England has just won the rugby world cup and Jacques Chirac rather misses the point:

"This deserved victory is also a victory for Europe. Thanks to the extraordinary talent of the English players, the World Cup is coming to the northern hemisphere for the first time. All lovers of rugby in France and in Europe share the joy of the English fans."

Oh yes, that’s right Jacques. They were playing for Europe, just like they were in the semi-finals.

The Instapundit is linking to a Slashdot story on electronic voting, and none of it makes pretty reading. However, when the good Professor Reynolds says that “conspiracy theories aside, it's a real issue,” he misses the point. Part of the problem with these systems is the conspiracy theories that they are bound to generate, something that will be deeply damaging to American democracy, particularly, if as seems likely, we are about to go through an unusually bitter election cycle.

Pen and paper ballots now!

I just got back from my interview on the Lord of the Rings films. I think it went pretty well and I'd be surprised if they didn't use some of it. That said, I'm sure I will get grief for my enthusiasm from purists, especially after my qualifying remarks get cut. Still my geek cred went up, big time. Bruce Lee may not have kicked my ass, but not all of us can be the Derb.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg,

I’m currently writing a short paper on a Hayekian approach to the decision in Goodridge. I think that the main point of criticism for Hayek, based on his writings on law and legislation, would be of the role that the courts played in the policy versus the legislature. Hayek’s conception of natural law was one of law discovered among the people. Judges could recognize that law, but not really create it in order to move society along in spite of itself. Judging from a preliminary reading of the polls, and the widespread disagreement and dialogue on the issue, I think it’s hard to impossible to say that the court was merely reflecting the larger view of society, and not legislating instead. Regardless of the merits of same-sex marriage, Hayek would condemn the decision by the Supreme Judicial Court.

From a reader:

Hi Jonah -

In The Corner today you touched on something that has always rankled me but I never see clarified. Some reader got after you for presuming Jacko guilty before he was ever tried. This reader implied that under our constitution, presuming guilt is a no-no. As a prosecutor, I can tell you that as citizens, we can presume guilt all we want. It is only in a court of law that an individual has the presumption of innocence. On a related note, people with attitudes like your reader often equate a "Not Guilty" verdict with innocence, when the former only means that the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the latter implies a complete lack of culpability.

Thanks for the great writing.

I'm scheduled to be on this Sunday (live!) to discuss Michael Jackson and Rush Limbaugh. 11:30 EST.

In this address[the Whitehall one], which history will come to call "the three pillars speech," the president spoke more broadly in terms of freedom and democracy than any Western leader ever has.

And he has a right to do so. After all, in the 26 months since 9/11, he has led the way in the liberation of more than 43 million people from the inhuman tyrannies of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists in Iraq.

For speaking words and taking actions like these, protestors in London decided that he was no better than Saddam Hussein, a man who (by conservative estimates) murdered half a million people inside his own country. They pulled down an effigy of Bush that had been designed to look like the Saddam statue pulled down in Baghdad in May.

From a reader:

Jonah,
You are so right that there is no law that requires you do presume MJ is innocent. But it goes farther than that. There is no language in the constitution that says a defendant must be considered innocent until proved guilty. This “right” is extrapolated from two sources, (1) the Fifth Amendment and (2) the common law practice that the State presents its case first (after which the defendant need not testify or present any evidence). I’m sure you know this, but it may be worth explicitly stating.

I've now read 8 gazillion emails on gay marriage. One of the interesting trends has been an increase in the number of conservatives who say government should get out of the marriage business altogether. While I think this is probably -- thought not definitely -- a bad idea, I generally find it an admirable tendency. Conservatives have always been reluctant to use the state for social engineering. Indeed, the rise of "big government conservatives," "compasionate conservatism" and, yes, "neoconservatism" are all largely attributable to desire to fight fire with fire against left wing social engineers. If the left stayed out of the social engineering business, it's more than plausible that the right would never have gotten in the business in the first place. (This "anti-State" tendency of American conservatism has been a long running theme of mine see here, here, or here. ).

What I find admirable about conservatives' increasing willingness to pull-up the plank of state support for marriage is that it reveals A) an openness to new arguments B) a dogmatic preference for a smaller state, even at the cost to your side and C) a reflexive decency which says I'd rather the state do nothing than impose my views on the unwilling.

Now, again, this isn't the majority position, but I have been witnessing first hand how literally thousands of rank and file conservatives work through these issues and this seems to be a common response to demands for state recognition of gay marriage; "well, then get the government out of the marriage business entirely!"

