Letter to the editor, Rocky Mountain News:

Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view.

Ann M. Kechter
Evergreen

“Mount Vernon Associate Director Dennis Pogue said officials would not distill liquor at the site but would explain to visitors how Washington did it back in the late 1700s. As school children ran around on a class trip, Pogue talked about the careful "balancing act" of explaining Washington's life to visitors without promoting alcohol. “

“without promoting alcohol?” a “balancing act?”

Give me a break.

German chancellor Schroeder is a liar. He is also, it seems, a thug. Distressed by the fact that Germans are crossing over into Holland to take advantage of that country’s half-civilized drug laws he wants Holland to change the rules. Like a freshly whipped dog, the Dutch government is coming to heel.

Interestingly, however, the solution it proposes (restricting admission to their coffee shops) is almost certainly illegal under EU law (it’s generally forbidden for an EU member state to discriminate against the citizens of other EU countries).

The famously pro-EU Germany may, it seems, be hoist by its own petard.

Ha ha ha.

Boykin’s remarks (as so far released) were tactless, but their substance gives no other reason for his dismissal (and I write as someone with beliefs that the good general would undoubtedly think would doom me to the Devil's fiery pit). A recent New York Times editorial calling for his dismissal gives an example of the muddled thinking displayed by those who would remove him. Here are some extracts:

“Not only did a high-ranking government official make remarks that espoused a single religious view…”

Since when has that been a disqualification from office?

“…and denigrated others…”

But he didn’t. Yes, he made clear that he was not a follower of Islam (to put it mildly), but his ‘denigration’ was reserved for the terrorists.

“President Bush and all other top officials have said often, and rightly, that the United States is not engaged in a religious war. General Boykin…should not be undermining that policy…”

To repeat, Boykin did not say that he was engaged in a war against Islam, but a war against terrorists, terrorists he considers to be the agents of Satan. Now that’s not my explanation as to bin Laden’s motive, but, given the nature of his crimes, it should be no surprise that someone who is religious sees the evil of the man in those terms. And, as for the US not being engaged in a religious war, that’s only partly true. Of course, America should not declare war on Islam. That would be madness. The US should be looking for allies in the Muslim world, a large proportion of which wants to have nothing to do with Wahhabism's vicious delusion. At the same time, there’s no denying that the war against the US is religiously inspired. The failure to understand the implications of that is one of the major failures of the current administration. America may not be fighting a religious war, but someone is fighting a religious war against America - and the US should respond appropriately.

Sorting out the US Army's chaplaincy problem might be a start.

Those lucky enough to work in the fashion departments of such magazines are deluged with freebies every day, some of them worth a great deal of money. At Vanity Fair, where I worked for 2 1/2 years, I once stumbled across a screwed-up ball of paper outside the office of Elizabeth Saltzman, the magazine's fashion director. "Dear Elizabeth," it began, "a while back, the Diamond Information Center presented you with a diamond solitaire necklace." Others plainly keep the stuff. Earlier this year, the fashion director of another glossy magazine had her wrist slapped when she was caught trying to sell on eBay a couture coat she'd been sent by Chanel. The floor bid was $150,000.

At Christmastime, glossy magazines have to take on extra staffers to deal with the huge volume of free stuff flowing into their offices. In 1996, the CEO of Condé Nast, Steve Florio, received so much booty that he had to hire three Lincoln Town Cars to transport it back to his house. We're talking handmade suits, cases of wine, sets of golf clubs--not your usual tchotchkes. The Lincolns sailed off down Madison Avenue like Spanish galleons packed with treasure. A spokesperson for Condé Nast says that this story, which I had from a closely placed source, is "absolutely untrue."

The April 21 issue of Time magazine featured its list of the "25 Most Influential" people of 1997. According to Time, if you're a millionaire and you help conservatives, you're contributing to the breakdown of society. If you're a billionaire who gives solely to liberal causes, you're seen as a savior.

On one page Time profiled Richard Scaife, whom the magazine labeled a "Conservative Agitator." His bio began: "If conservative thinkers like Bill Bennett and Paul Weyrich are the brainpower behind the resurgent American right, the horsepower comes from Richard Mellon Scaife. For close to four decades, the 64-year-old Pennsylvanian has used his millions to back anti-liberal ideas and their proponents." Later, Time added: "He controls the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which helps subsidize rabidly anti-Clinton magazines as well as conservative social-policy projects." If Scaife is considered a "conservative agitator," it would follow that George Soros would be tagged a "liberal agitator," but Time's subhead labeled him a "philanthropist." Soros' bio read: "And he has been stirring controversy by directing his dollars to an array of hot-button political causes tied to his personal ideal of an 'open society' and by writing an iconoclastic critique of free-market capitalism." Among the projects promoted by this "philanthropist," Time noted: "$1 million to help pass initiatives in California and Arizona last year that legalized medicinal use of marijuana," and "$50 million for a fund to help legal immigrants" overcome welfare reform.

This is a mishmash of e-mails on the Jindal race. Part might be quotes directly from a news story, but which parts those are, I'm not sure:

The latest poll numbers on the race for governor are out and it shows the race is closer than ever. A new Southern Media Poll shows if the election were held today (Thursday October 23rd), Blanco would earn 43% of the vote, Jindal 41%.

"The votes right now are split down the middle and it's a very close election. They like both candidates and it looks like this thing could go down to the wire," said pollster Bernie Pinsonat.

With the margin of error factored in, both candidates are running about even. Plus they both enjoy very high favorability ratings. When it comes to female voters - a demographic where Blanco plans to do well - only 29% of white females are supporting Blanco, while 50% are for Jindal. Among the African American community, 73% of black females plan to vote for Blanco, whereas 11% are for Jindal.

"Jindal has cut her off from that advantage. He's doing well with white females and males. So the female advantage isn't showing up with whites at this time," said Pinsonat. "Now it boils down to the one that gets their voters out will probably win this election."

Pinsonat predicts that many voters may not be inspired to head to the polls, since there's no one to vote against this time around. Election day is Saturday November 15th.

Also on the poll, both have high favorability. So that means that Kathleen can be reasonably good campaigner and still have a good edge in the election.

[I'm told] prominent black LA lawyers now leaning towards Jindal. "And further, the black vote that is most likely to vote is professionals and middleclass folks who are most likely to flirt with Jindal.

Interesting."

