It is impossible to imagine that the New York Times would fawn over a contemporary philosopher of fascism, but the gray lady has done the moral equivalent with a slobber job on Marxist ‘cultural critic’ Terry Eagleton, a malevolent, if eloquent, half-wit who, we are told, continues to admire the seer of Trier, with the approval, it seems, of the paper of record:

“Still, his work is shadowed by Roman Catholicism. Mr. Eagleton seems to find a confluence between his interpretation of Marxism and Christianity, in a shared ethic of cooperativism, and protection of the poor and the weak.”

I’ll leave the theologically-inclined to discuss that particular interpretation of Christianity, but, at its core, Marxism has, of course, nothing to do with “cooperativism” or the “protection of the poor and the weak.” Crazy Karl’s crazy doctrines, a mish-mash of lousy economics, worse history and a profound contempt for humanity, are nothing more than the ravings of a millennial cultist, impressive only in the intellectual atmosphere of a lunatic asylum or, more charitably, the debating society of a third-rate high school.

But then there’s more:

"If you want the most trenchant account of Stalinism you have to go to Marxism, not liberalism," says Eagleton. That is, quite simply, a lie, albeit a lie unchallenged by the Times dozy reporter, and it’s a lie that collapses into complete incoherence with this:

"Stalinism wasn't, from our point of view, radical enough. Long before Tiananmen Square the mainstream Marxists were saying the Soviet system is a travesty. You can't build Communism in backward conditions. You need international support. You need a society with a liberal democracy. Marx always saw socialism in continuity with middle-class democracy."

The relevance of “Tiananmen Square,” an essentially liberal democratic, not Marxist, critique of Communist savagery, escapes me, and if ‘mainstream’ Marxists were highly critical of the Soviet system ‘long before’ those terrible events, it’s a somewhat hollow achievement: that massacre took place less than three years before the Soviet collapse. Yes, some Marxists did ‘renounce’ the Soviet model, but this was nothing more than the protestations of a few rats attempting to justify their departure from a sinking ship.

In reply to the Times’ request for “advice,” the great sage comes up with this: "Get out of NATO. Get rid of capitalism. Put the economy back into public ownership." Quite how the last two of those three are to be reconciled with “liberal democracy” or, for that matter, Eagleton’s three homes: a “19th-century Georgian-style row house in Dublin…an apartment in Manchester…and an 18th-century rectory near Londonderry” is never discussed.

But that would be too much to expect from the Times, wouldn't it?

Jimmy’s Bronx Café is closing down. From what today’s New York Times has to say it is no loss:

”In 1995, Jimmy's became a center of controversy when Mr. Serrano organized a dinner there for Fidel Castro, who was in New York for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Cuban groups protested the event, but at the packed dinner Mr. Castro, under heavy security, was warmly greeted and drew laughs from a crowd of about 300.”

So those diners ‘warmly greeted’ a murderer did they? How nice. And they laughed at the tyrant’s jokes too? How sweet. What bastards. As for Jimmy’s, its proprietor should have invited a killer with more class and fewer victims.

O.J. Simpson, perhaps.

Even by the dismal standards of the New York Times, there’s a remarkable nugget of economic short-sightedness contained in today’s lead editorial (on immigration ‘reform’):

“To win support in Congress, Mr. Bush is going to have to be specific enough to let lawmakers know that he is willing to take some of the heat for concrete steps that go beyond pious generalities. He might begin by looking at an intriguing bill offered by Senator John McCain of Arizona and two of his Republican colleagues.

It would create a Web site where employers could advertise jobs, and legal American workers would have the first shot at them. Then the jobs would be open to people trying to immigrate and to illegal immigrants already in the country.”

As described, this is a ludicrous idea that makes sense only if the Times really wants to turn this country into even more of a Gradgrind nation. The solution to the problem of the jobs “that Americans will not do” is not the mass importation of cheap foreign labor, but to increase blue collar wages (any job, however dull or unpleasant, will have a clearing price), or are the editors of the Times too greedy to pay their yardmen, waiters and nannies a little more? It seems so.