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with a state reflecting and recognizing the cultural arrangements of the nation, but as an intellectual tendency I find this heartening.

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

I wonder if you realize that the affadavit The Smoking Gun posted was not
anything connected to any new charges against Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson
settled any action related to the posted affadavit a decade ago. Such a
settlement, of course, is not any judgement of guilt or innocence.

Luckily, we have folks such as you (and Mr. Frum, too, just today regarding
George Galloway) to presume the guilt of parties with whom they may disagree
or disapprove. Perhaps you should consider a change of career. Just think
of what efficiencies you could contribute to the judicial process!

Regards,
[Name withheld]

My response Um, yeah. I knew it was an old affadavit. Paying off a kid you molest may keep you out of prison, it doesn't keep you out of hell and it doesn't change the fact that you should be in prison. Moreover, I'm so sick of people writing me to say that I can't say I think someone is guilty unless a court says he's guilty. Such assertions have no basis in law or logic. I think OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife too, by the way. If I'm proved wrong about Michael Jackson, I'll admit it. But I'm not looking for crow recipes.

From the National Journal article Rich mentioned the other day:

U.S. media presentations of the French arguments have been on a similar plane. The "cheese-eatin'" tag (would that be Brie or Roquefort?) derives from an eight-year-old episode of the animated television show The Simpsons, in which a reluctant teacher of French greets his elementary-school charges with the rousing salutation "Bonjour, ye cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys!" It fell to a pop-culturally informed conservative polemicist, National Review scribe Jonah Goldberg, to revive and popularize the insult in the prewar name-calling. The New York Post is still calling the French "weasels."

St. Lawrence University economics professor Steven Horowitz writes:

Jonah,

I think your state U poli sci prof has Hayek right. I've wanted to write a Hayekian defense of gay marriage paper for a few years, and eventually will. The key to the argument, it seems to me, is that Hayek has a quasi-functionalist view of social institutions - institutions have evolved for reasons, namely that they fulfill some social function. But in the "sifting" process of determining how a particular institution comes to be, certainly human judgments about the abililty of alternate institutions to do the job matter. The long-standing prohibition on homosexual acts/marriage may well be due to incorrect facts that people have held, and now with better factual knowledge, the old prohibitions aren't seen to perform their function any more, or better yet: allowing people to engage in the prohibited behavior doesn't undermine the function of the broader institution.

Perhaps given the economic circumstances of a poorer, agricultural world, and the state of social and scientific knowledge, the various prohibitions on homosexuality made sense to people at the time, and perhaps they made sense in reality. But in a different era, with different knowledge, Hayek would be the first to say that the institution can and should evolve. After all, how different is it from prohibitions on interracial marriage, along these lines? Didn't many people believe that the factual knowledge supported an inequality of the races? Didn't changes in our factual knowledge contribute to the end of such laws?

Lastly, as early as the early 70s, Hayek had a footnote about homosexual acts being an example of behavior that should not be prohibited, and spoke specifically of the British commission who examine it in the 50s or 60s (I don't have my book with me). Also, Hayek argued that the job of the social scientist was to assess critically each institution of society, but just not all of them at once. Yes, he argued for the importance of traditions, but he did not revere them. I think the gay marriage issue is a case where his evolutionary half would have won out over his traditional half.

Steve

Hot off the AP wire (via a reader, though I have edited considerably):

HEADLINE: Derbyshire Says: ChiComs have good eating and they are not as wacky as they used to be.

In an unusual turn of events, John Derbyshire a.k.a. 'the Derb', a writer for the extreme right-wing National Review, announced his defection today to Communist China. 'The Derb' gave his reasoning thus: "America has become too totalitarian, I've been harassed lately by Socialist Lesbians United Together (S.L.U.T). These whackos are taking over. Also the Chinese have good eating, that dim sum is yummy."

Asked to comment on the defection, the Red Chinese consular official in New York, Mr. Wai No Dong, said, "We welcome all running dog capitalists as long as they have only one child. If he has more than one kid, we'll have to abort her, even if she is already born. Sorry, thems the rules."

The Democratic candidates for president pitched in, hoping to exploit the growing 'Derb Gap' since this announcement came to light.

Wesley Clark: "Well, It'll take me awhile to formulate where I stand on the impending 'Derb Crisis'. I'm not too sure how this defection fits in with my message. Bill, Hillary and I will talk it over and see if they can tell me where I should stand on this point."