William Saletan argues that the phrase "partial-birth abortion" is false and misleading. He writes, "If you haven't been following the debate closely, it's easy to walk away with the impression that the 'delivery' is a nearly full-term birth." But many "partial-birth abortions," he observes, occur earlier in pregnancy, when the fetus would not be likely to survive outside the mother. This is not "the appointed hour of birth." And the fetus is just that: not a baby, not an "infant" (as the president says), not a "child. . . who would otherwise be born alive" (Sen. Santorum).

Fine: It's a fetus, not an infant or a teenager. But the entity in question is alive. In a partial-birth abortion, it is partially delivered. It is partially removed from the womb. It is, in other words, partially born. Senator Santorum's remark may not be true, but that is only because the alternative to a partial-birth abortion would often be another kind of abortion. The fact that the entity, if delivered, would be unlikely to survive long does not mean that it was not born. (Babies born at the "appointed hour" for a birth, rather than an abortion, sometimes die soon afterward, without anyone's denying they had been born.)

Supporters of the ban on partial-birth abortion should not say or imply that they are talking exclusively about late-term abortions. Senator Frist did that in a quote that Saletan identifies. But the media's favored alternative to the phrase "partial-birth abortion"--a "rare kind of late-term abortion procedure"--is much more misleading.

Saletan concludes by noting a poll that showed 70 percent of Americans backing a ban. "I'd like to know how many of the people who answered that question understood exactly what they were being asked about," he writes. I'd like to know the same thing about the people who say they're "for" Roe v. Wade. (We can exclude Gregg Easterbrook, if he was polled.)

Snow and Global Warming

By Brian McCabe on October 23, 2003

NH Public Radio Web Site

On the heels of the decision not to participate in the Iowa caucuses, Joe Lieberman must surely have been disappointed to see he stands at just 3 percent in New Hampshire, according to the just released Franklin Pierce College poll.

The Lieberman campaign's lack of traction isn't so surprising after observing their tactics today in Concord. In the middle of a cold, windy day -- with the first snow of the year falling all around them -- a team of young Lieberman supporters were promoting the fact that their man fights global warming. Apparently oblivous to the large white flakes around them, an observer noted, "It's snowing!" Unabashed, one young supporter replied, "That's because of global warming!"

If the current polls and message are any indication, the Lieberman campaign will continue to melt away just as quickly as this first coating of snow.

The addition of Mark Steyn to NRODT will put unbearable pressure on all those who are not yet subscribers….I would expect new orders to come rolling in. Thanks for adding him to an already awesome group.

The practical effects of this scandal can be seen in the general public failure to appreciate the military miracles of Afghanistan and Iraq. In the 2 1/2 years of this war we have lost less men than we did in one week of Vietnam. Our casualties are less so far than the first ten minutes or so of a typical Civil War battle, and less than the first couple of hours of a major WWII landing. To put it in perspective, take the tiny, square mile chunk of coral called Betio in The Tarawa atoll. It was assaulted by regiments of the 2nd Marine Division on Nov. 20,1943. Thirty six hours, four Medals of Honor, and almost 1000 dead Marines later, the Stars and Stripes flew over the airfield. Leon Uris wrote a poem about it, which can be sung to the tune of "Old Smokey":

BATTLE CRY

From out of New Zealand, the Gyrenes set sail,
to find an atoll where the Japs got their mail.
On an island called Helen, they staked out their claim;
and the Second Division won e'er lasting fame.
Dug deep in the coral, way under the sand,
five thousand Japs waited, for them to land.
The 2nd hit blue beach, they hit with a thud.
The 2nd hit blue beach, all covered with blood.
The 2nd hung on to the ground they had made.
All night they hid down 'neath the seawall and prayed.
The 6th they hit green beach, and landed by noon.
They waded past buddies killed in the lagoon.
The 8th came ashore, boys, o'er buddies who'd paid.
And killed all the Japs for the misery they'd made.
A thousand white crosses to tell of their laurel.
A thousand Gyrenes lay asleep in the coral.
Oh come now you mothers, you sweethearts, you wives;
shed no tear for Gyrenes who laid down their dear lives.
On an island called Helen, they staked out their claim.
And the Second Division won e'er lasting fame.

Kathryn - I know you expected me to comment on the loss of Re-Run, but I'm amazed we've heard nothing from Derb about Mrs. Kai-Shek.

it doesn't seem to count.

"When the day came for me to set a DESTINATION to travel, I knew that I had to plan my COURSE carefully. I was so ecited and nervous, I felt as though I would SEVER in two.

I know that I am very ACCURATE when it comes to finding my NAVIGATION.

I felt REVIVED when I started the engine. After this test, I would be able to fly by myself. I took off into the wind. My plane was unsteady due to the strong GALE.

Suddenly my plane's left wing started to chip off. I was in great DESPAIR. When I looked at the wing, I noticed that it had started to DETERIORATE. Thankfully, the wind started to clamed down and I flew safely to the ground. I felt great JUBILATION when I got my wings."

Argh! You Got Me (NRODT)!

OK! OK! OK! I give! Until you added Mark Steyn, I was able to resist. Geez, you people are ruthless!

"Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit."

"He fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down."

"Have a cup of coffee--it's already been 'saucered and blowed.'"

"She's so stuck up, she'd drown in a rainstorm."

"It's so dry, the trees are bribing the dogs."

"My cow died last night, so I don't need your bull."

"He's as country as cornflakes."

"This is gooder'n grits."

"If things get any better, I may have to hire someone to help me enjoy it."

"I'm 'bout as":
"Nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs."
"Busy as a moth in a mitten."
"Happy as a clam at high tide."

I see Andrew Sullivan just got a refund from Priceline thanks to his blogging. Good for him. But that reminded me of something. The Fair Jessica and I -- in a very rare outing -- went to Bobby Van's Steakhouse in Washington DC last friday night. It came very highly reccomended by the Washingtonian and we wanted to try a new steak place. It was pretty awful and doubly so considering how much it cost. Pretty much everything except the creamed spinach was mediocre. The steak was over-cooked and we even sent my wife's filet back. Maybe it was a bad night, but judging from that one outing, I encourage everyone to scratch the DC Bobby Van's off their list.

Well, if we're going to play that game, my wife's book has also just come out in paperback. And, I see that my sister-in-law Carrie (Lucy's favorite aunt) has a whole bunch of über-wonky digital book-thingies listed in Amazon

"STOCKHOLM, Oct 23 (Reuters) - An Icelandic fishing captain, known as "the Iceman" for his tough character, grabbed a 300 kg (660 lb) shark with his bare hands as it swam in shallow water towards his crew, a witness said on Thursday. The skipper of the trawler "Erik the Red" was on a beach in Kuummiit, east Greenland, watching his crew processing a catch when he saw the shark swimming towards the fish blood and guts -- and his men. Captain Sigurdur Petursson, known to locals as "the Iceman", ran into the shallow water and grabbed the shark by its tail. He dragged it off to dry land and killed it with his knife.