Gen. Clark explains his economic program:

So here's what I will do. In the first place, I believe in 'Buy American'- not only hardware, but software. Everything that's associated with national security we will procure in the United States. (APPLAUSE) Our financial industry, our utility industries, virtually every aspect of American life is controlled in some way by information technology. And we simply can't afford to have that developed abroad in other countries, because you can't tell what's in it. It works but you don't know whether it's got these so called trap doors and other things that could sabotage it at some point. So the essential stuff is, buy American hardware and software. We need to relook the H1-B visa. I'm all in favor of bringing people into this country, but only at fully competitive wage rates. (APPLAUSE) Not bringing people in to take jobs from Americans. (APPLAUSE continuing) And when they come here, I'd like them to stay and become American citizens... I met a man in Manchester the other day from India, he's a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology, he came here, started a software company, married an American woman, they're running a serires of Nursing Homes - I congratulate him. It's the American dream. It's a success story. And we're glad to have him. So we want 'em to come but we want them to stay and be with us and put that creativity to work here and keep it in our economy.

And I will also remove all the business incentives that will let companies profit, taxwise or otherwise, from outsourcing jobs or moving their headquarters abroad. (APPLAUSE). We're not gonna keep America safe and we're not gonna make ourselves prosperous by walling off America from the outside world. But trade and markets exist to help people. They're not gods... you don't worship them... you dont let them go and do whatever they want. They have to be regulated, they have to be made fair, they have to be made transparent, people have to have information to participate in them. We're going to ask every company that outsources jobs to report it so that as Americans we know which companies are preparing to outsource jobs, and we're going to provide incentives for companies who want to keep jobs and expand jobs in America. We're going to protect American employment (APPLAUSE). (Person asking question nods head).

What I object to is not the prediction that Bush might win in a blowout. What bothers me is the notion that God has told Pat Robertson Bush will win in a blowout. I personally do not believe that Robertson has that kind of two-way relationship with God. If Robertson wants to commit punditry, he's certainly qualified and free to do so. And, as I've said many times, I think it's a healthy and good thing that religious people are interested and involved in politics. If Robertson had said "Bush will win in a blowout because he's a moral man and the American people can see that" I'd have no problem with that -- whether I agreed with it or not. But that's not what Robertson said. He said that God told him Bush would win and, I'm sorry, if God's talking to Robertson, I doubt it's about electoral politics.

I'm getting a bit of email along these lines:

Jonah, I saw your "Corner" comment about Pat Robertson becoming increasingly embarrassing, and as a religious right wing zealot, I must often concur. But I'm not so sure Robertson's evaluation of how God, Bush, and Election '04 are working out is that far off the mark. Is the prediction of Bush winning a blowout in a walk that far fetched? As to the "blasphemy"; God blessing someone that is a man of prayer yet still makes mistakes is hardly at odds with the Biblical accounts of most men of God. Abraham had problems with the truth and twice tried to protect himself by saying his wife was only his sister and not standing up for her. Yet God blessed him in these encounters and even told Pharaoh to have Abraham pray for him that he might be forgiven for what he almost did due to Abraham's duplicity. And then there's Abraham's cousin, Lot. Sheesh!!! what a screw up! Yet he's listed in the roll call of the faithful men of God in Hebrews 11. Bunch of others in that list were some real rounders too. God's grace and blessings are not given as rewards for our works and accomplishments, but because of His love and desire to bless those whom He chooses. He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. What if another man of prayer runs against Bush? I don't know, it doesn't look to likely though, but I'll let God figure it out if it happens. He can bless both even if one loses and one wins can't he? Don't take this as my being upset with your Pat Robertson remarks, or being offended by your seeing God's blessings differently. I just found your blog on PR and W interesting and hope my view point might be of interest.

For a truly delightful example of the voice of Britain's left-wing elite, look no further than one Stephen Pound MP.

"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."

It was, I believe, the otherwise loathsome Berthold Brecht who made a crack (in the aftermath of the 1953 Berlin rising) about government electing a new people. Stephen Pound would doubtless approve...