John Kerry: "Well, I've exhibited leadership on all issues concerning immigration, so why not emigration too since I've learned everything I know about immigration from the senior boozer, er, the senior senator from Massachusetts. Did you know I served in Vietnam?"

Dick Gephardt: "Well at least we are exporting something to China... but is 'the Derb' a paid-up member of the International Brotherhood of Bloviators?"

Joe Lieberman: "Well, let's see..." The candidate fell asleep as he was giving a statement. Apparently he's as boring to himself as he is to others.

Dennis Kucinich: "He should just stay here in the Union of Soviet American Republics, a Kucinich presidency will bring all the benefits of Communist China to the USAR. Free heath care, 100% literacy and massive, state organized compulsion, we'll be shoveling the American people around like cement in no time."

Al Sharpton: "One less racist homophobe, far as I's concerned."

Dr. Howard Dean: "I want to be the candidate for the 'the Derbs' out there who have Red Commie Chinese flags on the back of their mopeds, rickshaws, bicycles and other non-polluting, progressive transportation devices."

Carol Mosely-Braun: "The 'Derb' crisis is not one that I am familiar with. Who is the 'Derb' and why should I, as a faux-candidate, comment?"

John Edwards: "My candidacy is going nowhere. I've tacked to the Left, tacked to the Right, tacked to the Center. Nothing seems to work. Again, I'll go out of my way and say, 'Derb don't go', tomorrow I'll rework that message, and so on, until I can get some traction with the 'Derb' issue. Or maybe I'll just defect, too. Do they have grits in China?"

Jacob Levy asks a hypothetical question for "those most strongly opposed to the Massachusetts case": What would be their view of the constitutionality of a state law that forbade marriages where one party was known to be infertile? I don't know if I'm really the right person to answer the question, as I have not written much about Goodridge. I am, however, opposed to the decision, and can somewhat fairly be described as someone "currently in a panic about judicial tyranny" (a panic that in my case long predates Goodridge). For whatever it's worth, here's my answer: I think that the federal Constitution, properly interpreted, would not bar such a law. I don't know enough about the constitution of Massachusetts to venture a judgment about its compatibility with the hypothetical law.

Let me go on to answer some hypothetical challenges that have been issued in other recent constitutional debates. If a courthouse in Alabama were to display excerpts from the Koran rather than the Decalogue, I would have no (federal) constitutional objection to that. And if, in some place where heterosexuals were a minority, the legislature outlawed heterosexual sex, I am not at all sure that there would be a valid (federal) constitutional objection to that, either. (There would, however, be a strong case for moving out of the jurisdiction.)

As Levy notes, this jurisprudential opinion is independent of any judgment about the wisdom or desirability of such policies.

The Corner: All The Right Angles.

Or something like that.

Remember when being sent to the Corner was a bad thing?

Keep your nose in the Corner and stay away from the Couch.



Keep the Corner clean. Don't feed the Goldberg.

I stand somewhat corrected. I received this email from a reader. I've withheld his name and school because I haven't heard back from him about whether he wants his ID revealed (my standard policy: When in doubt keep IDs secret):

Jonah, I am a pol theorist [at a State University]. A good friend of mine and I were discussing Hayek last night on the phone and specifically about the issue of gay marriage. He is for it, I thihk. I infer that from the following in Fatal Conceit. "I ought however at least to mention that I believe that new factual knowledge has in some measure deprived traditional rules of sexual morality of some of their foundation,and that it seems likely that in this area substantial changes are bound to occur" (p. 51). This jibes with his general tendency to acknowledge that morality and culture evolves, much like the species evolves. Just like religion was dethroned largely by the enlightenment progress and the capitalist order, so also are traditional notions of sex roles overturned as "new facts" (e.g., material plenty, technological advances in contraception, etc.) emerge. I think that, ultimately, he endorses a vulgarized version of Hegel, who held that the "actual is rational and the rational is actual." To say the least, his is a strange defense of traditionalism, even of a Burkean variety. All the best, [Name withheld]

Lots of email. I like this one, for no good reason whatsoever:

I suspect that, instead of saying, "Argghhh! It burns!" as you suggest on The Corner, a LOTR geek (being also a fan of The Hobbit) is more likely to shout, "We hates it forever!" Since I'm more of a Fritz Leiber geek, there's nothing to shout. Though Fafhrd would probably distract you while the Gray Mouser lifted your wallet . . . KUTGW, Hank Davis (You have my permission to use my name . . . but why would you want to?)