"He caught it just with his hands. There was a lot of blood in the sea and the shark came in and he thought it was dangerous," Frede Kilime, a hunter and fisherman who watched from the beach, told Reuters by phone from Greenland. Icelandic author and journalist Reynir Traustason, who knows the trawler captain, said the act was typical of the man. "He's called 'the Iceman' because he isn't scared of anything," he said. "I know the people in that part of the world. They are really tough."

Jonah's post on the Richard Wolin article in the CHR is a bit misleading. Wolin himself does not "fetishize" the third world; indeed the whole article is extremely critical of Honderich (the pro-terrorist author whose book Wolin reviews), and one of the specific criticisms makes basically the same point Jonah did. Wolin: "What makes [Honderich's] argument problematic is its blanket refusal to acknowledge any indigenous causes of third-world poverty, be they geographic, climatological, regional, sociological, or political. Rather than promote intelligent reflection on the causes of global social injustice, Honderich is interested in playing a simple blame game." Wolin does conclude that Honderich's book is not necessarily anti-Semitic but that the tactics Honderich seeks to legitimize "flirt with a discourse of genocide whose historical resonances are all too familiar and disturbing."

Derb - I have no doubt that Jay knows a great deal about opera and music. And if he knows more about either than anyone you've ever met then he knows even more than I thought he did, which was quite a lot. And I am sure it is quite a treat to have Jay as a cultural sherpa. But you start from a premise not shared by everyone. Many decent humans in fact despise opera. I don't want to say I myself despise it, but I most certainly don't like it very much. And before you ask "have you given it a chance?" let me say, categorically, yes. As a child I appeared in numerous performances at the Met, including Pavarotti's first in New York. My father adores opera and took me to many other performances. He also had it playing in the background for much of my childhood.

So, while this may be a grand coup for thee, it's certainly not one for me. But I will gladly hold your hand at the next Star Trek convention.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq, endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president on Thursday.

In a conference call with New Hampshire reporters, Wilson said he and Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, have shared the experience of challenging their government -- Wilson when he questioned the "rush to war" with Iraq, Kerry when he challenged America's role in Vietnam.

Speaking from Washington, Wilson said Kerry's actions, coming when he was but 23-year-old Vietnam War veteran, makes him stand out in the Democratic presidential field.

"John Kerry did the same thing after he came out of Vietnam, I did it at the age of 53 ... with a long and distinguished career behind me," Wilson said. "John Kerry did it at the very beginning of his career.

"I know how these sorts of things test one's mettle," he said. "To have stood up and said what he did, at the time that he did, in my judgment, sets him apart from the other candidates."

I haven't followed the Iran-EU nuclear negotiations close enough, but I'm still skeptical. The Iranians made this decision to produce unnecessary "peaceful" nuclear power a long time ago and I doubt a lot of Euro-talk dissuaded them at the last minute. I heard the other night that the Iranians need to have their parliament approve the deal -- which is a joke since the parliament does whatever the dictators say in Iran. However, to the extent this deal is progress at all, I wonder to what degree the US deserves some of the credit. After all, is it impossible that the US is the bad cop here? The EUers go in, chat 'em up and say, "Do this for us or we'll be forced to invite that guy in here -- and none of us want that!" Indeed this is the normal state of things for the last forty years. We protect Europe, the Europeans think they solved their problems through chit-chat.

This is an interesting article by Richard Wolin about an essentially, or at least operationally, pro-terrorist intellectual in Germany. What I find more interesting than the now cliched moral equivalence and fashionable fetishizing of third world murderers is Wolin's banal assertion about Ted Honderich's book, "Written in an offhand, chatty style, its main point -- unarguable, as far as it goes -- is that first-world nations bear responsibility for third-world nations' impoverishment."

I've never understood where this allegedly universal consensus that the first world is responsible for third world poverty comes from. Now, I am very sympathetic to the idea that the first world has a moral obligation to help out impoverished peoples. And, yes, I think certain European nations -- France, for example -- have some extra burdens in specific nations. But let's just set the record straight: The first world found all of these nations already poor. We didn't make them poor. It's not like Europeans found prosperous healthy nation-states and then set about to lower the standards of living in them. Of course, colonialism did some damage to many societies, but it also elevated many societies. It improved the quality of life and it was the end of colonialism which has caused such a mess in so many places. Again, I'm not saying the first world didn't mess up a lot, but this cut-and-dry "the rich nations are responsible" nonsense is precisely that, nonsense.

Earlier this year, I began an abortion on a young woman who was 17 weeks pregnant. Because of the two days of prior treatment, the amniotic membranes were visible and bulging. I ruptured the membranes and released the fluid to reduce the risk of amniotic fluid embolism. Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact. With the next pass of the forceps, I grasped the placenta, and it came out in one piece. Within a few seconds, I had completed my routine exploration of the uterus and sharp curettage. The blood loss would just fill a tablespoon. The patient, who was awake, hardly felt the operation. She was relieved, grateful, and safe. She wants to have children in the future.

My friend Martin Morse Wooster should work in that agency from "3 Days of the Condor" becuase he literally reads everything. Every now and then, he's kind enough to send me items I wouldn't otherwise see. Anyway, a few times a year, for the last few years, I get an envelope from Martin with a little note saying "Check out page this or that" to find an article in Liberty magazine denouncing me. The articles are usually pretty funny in their self-importance and earnestness (New readers may not know that there are legions of hardboiled libertarians of a certain stripe who think I'm the devil).

Anyway, I just got a new one. It's an article buried in the back (Liberty is arguably the worst laid-out magazine outside of a junior high school) by some guy named Clark Stooksbury. He says "In the age of Bush, the label 'conservatism' means little more than bloated deficits, perpetual war and boot-licking obeisance to the president. For a good hard look at the modern conservative movement check out its flagship, National Review, in either the online version, or the print magazine, cloyingly called 'on dead tree.'"

Then there's more about me owing my career to Monica Lewinsky, how I quote the Simpsons a lot, how Limbaugh and Coulter are even more immature than me (a low blow!) blah, blah, blah. He finally gets around to mentioning that he's actually supposed to be writing a review of a re-released book by the late, great, Robert Nisbet. Nisbet is "conservatism for grown-ups" he writes, because Nisbet criticized the Reagan adminsitration. "While the Goldberg crowd equates all criticism of Bush II with treason." There are a few more whines and snarks and then it ends.