EU legislation has long since ceased to serve any useful purpose for the people, as opposed to the elites, of its member states. It’s also increasingly becoming little more than a continuous series of betrayals of the national traditions – and liberties - of the countries unfortunate enough to make up Brussels' ‘union’. Here’s another example:

”The new European arrest warrant came into force yesterday, allowing British citizens to be extradited under a fast-track process even if their actions do not constitute an offence in Britain.”

Another great moment in statistical analysis by the anti-smoking lobby, this time in the Guardian:

“It is estimated that passive smoking kills at least 120,000 people a year in the UK.”

Needless to say, we are never told by whom this carnage is ‘estimated’. Alert readers will recall that all forms of smoking are usually said to be responsible for 3-400,000 deaths a year in the US out of a population of around 280,000,000. The UK’s population is roughly 60 million. Clearly its passive smoke is peculiarly lethal.

The voice of Authority. Here is a reader in Virginia--obviously a person
who has pondered deeply on the issue.

Mr. Derbyshire---I happen to be not only a faithful reader of National
Review, but possibly the world's foremost expert on
sexy-but-not-good-looking.

Here, then, is my list of people who are sexy, but not good looking.

#1 Jeff Goldblum

---Others:

Benicio del Toro

Steve Martin

Eminem

Crispin Glover

Andy Garcia

Justin Timberlake

John Cleese

Albert Finney

Eddie Izzard

Liam Neeson

PRINCE

Tim Robbins

Conan O'Brien

Gary Sinise

Jake Gyllenhaal

Ray Winstone

Bill Murray

William Macy

Anthony LaPaglia

David Letterman

John Malkovich

Christopher Walken

Lyle Lovett

Steve Zahn

Willem Defoe

From a friend in the movement:

Please know that most of the religious-righties I know aren't paying attention to the Falwells and Robertsons any more. Moral Majority is long dead. Christian Coalition is a barely breathing shell of a group now. But the media singles these two out like they're still adulated by the religious-right grass roots. Please. Better modern hate figures for the ACLU types would be James Dobson, or Chuck Colson.

This outburst from Pat is nothing compared to his last media outbreak, when he was praying for Supreme Court justices to retire because of ill health (last summer). But on your main point -- Robertson and his toll-free-line-to-God talk -- remember that the Openly Gay Bishop of NH has also rambled frequently about how God is directing him to liberate Christendom....

I think the vast, vast majority of what's said by liberals about the religious right is either ignorant or hateful nonsense. But I find Pat Robertson increasingly embarrassing. From the AP:

"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," the religious broadcaster said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

"I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way," Robertson said.

"The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."

Come on. Isn't this nigh-upon blasphemous nonsense? George Bush can do bad things but God's going to give him the White House because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him? What if another man of prayer runs against Bush? Will it still be a "blowout"?

I've been fairly tough on Michael Kinsley of late, so I'm glad to say I thought today's column was really very good. He highlights a personal peeve of mine; the confusion of ethics and morality. Journalistic ethics may always require a reporter to protect his sources, but morality can dictate the opposite. I still don't think the Plame affair is the scandal its boosters claim, though we'll see what comes out. But the notion that doing the ethical thing is always the right thing simply doesn't wash. Kinsley offers a great example of such nonsensical thinking:

A very distinguished New York Times writer once told me that if the Times ballet critic, heading home after assessing the day's offerings of pliés and glissades, happens to witness a murder on her way to the Times Square subway, she has a First Amendment right and obligation to refuse to testify about what she saw.

Regarding your post on your computer woes, a correction. Apple does not “design and manufacture all it’s components.” Apple buys commodity parts just like every other computer manufacturer for things like hard drives, CD and DVD drives (I have an Apple G4 with a Pioneer DVD-RW drive, and hard drives from two different manufacturers), video cards, memory, flat screens, etc….What you get for the extra money in a Macintosh is a much more finely engineered set of operating software (well worth the price, in my opinion).

Before I retired, one of my jobs in the Army was managing/developing/fielding a training simulation system. I was a $10mil customer of HP. And the customer service I got was no better than what you got.