If you're sitting there, fists clenched in rage around Frodo and Gandalf action figures wondering why I get to do this Lord of the Rings interview while you can recite the The Silmarillion from memory, I'm sorry. Apparently the documentary's producers liked my review of the first movie. You may be more qualified -- you know who you are -- but in this instance, "there can be only one!"

Oh, wait, that's from Highlander.

(Somewhere, some LOTR geek just shouted "Argghhh! It burns!")

It's official. Tomorrrow afternoon I will be interviewed for a mini-documentary on the Lord of the Rings which -- I'm told -- will eventually find its way on to the "Return of the King" DVD.

Of course, they may not use anything I say, but since I plan on speaking in Entish, I'm not too worried and I am very, very psyched.

Here's one response to my post about Hayek:

Hayek would object to social engineering, for a certainty.

But I rather expect that Hayek would have preferred that the government stay out of the marriage business *altogether.* After all, marriage is a social relationship between two people, not amongst two people and the state. I doubt he would have considered it appropriate for the state to judge whether *any* relationship does or does not deserve the dignity of being called "marriage." He'd leave it to civil society, and at most allow appropriate simplications in tax filing or estate management to persons who desired to be considered a "household," or the like.

Leaving the dignity of marriage wholly to civil society would allow social institutions to evolve independent of the state and its ambitions towards social engineering. We should recall that Hayek did not consider himself a "conservative," because he considered it inappropriate for the government to step in even to preserve existing social institutions.

My Response: Two points come to mind. First, if Hayek would have opposed state endorsement and support for heterosexual marriage, why didn't he say so? I admit I'm speaking from some ignorance here, but I don't recall Hayek making that a big issue of his. I invite correction on this point if I'm wrong. But the guy only died in 1992, so he had plenty of opportunities to spot this "problem" if he saw it as such.

Second, as longtime readers know, I do not agree with the notion that Hayek wasn't a conservative. Yes he rejected the label "conservative," but he just as explicitly rejected the label "libertarian." The conservatives he disagreed with were of the European variety. Meanwhile, he explicitly declared that conservatives in America are the friends of liberty. His preferred label was "Old Whig" which was also the preferred self-description of Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism -- a fact and allusion Hayek clearly had in mind.

Ok, Ok! I finally succumbed to the wicked wiles of Kathryn J. and subscribed to NRODT! It was a gift to myself for xmas, and with the 3 to 4 week “waiting” period before receiving my first issue, it should arrive just in time, the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, if I just had a Cosmo coffee mug to go with it………

The suits want me to come up with some ideas for Jonah and/or Cosmo related merchandise. I find this prospect equal parts flattering and weird. I really don't want people wearing my mug on their clothes -- at least not prominently. What I really need are two things: tasteful, clever, and reasonable ideas (a Cosmo blimp, for example, is not reasonable), and short quotes from me that people think might make for good fodder for coffee cups, t-shirts etc. I've been looking thrrough the couple lists of "Jonah quotes" on the web and all of them are just too long to work. This is all very odd, I know. But if you have ideas or nominations, please send them along.

I live in the centre of London. I live in Kensington and I work in the City. Buckingham Palace is in between. Last evening, my oldest son was confirmed in a church in Knightsbridge, not more than a few hundred yards from the Palace. I have been moving constantly across central London for the last two days.

I tell you this useless and uninteresting information for the sole purpose of advising you that I have yet to see or hear a protester. I have not heard an anti-American remark. Now I'm not saying that there are no protesters and I'm not saying there are no anti-Americans. In fact, I know there are, because I see and hear them on TV 24 hours a day. But in the very least, take this as an unofficial on-the-scene report that London does not appear to this resident as it appears on television.

Andrew Sullivan has an oddly misleading (disingenuous?) post about gay marriage this morning. Titled, "Conservatives for Marriage" he writes, "One under-reported aspect of the issue of equal marriage rights is how divided conservatives are." He then lists a bunch of folks who are for gay marriage: "Jon Rauch, Steve Chapman, Nick Gillespie, Jim Pinkerton, Virginia Postrel, Glenn Reynolds." Now I don't know how Steve Chapman would define himself, but he strikes me as more libertarian than conservative. The same certainly goes for Pinkerton. But Sullivan is simply distorting what he surely knows to be the truth when he lumps Nick Gillespie, Virginia Postrel and Glenn Reynolds in the conservative camp. Gillespie -- and the magazine he runs -- is flatly contemptuous and nasty toward conservatives and their ideas, often to the detriment of his arguments. Postrel is more civil -- and by my lights usually much more thoughtful -- but she has also gone to great lengths to distance herself from conservatism and, often, to ridicule it. Glenn Reynolds, certainly doesn't ridicule conservatives, but I'm fairly sure he doesn't call himself one either. Lastly, there's Jonathan Rauch. In many ways he's sui generis. Yes, he's brilliant and well-respected, and he has some very conservative views. But he is also gay. And on gay issues -- much like Sullivan -- his sexuality often seems to inform his views more than his conservatism.