Now, I don't bring this up to defend myself. I've long stopped caring what folks like this guy and Liberty magazine think of me. Indeed, it's particularly easy when they just make stuff up. Which gets me to the real point, all across the web -- and in other three dimensional backwaters -- there are people who call themselves conservatives who've convinced themselves they are rebels for challenging what they perceive to be National Review's style conservatism. That's fine. Indeed, it was probably ever thus. But they almost never actually use facts. They just say things like the above without even bothering to demonstrate it (much like all of the NR endorses gay marriage nonsense). For example, both in print and online, the magazine has criticized president Bush many times -- just not that much on the war on terror, because we think he's doing pretty good there. But on steel protectionism, the farm bill and big government conservatism generally, we've hit him hard and often. If we've ever used the word "treason" about a critic of Bush's, I'd like to know about it. And as for Robert Nisbet, he's among my favorite authors -- something I must have said a zillion times. Indeed, type "Robert Nisbet" into NRO's search engine and see what you'll find.

I don't mind criticism, even from the fever swamps. What I do object to is mindless and fact-less assertion without evidence. These people always get their dresses over their heads whenever I say I don't take them seriously. Well, I will when they start acting serious.

Adam Daifallah: State Dept. devotes itself to Powell legacy project. 10/22 9:06 a.m.

From a reader:

One could imagine a trend here:

“Napolean Bonaparte, the man who ended the Waterloo conflict…”

“Henri Pétain, the man who ended France’s military confrontation with Nazi Germany...”

“Gen. George A. Custer, the man who ended hostilities at Little Big Horn…”

(notice two of the examples are French . . .)

Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians support continued armed struggle post-statehood.

I've been listening to the BBC and NPR today -- I confess, I'm basically a liberal but mostly I'm a political junkie and enjoy reading opinion from all over the spectrum.

In any case, what has struck me with the BBC and NPR is that there has been no mention, zilch, about the actual disputes in this case: the fact that there are some clear conflicts of interest surrounding Shaivo's husband, that the only evidence of her wishes regarding life support come from him, and that there is medical disagreement about Terri's condition and prospects, with her husband having virtually prevented examination by any but his own doctors and from attempting any rehabilitation. I've heard a bit of discussion about the debate about her status, but quite literally zero mention of the conflict of interest situation -- the "fiancee", the money at stake, multiple affidavits attesting to Shciavo talking about what he'll buy with the money, etc.

Overall, I"m in the "right to die" camp; I've voted for Oregon's assisted suicide law twice.

But in this case it seems that debate isn't over rights, but facts: what were Terri's wishes and what is her condition? It seems to me extremely dangerous to establish a precedent that the next of kin alone can not only make all decisions, supposedly based on a patient's wishes and their medical status, but, then also giving the next of kin sole right to announce what those wishes were and to determine how the patient's condition will be determined. Given the obvious conflicts of interest that can arise over inheritance, etc., such a system invites abuse.

While I usually think you conservatives are whining about "liberal bias", given how important the context is to understanding this case and given how easy that information is to find, I can't help suspecting that the fact that this case came to national attention due to lobbying by the religious right means that the "elite media" have automatically come down against it (even though the "money grubbing husband wants to kill wife" theme would normally have appeal).

On page 41, of the current issue of the New Yorker in a talk of the town piece by Boris Fishman:

"The other day at the Pierre Hotel, Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who ended the Cold War, was in an elevator...."

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (CNN) -- Washington-area sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad has decided to no longer represent himself in his murder trial and will allow his original attorneys to take over, the judge announced Wednesday morning.

The announcement came after a bench conference among Muhammad and attorneys in the case.

three groups say they will file suit to block the law from taking effect. They are the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group in New York that brought the Nebraska case; the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and the National Abortion Federation, which represents 400 centers that provide more than half the 1.2 million abortions performed in this country each year.

The American Civil Liberties Union will represent the abortion federation in its suit.

intelligence never wins wars. As the American David Kahn, the supreme intelligence historian, puts it: "There is an elemental point about intelligence - it is a secondary factor in war."

Intelligence experts hate conceding that truth. The public collude. The reason is that the fiction of intelligence, beginning with Childers and Buchan, reaching its apogee in our age with the works of Ian Fleming and John le Carre, has worked so powerfully on the Western imagination that many of its readers, including presidents and prime ministers, have been brought to believe that intelligence solves everything. It stops wars starting. If they start nevertheless, it assures that the wrong side loses and the right side wins.

If only life were so simple. Any examination of campaigns in which intelligence played a major role reveals a far messier outcome, sometimes exactly the opposite result to the one that might have been expected.

You need to understand that, though Legacy is no doubt the best book so far on Clinton, many (or most) of us don't want to think about Clinton, or read about him, or hear his name EVER AGAIN. We wish the man would go very very far away and stay there.

Still, I've put a copy of Legacy in my Amazon shopping cart, and I've decided to fill my Christmas shopping list largely with books by authors from NR and NRO.

Malkin picks up where York left off.

Okay, okay, Rich was awesome on Rush today. I'm now persuaded to buy the book. What tipped me over was the clarity of his position that the Special Prosecutor system, designed to keep government honest, and the sexual harassment laws, designed to keep business honest, were obviously only intended to be used against Republicans and other conservatives. When time came to use them against Democrats, the systems just fell apart. What a Legacy. And these people call conservatives "hypocrites."

Matthew Yglesias didn't much like yesterday's G-File. That's to be expected. How dismaying would it be for everybody if he did?

I will just make two quick points. First, he suggests that the Iraq war was "indiscriminate" and that that's okay with me. Well, that's not right on both counts. Rarely has there been a country which met more qualifications for war. Just a few: it violated the ceasefire agreement from the last war, it killed hundreds of thousands of its own people, it violated countless UN resolutions, etc. Saddam virtually hung a "kick our butt" sign around his neck. By what standard was the Iraq war less discriminating than the Kosovo war (which had no UN approval at all)? Now, if Iraq didn't qualify so completely for war, I would have favored war with somebody, but that doesn't mean I would have been in favor of war with anybody. It's not like I would have said, "Let's get the Yemenis!" In other words, I would discriminate.

Second, I am curious why Yglesias leaves out the fact that Tom Friedman agrees with me on my basic point, including that Afghanistan wasn't enough.

