights behind you. . . .

"With only one exception since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.

"George W. Bush took six years. Bill Clinton, 14. George H.W. Bush, 14 (to the vice presidency). Ronald Reagan, 14. Jimmy Carter, six. Richard Nixon, six (to vice president). John Kennedy, 14. Dwight Eisenhower, zero. Harry Truman, 10 (to vice president). Franklin Roosevelt, four. Herbert Hoover, zero. Calvin Coolidge, four. Warren Harding, six. Woodrow Wilson, two. William Howard Taft, zero. Theodore Roosevelt, two (to vice president). The one exception: Lyndon Johnson's 23 years from his first House victory to the vice presidency."

The whole thing is worth reading.

Dean suggested his sound judgment extended to his long support for the Boston Red Sox over his native New York Yankees. The issue is of some moment in New Hampshire, which holds the first primary.

Right on the Red Sox, right on Iraq? "I'm insufferably right," he said, laughing. "The motto of my campaign is: 'I told you so.' "

Rich Lowry
National Review
215 Lexington Avenue
4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Much is being made of this but perhaps you need to step back an think a minute. The location in question are groves of trees that border a road that comes off a bridge.... in plain English, a ideal ambush site. You have no place to hide coming off the bridge and the bad guys can hide in the trees and them melt away. There had in fact been several ambushes at the site, because the road network almost mandated the use of the road. The farmers in question were given the chance to give the ambushers up and didn't. The local commander has a responsibility to protect his troops. Since the farmers refused to cooperate, they paid the price. Sucks to be them I suppose, but better a thousand fruit trees than one GI life, IMHO. The only reason this get any traction at all is because there are trees involved, shows how turned around we have become when a few trees are more important the lives of our soldiers.

Everyone does it. Smart, thoughtful, well-read people don't understand the most controversial Supreme Court decision of the last generation. Take Gregg Easterbrook, for example, who is arguing that a ban on partial-birth abortion might not be an assault on Roe since Roe allows abortion to be banned in the third trimester. Easterbrook gets a few things wrong in this argument, including what Roe did. Here's the truth of the matter:

1) A ban on partial-birth abortion would not be an assault on Roe because Roe did not touch Texas's ban on partial-birth abortion.

2) Partial-birth abortions do not take place exclusively in the third trimester.

3) Roe has to be read in light of Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day, which makes it clear that any third-term restrictions have to include an exception for "health" defined to include "physical, emotional, psychological, [or] familial health." Just try prosecuting someone for committing a third-trimester abortion under that standard.

As a side note, I think it's silly for Easterbrook to insist that third-trimester abortions are "unambiguously wrong" but that earlier abortions can be called wrong only on the basis of religious faith. He says that "some feel" that they can call first- and second-trimester abortions wrong "based on faith," but that's an impermissible basis for public policy. Fine, but some think that they can judge those abortions wrong based on reason. They may be wrong, but you can't prove it by pretending that they don't exist.

Tim - That really is outrageous. That report says that some 850K kids are homeschooled. But that's a 2001 number. Considering the explosive growth in the field it wouldn't shock me if the number's at 1 million by now. Assuming that's the case for the purposes of easier calculations for the mathematically impaired (me), if CBS found even 100 cases -- which I sincerely doubt they could -- that would be a .0001% rate of abuse. I'd hazard to guess that the rate of child molesters currently employed for CBS is higher than that.

UPDATE Yes, my math was wrong. I was doing the math with a baby on my lap. Sorry. It's .01% which might in fact be higher than the rate of child molesters at CBS. My apologies.

Enough already about enticing Red Sox and Yankees fans to purchase Rich's book. How about promoting "Legacy" as a tonic to cheer the millions of despondent Cubs fans out there? Not only are Chicagoans cursed with 95 years and counting of failure on the baseball diamond, they're plagued with Mayor Daley's political machine and Jesse Jackson, too. Or don't folks in the Great American Heartland matter to you blue-state denizens?

Reviewer: A reader from Woodbridge, Va.

There's no better book on the Clinton presidency than this one by National Review editor Rich Lowry, an outstanding writer and smart political analyst. Conservatives have written a lot about Clinton, but Legacy may in fact provide the last word. And don't you love that red-letter "A" on the front cover?

The Corner really does get results: This morning I noticed that the C3PO figurine had 8,XXX hits, and this afternoon it has over 12,000. I looked at a few of the seller's other available items for comparison, including one that has about 10 hours to go, and none had more than 118 hits.

You know he's scratching his considerable belly right now, wondering why a closed item that sold for only $4.24 (US) is getting so many hits. I know Mr. Lowry's book is selling pretty good on its own merits, and with no small amount of nag... er reminding by thine own self, but this might be what he needs to take it over the top.

Earlier today I said that we would be able to tell which candidate in the Louisiana governor's race thinks he's behind when we see the first negative ad. It's up--and the ad is for the Democrats. The first half of the radio ad reads as follows: "We have to choose a new governor for Louisiana and it is very important that we look past the tv commercials, and into the lives and characters of the candidates. The closer you examine the records, the better Kathleen Babineaux Blanco looks. She understands real people because she is one of us. She had a full life before she ever ran for public office--teaching school, raising six children, and starting her own small business. She understands struggle and that the problems that the governor must deal with all have human faces. She knows that people aren't statistics or numbers, and you don't crunch people, you help them." This is an attempt to convert Bobby Jindal's strengths into weaknesses: Okay, so he knows more facts than me and has accomplished an awful lot for someone so young. But that just means he's not like us and doesn't understand our problems. (I'm mediocre--just like you.) He may have saved the health department from bankruptcy, but he did so by not caring for people.