As for the bloggers he cites later in his post, I just don't know enough. But the point remains that Sullivan is overreaching when he claims conservatives are "divided" and then cites as evidence folks who flatly and passionately deny the conservative label. Sullivan's surely right that conservatives, including George Will, are divided over a Federal Marriage Amendment (I'm still on the fence myself, by the way). But that is a conflation of tactical differences with principled ones.

THE ANGEL OF DEATH

In the great book of John you’re warned of the day When you’ll be laid beneath the cold clay; The angel of death will come from the sky And claim your poor soul when the time comes to die.

Chorus: When the angel of death comes down after you Can you smile and say that you have been true? Can you truthfully say with your dying breath That you’re ready to meet the angel of death?

When the lights all grow dim and the dark shadows creep And then your loved ones are gathered to weep, Can you face them and say with your dying breath That you’re ready to meet the angel of death?

[Chorus] When the angel of death etc.

Hank pronounces "poor" as "purr." Fred Rose tried to get him to say "poor," but Hank wouldn't. "That's the way we say it, where I come from..."

Jonah, you've never heard a libertarian saying that tax breaks should be extended as widely as possible?

More seriously, the difference between the libertarian case and the examples you mention is likely to be the question of when setting boundaries sinks into, for want of a better pejorative, 'discrimination'. Let's look at social security.The libertarian might be opposed to it in principle, but, given that it exists, I doubt that he would support restricting its bounty to, say, women alone. At the same time, he could quite plausibly make the case that, if there is going to be social security, it should be confined to those aged 70 and above. Following this logic, the libertarian argument would be that the decision to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples was an act of discrimination rather than something with (to him) rather more respectable intellectual foundations.

We brought Lucy on the cruise. She absolutely loved it. Not only did all of the NR Cruisers lavish attention and tickles on her, but the crew of the ship did as well. Most of them are Indonesian men and they leave their kids at home for at least a year at a time, so they all missed their own babies and subsequently doted on her like you wouldn't believe (the fact that she's cuter than a planeload of puppies certainly helped). Add to that the considerable affections of the O'Beirnes, the Ponnurus and Capanos and she thought she was the queen of the world (We did not imitate that scene from the Titanic, however).

But now she's home and she's in a sour mood. Why? She wants to go to the Lido Deck, damn it!

Andrew - I'm sure you're right that many libertarians would and do make that case. Of course, it's a bit of a funny argument when you think about it. Libertarians believe -- most often correctly -- that no one group should get special treatment from the state. But rarely do they make the argument that if one group is already getting special treatment -- benefits, tax breaks etc -- we should expand that treatment as broadly as possible. I've never heard a libertarian say that since Social Security is here to stay we shouldn't just give money to old people, we should give it to young people too. Libertarians don't say that since affirmative action for blacks is wrong but nigh-upon permanent we should therefore also give Latinos and Asians special treatment too. They don't say that since we give subsidies to agriculture and steel we should also give subsidies to everyone else. Etc.

In other words, if benefits for heterosexual marriage are wrong, why do libertarians favor extending those benefits to homosexuals?

From John Leo's latest column about Brian Anderson's City Journal piece (which I still need to write about):

Some of the new conservative success is due to the rise of a large crop of commentators the left has not been able to match. Mostly young and often very funny, they include Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, and Jeff Jacoby.

Great article on Baghdad graffiti (found via Instapundit).

From Newsday:

....In a place where reliable surveys of the public mood are difficult to gauge, the writings on the walls are one way to peer into Iraqis' minds. Hussein is naturally a lightning rod for all sides, but the other issues that preoccupy the nighttime scribblers are their daily struggles for survival, their Arab neighbors and the new men in charge of their lives....

....There are the occasional anti-American slogans, some in misspelled English - like "Dawn USA" - but mostly President George W. Bush is hailed as a liberator, especially in the neighborhoods of the Shia majority historically brutalized by Hussein.

Samplings of the Arabic slogans include: "Down Saddam the infidel and long live Bush the believer!" "A thousand Americans but not one Tikriti," referring to residents of Hussein's hometown.