The College Board issued a report on rising tuitions. In a departure from past reports, it included a section on state government spending "in order to provide some insight into the factors influencing prices." In other words, tuitions are rising because state governments are cutting back. John Boehner, the head of the House committee on education, is complaining that the College Board is providing selective insights. "As Moody's Investors Service recently told the New York Times, extravagant spending by institutions for everything from super-size jacuzzis and sunbathing decks to massage facilities and rock-climbing walls is contributing significantly to the soaring cost of college," says the Republican congressman.

I've always figured that most forms of governmental aid to colleges (and to college students) raise tuitions.

From a reader:

You were right, many of us were too harsh on DB in his first 2 columns. Today, Fred Barnes was referenced on the NYT editorial page. FRED FRICKING BARNES!! Now read that sentence again, and imagine Ms. Dowd this morning having coffee with Naomi Wolf and Gail Sheehy, Dowd awkwardly staring into her latte as Gail disapprovingly clucks: "Fred Barnes? Treated like a (eye roll) serious journalist on the editorial page? How could Punch let this happen?"

Glenn Reynolds weighs in. I think I'm going to tackle this later this week, assuming people still hate George Bush and/or Bill Clinton. You never know, stranger things have happened.

David in Tacoma writes:

This is the earliest reference I could find:

Paranoia: A study of the evolution of systematized delusions of grandeur. From the clinical records of Bloomingdale Asylum, New York. William Noyes, M.D. The American Journal of Psychology Edited by G. Stanley Hall

Compiled Tables of Contents for Volumes 1-6 (Nov. 1887- Jan. 1895)

Via: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/

Lowry V. Tapped.

Jonah, The Columbia World of Quotations finds that Raymond Chandler used the term "delusions of grandeur" in a November 1945 Atlantic Monthly article. Just so you know.

It looks like I'll be speaking at Emory University on December 1, 2003 and Valparaiso University on November 5. I don't have details beyond that right now and these dates are tentative. But I assume they'll be open to the public.

I like this email:

Jonah,

I was still on active duty during the Gulf War, and I floated a staff study stating the most effective US air target would be to divert several flights to "mine Haiphong Harbor and Bomb Hanoi" -- because it's not over until we say it's over!

[Name withheld]

I don't know the answer to this reader's question. But I do know that one of the Klingons accused Captain Kirk of being a tinplated dictator with "delusions of Godhood" in "Trouble with Tribbles," if that helps. Derb? Anything:

Does anyone know the origin of the phrase "delusions of grandeur"? I always assumed that it was made popular by Han Solo in Return of the Jedi. Certainly it must appear somewhere in literature prior to Jedi. I've always wondered, because it seems like everywhere I turn I hear or read this phrase. This isn't really a serious issue; I just thought you might know the answer, oh Knowledgeable One.

As Legacy woman mentioned, Ireland's been canned from the YWCA after only 6 months on the job. The Washington Post blames conservative Christian groups like the Traditional Values Coalition. The TVC, in turn, is taking credit for same. I'm sure they played a role, but I have a hunch it was something else. Ms. Ireland headed NOW for 10 years. This may sound impressive, but my sense has always been that the organization is essentially a paper tiger. It puts together conferences, issues press releases and books TV guests and that's about it. The YWCA actually has buildings and huge payrolls and actually does things. Ms. Ireland is a professional complainer. My guess is she was just incompetent.

WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM

UNION MONDIALE POUR LE JUDAISME LIBERAL

WUPJ c/o Beith-GIL – 12 Quai du Seujet – 1201 Geneva

URGENT APPEAL TO ACTING HCHR BERTRAND RAMCHARAN on Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad's Madding Judeophobia

21 October 2003

The world has been following with consternation, indifference or joy the scandal provoked by the Judeophobic diatribe of Prime Minister Muhathir bin Mohamad. The occasion was his opening address on 16 October at the 10th Summit of the 57 Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, when he received a standing ovation. Malaysia is one of 53 Members States of the Commission on Human Rights.

Former High Commissioner Sergio Vieira De Mello strongly condemned all antisemitism – as you did in Vienna on 17 June at a seminar on ‘Human Rights Methodology and Antisemitism’, when you stated: “Denial is not an option.” Here are the wise words in his landmark Report to the last session of the UNCHR:

“Membership of the Commission on Human rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all, the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms – in practice as well as in law.” (E/CN.4/2003/14, § 5)

In fact, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was simply true to form. Already in October 1986, a day after PLO-dissident Abu Nidal's killers massacred 23 Jews at worship in Istanbul's "Gates of Peace" ("Neve Shalom") synagogue, he told the 101-Member Movement of the Non-Aligned countries (Harare, Zimbabwe): "The expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land some two thousand years ago and the Nazi oppression have taught them nothing. If at all, it has transformed the Jews into the very monsters that they condemn so roundly in their propaganda material. They are apt pupils of Dr Goebbels." (NYT/IHT 8 Oct. 1986). On that occasion also, not one Non-Aligned delegation reacted. Two months later Malaysia inaugurated an "Anti-Jews Day" (NYT, 8 Dec. 1986), and during his State visit to Great Britain in July 1987 he again affirmed: "The Jews have been apt pupils of Dr. Goebbels." In March 1994 Schindler's List was banned in Malaysia – on the grounds that it was "Jewish propaganda." In 1997 he blamed the Asian financial crisis on the “Jews,” explaining his views: “We are Muslims, and the Jews are not happy to see Muslims progress.”

We appeal to you as Acting High Commissioner to exercise your “duty to humanity,” making your voice heard at a period of growing antisemitism, greatly exemplified and amplified by the racist remarks of a Head of State, and then loudly applauded. Yesterday, at the Southeast Asia Economic Cooperation Forum, retiring Malaysian Prime Minister maintained his madding Judeophobia: “they [Jews] control the world … There are not many Jews in the world. But they are so arrogant they defy the world.” (Bangkok Post, 20 Oct.) In the 1930s, the League of Nations and the then ‘international community’ remained silent. We are making this urgent appeal to you on behalf of the World Union for Progressive Judaism — comprising over 1,000 congregations and about 2 million Liberal and Reform Jews worldwide — to speak out clearly NOW.

Rabbi François Garaï (Main Representative)

David G. Littman (Representative)

I'm still digging out from under an avalanche of email. Everything from the rabid anti-Semitic to thoughtful support. But the biggest divide is between those who say I'm flat-out nuts and those who say "that's exactly what I was thinking." I'm getting a lot more of the latter than the former but, still, I find it interesting that so many people could say, "absolutely! My thoughts exactly" while another group of people cannot even conceive that I really think this way let alone anybody else.