The ad continues: "Now Kathleen is in the fight of her political life against the hand-picked candidate of the right-wing Republicans, backed by Mike Foster, the Republican White House, and their millions of dollars. They are confident they will win, because they hope that we won't vote. So let's show that they are wrong, and get organized to win. Kathleen Blanco needs our help, because her fight is our fight too. Paid for by Kathleen Babineaux Blanco." Did I mention that these ads are mainly on black radio?

Republicans may be tempted to attack the "real people" line as an attack on Jindal's ethnicity. The Jindal campaign itself won't take the bait, but its allies might. The last thing Bobby Jindal needs is to make the campaign a referendum on race.

The election is November 15.

If the Red Sox beat the Yankees later today, I promise to buy Legacy on Amazon not later than noon tomorrow. It will comfort me to know that I have softened the blow for a Yankees fan. But I lie...(on the latter point only).

Go Sox!

If you set it to music, it must be true!

I'm only slightly kidding. I bet young kids are more inclined to believe propaganda if it's in music video format than if it's written out.

The Schiavo case has drawn attention only because her family is in profound disagreement about the care she should receive. If futile care theory takes hold, we may see fewer such cases, if only because the unilateral refusal of treatment will quietly take place without anyone speaking up for the patient.

The sad truth is, many practitioners of bioethics, medicine, and law no longer believe that people like Terri Schiavo are fully human. As a consequence, these patients are being systematically stripped of their fundamental right to life and, perhaps worse, are increasingly looked upon as mere natural resources whose bodies can be plundered for the benefit of others. If it is true that a nation is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens, a lot is riding on the Schiavo case.

Memo to all: Put a shirt on before you sell your action figures.

I wanted to buy Legacy. I really did. I was looking forward to reading it.

But there have just been too many Yankee references for this Red Sox fan to willfully put money into a Yankee fan's pocket.

You see, we hate the Yankees. But even more than the Yankees, we hate the Yankee fans. Their attitude of smug self-superiority is among the most grating things on the face of the earth. Stressing the Yankee fandom of an author is a good way to kill book sales in Red Sox Nation...

Has come to the defense of the Crimson. Most emails are like this:

Thanks for the link to that laughable Harvard Crimson editorial. In addition to the "usual cliches" you point out, did you note the head-spinning twists of logic in the last two graphs? Specifically...

"States that harbor terrorists are not terrorists: if they were—or if the Bush administration followed that doctrine impeccably—the U.S. would have ousted the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for allowing terrorists to remain active there." This is followed JUST ONE SENTENCE LATER with: "Everywhere around the world, but especially in that volatile region, foreign policy decisions must be made on a case by case basis."

Well, which is it, boys and girls? Are you calling for the U.S. to be "impeccably" consistent -- or to make decisions on a "case by case" basis? Is this what passes for clear thinking at Harvard?

(I won't even go into the harrumphing falsehood in the first sentence, since anyone who isn't handicapped by a Harvard educaiton can surely understand that states that harbor terrorists really ARE terrorists!)

Thanks for the link -- it's always amusing to see what self-important children can come up with.
[Name withheld]

From a reader:

I loved your Simpsons recall story idea. You missed a key aspect. The Mexican Bumble Bee must play the role of Cruz Bustamonte. "No es bueno."

One last thing. A couple of readers have called me to task for praising Limbaugh's statement admitting to his drug use. I do think it was very good statement. But, it really isn't the case that Limbaugh has come clean and admitted it in the purest sense. He only admitted it after he was caught. That's a distinction worth recognizing.

I guess my hopes of guest-hosting on his show are fading away.

I don't mind the editorialists at the Harvard Crimson voicing their views on foreign policy. But this is really unimpressive stuff. It drips with all of the usual cliches. I particularly like them referring to "Syrian senior officials" as if they were straight-shooters, honestly expressing their concerns about Syrian-Israeli relations.

I assume this idea has been floated by a gazillion bloggers already, but I haven’t seen it and I kept meaning to bring it up. Doesn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory all but assure that Rainier Wolfcastle will challenge Mayor Quimby in a recall election?

Two good emails:

Easterbrook (who I also like, though he despises my favorite football team) also makes this very silly point: “Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.”

Well, considering that it made an enormous amount of money, I would wager that it is also the favorite movie of a heckuva lot of other folks who were teenagers in the 90s. But doesn’t that mean we should have a lot more Columbines? And if anything, Scream’s gore (remember that final stab-fest?) was far more realistic than Tarantino’s samurai shtick, where blood spews like pressurized Kool-Aid from sword-severed limbs.

And Kill Bill is awesome. Go see it.

I think the point he was trying to make in the last paragraph was related to the point in an earlier paragraph -- that gratuitous killing of innocents American movies, which now circulate widely in the Third World, either inflames or affirms Islamic militants. I think his last paragraph is a suggestion that Jews, above others, should be sensitive to that, since they are the Number 1 target of choice for Islamists.

I'm not sure it's a valid point, but it appears to me that that was the reason for the inclusion of the language about Jewish producers. You're right, though. The first time you read through, it is jarring.