Many taunt the deposed dictator: "Saddam the dirty, the son of the dirty, in which septic tank are you hiding now?"

TCS has an interesting take on the relative silence of the libertarians on the issue. by James Miller. He argues that libertarian opposition to sodomy laws made sense because a limited state shouldn't criminalize private activity. But state endorsement of gay marriage is a different question because it means the state will actively take a side in the culture war rather than stay neutral. And, from a libertarian perspective, taking sides is a no-no. Rather than face this reality, the libertarians are ducking the fight.

From The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Because of an editing error, a story on the front page yesterday misattributed a quote from the speaker on an audiotape purportedly of Saddam Hussein as coming from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. It was the speaker on the tape, not Daschle, who said, "The evil ones now find themselves in crisis, and this is God's will for them." The only solution for Iraq was for "the zealous Iraqi sons, who ran its affairs and brought it out of backwardness . . . to return . . . to run its affairs anew," the speaker on the tape said, referring to the Baath leadership.

Look at it this way: If the number of Americans who still believe the war was the right thing to do voted today for George W. Bush he would win reelection in a landslide, according to my reading of this latest Gallup poll.

Just catching up on the corner and saw the line from the black belt who wants to fight Franken-- and I'm amazed.

Although I'm 6'3", 220lbs. and have@30 years martial arts experience (and bench@ 400lbs.) I definitely would NOT fight someone like Franken. Long ago my experience as a bouncer taught me that if a pudgy, fiftyish desk jockey with no discernable pugilistic skills challenges you to a fight, run like hell--he must have something in his coat pocket; and even if he doesn't, you can't win because, hey, biiiig deal, you beat up a pudgy, fiftyish desk jockey.

We are living in the heart of things--in Trafalgar Square--and, for what it's worth, can report that there is nothing of any substance going on at all. It's quite quiet--people are going about their business, but the usual buzz of tourist activity has slackened a bit. The first round of scheduled protest events involved a big talk by prominent left-leaning activists, and drew about 2,000 people. Then, about 1,000 marched through Oxford Street to protest the Bush Administration's environmental policies. The thousands who were supposed to greet him at Buckingham did not materialize--there were maybe 100. Right now (Wednesday afternoon), just after the President's big talk, there are a few hundred people milling around Trafalgar Square, a women's prayer circle, and some people congratulating themselves for putting red-dye in the fountains (get it?). The crowd is a little bigger than the crowd two days ago, who were protesting the ban on feeding the pigeons, but certainly smaller than the crowd last month, who were protesting tuition hikes at universities). The cops were cracking up. There was supposed to be a big "alternative state parade" of cyclists and other folks, but it seems to have fizzled. (There is a helicopter overhead right now).

At 3 pm, there is supposed to be a big "do" at Buckingham Palace, which I might go investigate. The REALLY big event, we're told, (the organizers keep downplaying expectations as the day goes by), will be on Thursday, when the statute of President Bush is pulled down (get it?).

I'm not sure what you all are reading back home, but it is simply not the case that the UK--or even London--is rising up in anger over the Bush visit. A (small) majority supports the visit, even if a (slight) majority oppose him and the war. Not that different than, say, New York or Washington. My impression is that most Britons--and even most Londoners -- are no more irritated by the President than by the "protesters." (All this notwithstanding the transparent efforts by the BBC and the Guardian-- which make Fox News and the Washington Times look like CNN and the Boston Globe--to stir up opposition).

Please ask Jonah: What in the world is Apple Care? Is it a warm, and fuzzy place that sells warm, and fuzzy apple drinks? Or is it a delicious orchard that sells antique apples? Or could it be a medical facility, as in an 'Apple-a-Day'? Before he answers.....what do the rest of us think could be the mysterious Apple Care?

I came back with a vicious head cold, locked out of our house, and my new Mac G5 won't start, so I'm in something of a sour mood. Nonetheless, it was a good trip but it's even better to be back. Just digging out now -- and waiting for AppleCare to open -- but I'll be back in a little bit.

The Guardian meanwhile has a selection of ‘letters’ greeting Bush. Many of the names won’t be familiar to an American readership (and when those names include the likes of Polly Toynbee and Tony Benn, you should count yourself lucky), but they make for an interesting read.

One stand-out, predictably, the effort from poor old Harold Pinter:

"Dear President Bush,

I'm sure you'll be having a nice little tea party with your fellow war criminal, Tony Blair. Please wash the cucumber sandwiches down with a glass of blood, with my compliments.