For example, this came from a philosophy professor on the West Cost:

Absolute best thing I've read on the war! Everyone I know (who isn't ill-informed or otherwise ignorant) thinks that the main reason we needed to take down Iraq is exactly as you say. But none of the commentators seemed willing (as they used to say) to call a spade a spade. The justification for the war is too masculine for polite company or something. In any event, beautiful job and thanks, reading it was actually catharctic.

And this (subject: "YEEEEEOOOOOOWWW!!!!!") is from, well, someone else:

are you crazy? your column doesn't even make any sense. too much caffeine?
I think you are suffering delusions of grandeur. I hope you never run for office because someone will pull this column out and say "look - the fellow is quite mad!"

Here is my theory--

you neoclowns sense that the jig is just about up. so why not go out with a
ker-plunk - right?

From a reader:

I thought you might like to know that you were channeling Plato in today's column.

You wrote:

"That's one of the funny things about doing the right thing: You can come up with an endless supply of reasons why it's right. . . . In mathematics this principle is demonstrated in its purest form. 2 + 2 = 4, because 2 and 2 add up to four. But four is also four because 2 times 2 equals 4. Also, one plus one plus one plus one equals four. And pretty much every way you come at it, four is going to be four if everything that goes into it adds up (subtracts down, or whatever) to four."

In the Republic, Plato gives us this exchange:

Thrasymachus (to Socrates): "I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but answer . . . for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me; I must have clearness and accuracy."

Socrates: "You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,' --then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you."

Many of you have heard of Brain-Terminal.com. Maybe some of you haven't. He makes the best, most revealing, mini-documentaries about the left. Period. "When Protestors Attack" might be his best work. Though it's not nearly as funny as previous ones, that's only appropriate. The circumstances didn't leave room for much mirth. Here's a link to the video. Here's a link to his post summarizing his experience. I really cannot reccomend it strongly enough. Also: note how the long excerpts from the speakers actually proves them wrong.

I've received two very different kinds of email for today's column. Most are supportive, but there's a sizable minority of the scandalized and horrified. This is my favorite so far:

Mr. Goldberg, Wow!! Last time I wrote to you I simply summarized your amazingly ignorant comments and asked if I could possibly be right in my understanding of what you were saying. You simply answered that I had the gist of it. This time I must address some of the things you said directly.

Regarding the sheriff in the bad town, the inmate in prison, and the kid in the schoolyard. Do you need to be reminded that we are not in a Wild West town, a prison, or a schoolyard? I would hope that we might not simply take the attitude that we should respond as if we are. Each of those situations is basically an "every man for himself", "the biggest bully on the block wins" atmosphere. This is the real world, not the movies. If you are that sheriff, that prisoner or that schoolboy, what is bound to happen is that someone will ambush you on your way home, stick a shiv in you while you sleep, or the school bullies will catch you when you are one against a dozen and beat the living crap out of you. (Remind you of anything, like the Twin Towers or what is happening in Iraq post-war?)

Why attack Iraq? WHY NOT!!!? Are you certifiably insane? We should attack another country just because we want to hit somebody and they are a good target?!! Are you a distant cousin of Osama Bin Laden or Mohamar Khadaffi?

You say that it is impossible to make a logical argument that Bush lied about WMD because, in order to have lied, he would have had to know that Saddam did not have WMD? Here is the logical argument. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Powell all said that they KNEW that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and KNEW exactly where they were. They didn't say they didn't know whether he did or not, they didn't say he MIGHT have them, they said they KNEW he had them. But, obviously they didn't know any such thing. That, my friend, was a lie.

You said, "the kicker for me was simple: We needed to kick someones butt...and Iraq was by far the best candidate...The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense..sometimes the smartest thing you can do is beat the tar out of a bad guy---even if that bad guy was 'innocent' of the specific offense that ticked you off." This is the attitude of a criminal, of a mob boss, of a cretinous idiot who has a strong back and no brains.

My response I won't spend a lot of time on this. But my short answer is quite simple. The global arena is a state of nature. It is not bound by law. What we call "international law" is in fact a set of agreements between relatively like-minded nations and governments. Saddam Hussein, who was a one-man State, lived and operated outside all of those agreements and arrangements. We operated through the United Nations until it became clear the UN was unwilling to enforce its own judgements and rules. We decided to enforce them anyway. Again: We've got nothing to apologize for.

I'm trying very hard not to write about Fascism on a daily basis in the Corner -- in an effort to keep my powder dry -- or some other appropriate metaphor. But, prompted by Randy's post, I'd like to say two things. First, after spending the last 6 months reading almost nothing but books and articles about Fascism, I can say that Michael Ledeen really knows what he's talking about. He's still counted as one of the handful of leading scholars of Fascism even though he doesn't work on the subject much any more. His book-length interview with Renzo de Felice (Mussolini's definitive biographer and the premiere Italian historian of the period) on the nature of Fascism was one of the most politically and culturally influential books in post-WWII Italy.

Second, about that David Ramsey Steel article. It's very well-done and spot-on on many points. But, in the interests of saving my own material, let me just say that he's probably not right about the Cole Porter song. In fact, there's a large controversy among a small number of people about that. Stay tuned for the day when Kathryn can relentlessly plug my book. In the meantime, please, no more Fascism-baiting!

According to United Nations estimates, up to 80 per cent of the approximately 6bn metric tons of cargo traded each year is moved by ship. Of that, almost 75 per cent passes at some point through one of the five main choke points in the seafaring economy - the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca.

A terrorist attack against one or more of these transit areas that disabled it for weeks or months - or, in the case of a radiological "dirty bomb" attack, for far longer - could seriously disrupt global trade. The current economic calculus of moving cargo by sea would be rendered useless. Everything from energy prices to insurance rates to shipping freight costs would be affected. The ripple effects, particularly for industrialised nations, are incalculable.

This is what al-Qaeda, with its revamped leadership structure, is counting on. While the US Homeland Security Department argues about how many screening machines to install at airports, terrorists are planning how to convert supertankers carrying liquefied petroleum gas or other chemicals into floating bombs - or perhaps even dirty bombs with help from a rogue nation with nuclear knowhow.