Harold Pinter "

Shouldn’t that be bile, Harold?

The Independent on George Bush and the environment:

“In the mid-1990s, under Bill Clinton, the US began to take a lead in cutting greenhouse gases. Mr Clinton's vice-president, Al Gore, himself an environmentalist with a well-regarded book, Earth in the Balance,led the US delegation at the conference in Kyoto in December 1997 which drew up the first binding cutback schedule. Mr Gore actually went a lot farther than the US State Department thought was wise.

He committed America to cuts so big they could only be achieved through what was in effect licensed cheating (such as buying emission credits from countries which had a surplus, such as Russia).But at least the US was strongly behind the Kyoto Protocol and its principles. George Bush changed all that. After barely three months in office, he withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.”

The US was strongly behind Kyoto? Here, yet again, is the Senate’s 95-0 vote from August 1997.

From the Daily Telegraph:

”The European Union is failing to keep track of huge annual subsidies, and 91 per cent of its budget is riddled with errors or cannot be verified, a financial watchdog said yesterday. The European Court of Auditors refused to certify EU accounts for the ninth successive year…”

Amid all the talk that ‘Europe’ is now viscerally anti-US (it isn’t, but some of its elite certainly is), here’s a reassuring poll from those reliably semi-detached members of that continent, the Brits. For all the protests about the Bush visit, most Britons still seem to welcome his visit.

Meanwhile, baying from the lunatic asylum, Ken Livingstone, London’s laughable mayor, decided to insult the victims of Stalin, Hitler and Mao with the comment that “Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen’.

The President will also be visiting Blair’s constituency. The Independent reports some comments from the locals, including predictably preening commentary from the usual useless clergyman, speaking, doubtless, from the usual deserted church.

Longtime NR reader, graduate of Infantry Basic Training (1991), intramural boxer when I was younger and more foolish, holder of two "black belts"...do please put me, too, on the list of potential Franken-bashers. (Reminds me of an old "Mr. Boffo" cartoon: "And in THIS corner, just the kind of jerk you always wanted to punch in the mouth!")

Although I'd like to believe that the court has left some room for the legislature, I can't find that in the opinion. In the last two paragraphs of the majority opinion, the court says: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." This is almost verbatim the holding of the Ontario Court of Appeals decision. Then, in the final paragraph, the court says:

"In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

There are four major elements here. First, from sentences one and two, the court rules that the current marriage law is unconstitutional. Second, the lower court opinion which had upheld the law is vacated. Third, the trial court is ordered to issue a new decision consistent with the SJC's opinion (that the marriage law is unconstitutional). Finally, the court says the decision will not take effect for 6 months. This is to "permit" (I'm sure they believe this is very generous) the legislature to act any way it wants "in light of this opinion." The one thing that is off the table is a legislative decision to reject the court's opinion. Earlier in the decision, the court specifically rejected the argument that the definition of marriage is a legislative function. It seems to me that the court may (1) ignore the opinion and let it go into effect in six months, (2) change the definition of marriage to "the voluntary union of two persons" or (3) begin the process of a state constitutional amendment. That will take approval by two successive legislatures then a popular vote in a general election. Which is to say, it is not a short term solution.

PETER ROBINSON: "Today's opinion [Justice Scalia writes in his dissent from the Lawrence decision] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." A decade from now, will the Supreme Court have mandated homosexual marriage?

JUDGE BORK: I think it's less than a decade. Could happen in two ways. One is Massachusetts is about to announce a constitutional right under their constitution to homosexual marriage. At that point, people will come to Massachusetts, get married, go back to their home states. There is the full faith in credit clause, which says the other state, must give credit to the Massachusetts--there will be a fight about the constitutionality and an attempt to stop that. The other route--and that may spread across the country by state court action and by full faith and credit clause. The other route is direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which I think, is ready to give a right to homosexual marriage, at least will be ready in a few years. The only way to stop this is--there is a proposed constitutional amendment saying that marriage is something between a man and a woman. And you--and no statute or constitutional claim may be interpreted to say same sex marriages is a marriage. Now it doesn't try to stop civil unions. If legislatures want to approve civil unions, it's up to them. I would oppose that but it's up to them. But marriage itself is too important I think to be sacrificed in the way that homosexual marriage would do. Now it must be said that heterosexuals have already done enormous damage to the marriage with their laws about no-fault divorce and that kind of thing so that the whole blame for the damage to the current situation of marriage and the family is certainly not to fall on homosexuals. But this would be a decisive step I think.

ROBINSON: Unless there's an amendment to the Constitution, the Court will indeed mandate homosexual marriage?

BORK: I think so.

ROBINSON: Do you then support such an amendment?

BORK: Yes.

ROBINSON: And do you think that such amendment is likely to pass?

BORK: It's iffy. The fact is that the opposition to homosexual marriage is eroding in the public. There's still a majority doesn't like it, thinks it's bad. But percentages are not as high as they used to be. And that is, in part, because of a brilliant campaign homosexual activists have waged to convince us that homosexuality is just like heterosexuality, just a question of taste, question of preference and no difference. I think that's not true. But it's having its effect. It may be that the public will not be sufficiently alarmed to adopt a constitutional amendment.

"In order to reduce the school budget, Principal Skinner decides to put forth 'Operation S.L.A.A.M.: So Long Athletics Art And Music.' " --- "The Simpsons," episode EABF20 ("The President Wore Pearls"), aired a mere two days ago.

"In a move the schools superintendent said 'cut the heart and soul' out of Westchester County's largest district, the Yonkers Board of Education last night slashed 502 jobs and eliminated most music and art instruction, interscholastic sports and all extracurricular activities." --- The Journal News, 18 Nov 2003

Wow, the Yonkers School Board must really be on the cutting edge...they're able to enact policy based on the very latest "Simpsons" episode, less than 48 hours after the episode has premiered! Yonkers tax dollars in action!

New Poll: Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage

Despite the overall rise in tolerance toward gays since the mid-1980s, many Americans remain highly critical of homosexuals -- and religious belief is a major factor in these attitudes.

Since the summer, opposition to gay marriage has risen modestly -- from 53% in July to 59% in the current survey. But most of the increased opposition has come from highly religious Americans who now reject gay marriage by more than six-to-one (80%-12%).

A new national survey of 1,515 Americans, conducted Oct. 15-19 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, finds that homosexuality in general -- not just gay marriage -- has become a major topic in churches and other houses of worship. In fact, priests and ministers are nearly as likely to address homosexuality from the pulpit as they are to speak out about abortion or prayer in schools.

The poll finds that exposure to messages about homosexuals in churches is associated with highly unfavorable views of gays and lesbians. This is especially the case in evangelical churches, whose members have far more negative attitudes toward gays than members of other churches. Fully 55% of evangelicals who attend services where the issue of homosexuality is addressed have very unfavorable views of homosexuals. This compares with 28% of those who regularly attend services in non-evangelical Protestant and Catholic churches whose clergy discuss homosexuality.

The political importance of gay marriage has yet to become clear. But there is evidence that this issue could become problematic for the Democratic presidential nominee. Republican voters are largely of one mind on this issue: more than three-quarters (78%) of voters who favor reelecting President Bush in 2004 oppose gay marriage. But voters who prefer to see a Democrat elected in 2004 are divided - 46% favor gay marriage, 48% oppose.

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Would Bush want his girls on Iraq's front line?

It's a question every parent with a daughter in military service, or considering it, has mulled since Pfc. Jessica Lynch, bloodied and possibly raped, was rescued: What the heck were she and other female soldiers doing in the line of fire? The answer is simple, though little publicized: Rules changed in the Clinton years to get women closer to the front. "This is exactly what we warned would happen years ago," says Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, a group devoted to limiting female combat exposure. "We need brave women in the military," she says, "but no one's daughter should have to suffer an ordeal" like 19-year-old Lynch's. Even some Pentagon officials agree and would like to see new limits on female combat roles. But it's all up to President Bush, the father of twin 21-year-old daughters, who has yet to weigh in on the issue. Donnelly's attempts at an Oval Office visit have been ignored, so she has started a petition to get Bush to dump the rules. "He needs to give direction," says Donnelly. "We're tugging on his sleeve."

With George Bush due shortly in London, the Guardian’s David Aaronovitch has a few words for the inevitable protestors:

"The double standards here are obvious but worth a reminder. During the week anti-Bush protesters will, we're told, be splashing red paint to symbolise the spilled blood of the people of Iraq. No such red paint was splashed around London after Halabja, after the 1991 Shia and Kurdish uprisings or during the Iran-Iraq war, almost as if that were not real Iraqi blood. Blood, after all, is only blood if Americans spill it.

"No crimson splotches were created during the state visit of Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu in 1978, a visit which - because of Romania's semi-dissident position in the Soviet bloc - suited both cold warriors and sections of the Left. Earlier this year the Chechnya-enmired President Putin escaped almost any kind of demonstration."

Hypocrites.