Data compiled by Aegis Defence Services, a UK security consultancy, provide worrying evidence of this. In March, for example, pirates boarded a chemical tanker, the Dewi Madrim near Sabah in the south Pacific for several hours. Their intention was not to ransom the crew or offload its cargo, as south-east Asia's pirates usually do, but simply to learn how to steer it at varying speeds. And in the past few months, 10 tugboats have been reported missing, each of which could be used for close-in manoeuvring of a disabled tanker, hijacked just before entering a big port (at Singapore, say), and just before being set ablaze.

Other dangers to maritime interests are also becoming apparent. In June, for example, a offshore maintenance engineer with deep-sea diving skills, who had been kidnapped in 2000, was released by Abu Sayyaf. He reported that his captors had wanted to learn how to dive, but were not interested in learning how to resurface.

I certainly don't think that The Boxcutter Kid is a hero. I don't think it's good policy to allow Al Qaeda and others to bring unauthorized items onto airplanes -- so long as they have a note with their smuggled weaponry claiming that it's for a good cause. If this Boxcutter Kid really wants to do something that will advance the safety and security of America, he should buy a copy of Legacy.

Given what most people today think they know about Fascism, this bare recital of facts is a mystery story. How can a movement which epitomizes the extreme right be so strongly rooted in the extreme left? What was going on in the minds of dedicated socialist militants to turn them into equally dedicated Fascist militants?

I was determined never again to buy another book that even mentioned Bill Clinton. I, for one, just wanted to forget them both. But as a fan of NRO I finally broke down yesterday, largely at your urging, and bought Mr. Lowry’s book. I’m glad I did. I suppose I expected a lot of [bomb-throwing], but what I got was an important, balanced and thoughtful critique. I would encourage others who, like myself, held off buying Legacy as a reaction to Clinton fatigue to change their minds; buy this book.

p.s. do you get a sales commission?

While it is kind of disturbing, it is also very cool. Obviously a civilian cares enough to point out flaws in our system. He should realise, of course, that what he did could easily cause hysteria. His inclusion of notes definitely clarifies his intent.

This reminds me of what happens with Linux and the open source Operating Systems. People will hack into other people's systems, but not maliciously. Instead, their intent is to point out the reality of a security flaw that they found. They then post or publish a report of what happened, including why they believe it works (or just what causes it.)

While this is kind of annoying, being hacked into, it is also very positive; people get a sense that they are not un-hackable, and not only that, they also are aided in improving their security.

They say eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom. And apparently, Americans want us to remain vigilant. Maybe next time he could suggest what can be done to stop this kind of intrusion.

A couple readers who watched the Jet game this weekend noticed it in the background. Apparently the US Government has enough money to have a blimp dedicated to medicare. They should fly it over Cato and see if it gets shot down.

So the President of Bolivia is clearly hounded out of office by the mob. Maybe he got what he deserved, maybe he didn't. I'm learning about that now. But, um, where's all the handwringing about democracy? When Hugo Chavez, the thug-in-chief in Venezuela, was ousted in a fairly popular coup earlier this year panties were bunched across the sunny uplands of American liberalism. What a terrible precedent! Whither democracy?!? When the Algierian military stifled an attempt by fundamentalists to impose sharia through a one-time election, the New York Times collapsed on its fainting couch. Well, isn't anyone concerned that a bunch of hardboiled leftists and militant indians can hound an elected leader from office simply because he tried to impose order? Is there absolutely nothing troubling about this? I've listened to three reports on NPR and read several newspaper accounts and nobody seems to think there's a double standard here. What am I missing?

I agree that those walls are hideous looking, but I think they are only indirectly linked to security. I believe they are going to construct an underground visitor's center and entrance to the monument. Those walls are to "hide" the construction.

Best part from The Sun:

But De Villepin’s biggest surprise came when he claimed his country shares with Britain “a refusal to surrender.”

He seemed to forget France’s surrender to Germany by signing an armistice in June 1940.

De Villepin, 49, also claimed France was a “reliable” ally to the US, despite leading opposition to the Iraq war.

He made no mention of how furious Americans famously branded French president Jacques Chirac and his cronies as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

Tim: I agree with you -- as i suggested before -- that the Clinton-hatred V. Bush-hatred parallel annoys me. I really think they're apples and oranges (it's sort of like those absurd comparisons between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton because both were babyboomers). And, I think you're right to the extent that Brooks sounds like he's scoring cheap points by triangulating here (but I give him the benefit of the doubt that he was more detailed than how he was quoted). After all, Republicans supported (or lead) Clinton on most of his major accomplishments. As we know from Legacy, crime, welfare reform and Nafta were conservative Republican issues which Clinton simply signed on to. Bob Dole shamed Clinton into going into Yugoslavia. And, even National Review (and the Weekly Standard) supported Clinton on the Iraqi airstrikes, Kosovo, etc. The New Republic supported Bush on the war, but not so much afterward. While the Washington Monthly, the American Prospect and -- duh -- the Nation have been gnashing their teeth about almost every single Bush initiative, domestic and foreign.

But, nevertheless, many of these points are ones conservatives should be making to Kurtz rather than ones Kurtz should be expressing himself. Look: I think it would be wonderful if the Washington Post or some other major paper actually hired a Tim Graham to do serious conservative media criticism. But I do think that compared to the alternatives Kurtz is at least a straight shooter. To me, it's the difference between, say, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Matthews doesn't even know how to ask a fair question anymore. Russert may ask the wrong question, but I trust that he's approaching the issue in good faith. Kurtz may have his biases, but I don't think they're ideologically significant.

On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations. Some Europeans blame Russia for callousness to misery in eastern Europe. But some also blame America because they expected so much more from her.

The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word "liberation." Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting. . . .

When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies. . . .

We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

Here’s Mark Steyn once again throwing away the chance of an all-expenses paid vacation in ‘Saudi’ Arabia. Most interesting is what he has to say about the (alleged – let us remember) chaplain problems at Guantanamo.

”So how come two years after Sept. 11 groups with terrorist ties are still able to insert their recruiters into America's military bases, prisons and pretty much anywhere else they get a yen to go? It's not difficult to figure out: Wahhabism is the most militant form of Islam, the one followed by all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists and by Osama bin Laden. The Saudis -- whose state religion is Wahhabism -- fund the spread of their faith in lavishly endowed schools and mosques all over the world and, as a result, traditionally moderate Muslim populations from the Balkans to South Asia have been dramatically radicalized. How could the federal government be so complacent as to subcontract the certification of chaplains in U.S. military bases to Wahhabist institutions?”

That may be too harsh. I suspect that it’s not just a question of complacency (although it would not be the first time that the administration has displayed that particular sin in this particular struggle), but also unease in the face of an ideology that comes draped in religious clothing. Religions, this country likes to think, are almost always a force for the good. As a result, there is no enthusiasm for challenging the bona fides of ideologues who cite a god as their inspiration. That’s a credit to the positive influence of the First Amendment on this country’s democracy, but it’s also nonsense – and it means that the US remains hopelessly unprepared to deal with the challenge of Islamic extremism.

Steyn has this suggestion:

"Here's an easy way to make an effective change: Less Wahhabism is in America's interest. More Wahhabism is in the terrorists' interest. So why can't the United States introduce a policy whereby, for the duration of the war on terror, no organization directly funded by the Saudis will be eligible for any formal or informal role with any federal institution? "

He has a point.

And, while, we’re on the topic of the Saudis, how about those 28 pages from the 9/11 report, Mr. President?

The Boykin business rumbles on. Here’s the case for the prosecution, made by the usually sensible Fareed Zakaria, and thus it’s well worth reading. But does it stand up? Let’s take three points:

1. Given his position, Boykin shouldn’t have suggested that God was somehow involved in elevating George W. Bush to the presidency.

It’s not the explanation I’d go for, but then I’m not a religious person. A belief that God routinely intervenes in human events is fairly common amongst people of faith. If not, why bother to pray? Under these circumstances, therefore, Boykin’s comments may have been undiplomatic (and could certainly be construed, perhaps unfairly, as inappropriately partisan), but they are not that outlandish.

2. Boykin has revealed anti-Islamic prejudices.

There may be other comments by him out there, but from what I’ve seen so far, it’s the terrorists he’s describing as Satanic, not Islam as a whole. Now, in my view, Old Nick is not the problem. It’s better to look at psychosis, self-importance, a love of violence and grotesque personal inadequacy as explanations for the bin Laden crowd. Nevertheless, given that Satan is regularly described in this country as the personification of evil, Boykin’s opinions seem unexceptional. For what it’s worth, here’s a prominent Saudi who seemed to have very similar views. Needless to say this has not stopped the Saudis attacking Boykin. The LA Times reports that one "Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy advisor to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told reporters in Washington on Friday that Boykin's comments were "outrageous." The hypocrisy of the Saudis know no limits.

3. Boykin has a rather shaky grasp of ecumenical principles.

Well yes, ‘guilty’ on that one, but is ecumenicism this country’s state religion? Zakaria may prefer the ‘we are all one family’ pap he quotes from Joe Lieberman – and, yes, such an approach is certainly more tactful, but there is something refreshing about someone who is prepared to say that the other guy’s faith is flat-out wrong. That’s a view Boykin is perfectly entitled to, so long as he accepts that, under the American system, the other guy has a right to express his opinions too. So far as we know, he does.

Case not proved, I reckon, but Boykin has agreed to stop talking to religious groups and to tone down his remarks on religion. That's wise.

More important action from the EU.

Via Blogger Bill Dawson (the headline's his fault too...)

From the IMDB message board:

The Derb made a promising (even glorious) debut with that Dragon flick; unfortunately, since then (much like Orson Welles) he has fallen acutely ill with that peculiarly American disease, being famous for being famous. He's been known to fritter and waste a lot of time on Internet websites, particularly that Hellfire's Club known as NRO; kickin' it high-style with a cadre of dilettantes, fops, and also-ran's such as Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez and the sneering Andrew Stuttaford. Such an utter tragedy.

The EU is already embroiled in a number of corruption scandals juicy enough to call for a grim celebration (toasted in Swedish ‘standard’ milk, of course) by its many critics. According to the Telegraph, here’s another, this time involving its ‘Committee of the Regions,’ whatever that it is. As usual in these matters, the whistleblower seems to have been through a tough time:

“Robert McCoy, formerly the financial controller and now internal auditor for the committee, complained that he was vilified by colleagues and taunted with cries of "Gestapo!" after trying to clamp down on widespread financial irregularities, including bogus expenses claims by some committee members (none of them British or Irish).”

Cries of “Gestapo”, eh? Rough talk that in an organization that was so shocked (shocked!) by Berlusconi’s gaffe in the EU ‘parliament’ earlier this year.

Daniel Hannan, a Conservative member of the European Parliament discusses the way that his colleagues get ‘reimbursed’ for their ‘expenses’. Here’s an example showing how the system works:

“The idea of auditing any of these expenses strikes many Euro-MPs as sacrilegious - "an assault on the dignity of our office" as an Italian friend grandly put it. So everything is done on the basis of no receipts, no invoices. The most outrageous case is the travel allowance, whereby MEPs get the equivalent of a full fare plus 20 per cent regardless of how they actually make the journey. If you're prepared to fly Ryanair from Stansted, you can easily trouser £600 a week - tax free, of course, since it counts as expenses, not income.”

Hannan draws wider conclusions:

“As Euro-enthusiasts muster in defence of the new constitution, we are once again being treated to some rather uplifting rhetoric about peace and democracy and so forth. To quote the document itself: "The Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity.

“Yet behind these phrases is the reality of the Brussels system: the sacking of whistleblowers, the Eurostat scandal, the Committee of the Regions affair, the self-righteous bureaucracy, the complacent Commissioners. And where are the MEPs, supposedly the people's tribunes? Why, awarding themselves an additional perk of £35 a week to pay for any taxis that they may be forced to use when the limousine service stops running at 10pm.”

Now, corruption is not something that is unique to the EU, of course, but there is something about the ‘Union’s’ set-up that makes it somehow unsurprising. Flush with cash, not really a democracy, not really a nation, it has no real anchors, controls or balances. No wonder so many of its officials appear to be on the take…

Ok, first Rush, but he violated the no conservative may mention race rule, now Gregg Easterbrook. Please, there must be a backlash. Are we to be left with only insipid writers and commentators who never say anything remotely interesting? Is all of life to be reduced to the Bull Durham sports quote level of discussion? Say it ain't so Jonah!

I just read Howard Kurtz's "Bush Haters" piece in the Post (linked below). What I found striking about it -- since the debate itself is old news to me -- was Kurtz's fairness. Kurtz isn't a conservative and I certainly don't always agree with him, but he strikes me as one of the very few guys who covers an ideologically riven beat with not only admirable fairness but substantive fairness. I think the differences between Clinton Hatred and Bush Hatred are very profound and I find the parallelism laid out by Kurtz a bit annoying. But it's not up to Kurtz to settle which side is right and he doesn't try.

Thanks to Swedish political editor guy for this shocking revelation.