I bought two [HP} Pavilions one year. They make excellent doorstops or boat anchors.

Trust me on this. I do PC support for a living and have worked on all brands of PC's. Take the HP back to Costco. Get a full refund. Get online and order a DELL.

I am a software engineer…and my job has exposed me to a wide variety of systems….If you want to stick to a name brand PC buy Dell or Gateway or if money is burning a hole in your pocket, Sony. If you want to go cheap, buy a system put together by Fry's…or one of those little independent computer stores. That way if something doesn't work, you can take it over there and yell at them in person. Just stay away from HP.

Washington, D.C.: PC or Mac?

Dave Barry: I have both. That is the kind of cyberstud I am. I like them both for different reasons: The Mac because of the terrific design and ease of use, and the PC because I enjoy talking to the fun guys 'n' gals at Technical Support.

Memri has some sobering sermons from Arafat-paid clergy. Link via Instapundit and Windsofchange.net.

From a reader:

I find your article about denying Saddam a fair trail to be as close to autocracy as possible. Why should those who helped Saddam gain and hold power and to wage war against other nations not be identified and held account to their crimes?

Because your emperor stands to lose if the actions of the previous administrations are exposed. Especially those of the Reagan years. Maybe this would keep him off the dime.

You're as bad as Saddam; power hungry and greedy. You wish to hide the
sins of your political party and keep the light shining in the face of Americans who don't see the actions their government takes in corrupting the world. You would stab in the back the liberal founding principals of the constitution. No other nations deserve the same treatment that we would expect from them when people like you are making decisions. If he's guilty, let him stand a trial and be determined guilty by the world with legitimacy. What would history say if you were not to provide this to him? What would the rest of the world say about American justice?

You are pathetic. Your whole premise is based upon greed, deception, and
hypocrisy.
[Name withheld]

I will always remember the man to whom I'd casually waved, just after the fall of Hussein's regime, in the Shiite slum of Sadr City (formerly Saddam City). He'd been riding a motorcycle looted from Uday Hussein. He waved me over and asked whether I was American. I warily admitted I was, unsure of the consequences of the answer. The man, young but old-looking, with a beard bristly as a pine forest, grabbed my shoulders, snapped me toward him and kissed me. On both cheeks. He smelled of rotten meat and 3-day-old fruit. "Thank you, America," he said. Then he lifted his shirt. A virtual rail yard was etched in scars on his back. His legs were no better. The hair would never grow back where his skull had been split by a lead pipe.

First, it was neither courage nor some sort of Augustinian epiphany that prompted Gadhafi's decision. It was fear. Over the past two years, U.S.-led coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated a vital truth of modern warfare: The U.S. has the power to remove by force any individual regime it chooses to focus on. No, we cannot by any stretch remove all enemy regimes, but the message, which evidently reached Gadhafi, is that any tyrant who prefers to avoid a Saddam-style medical exam would be wise to keep his head down, his weapons conventional and his name off the top of the U.S. enemies charts.

This is a terrific turn of events, providing useful leverage for the U.S. In negotiating with despots, there is little virtue to offering carrots, which involve extending our own measure of trust. Among tyrants, that tends to inspire not reform and respect, but contempt and betrayal (Kim Jong Il, take a bow). Far more effective with this crowd is the stick (or, in Saddam's case, the tongue depressor).

And certainly in U.S. efforts to channel this fear toward the desirable end of despots disarming, there is logic to letting tyrants know that once they give up their weapons of mass murder, they can rest assured that they have dropped a few notches on the U.S. military's to-do list.

"Humanitarian issues should not be intertwined with deep and chronic political problems," Mr. Khatami said at a news conference in Kerman, the provincial capital. "If we see a change both in the tone and behavior of the U.S. administration, then a new situation will develop in our relations."

That conversation continues in the remake [of Sabrina] with Harrison Ford. It had the same effect for me as the reader below:

(As well as I can remember)

Capitalist Brother (Harrison Ford) "My life makes your life possible!"

Playboy Brother (Greg Kinnear) "I resent that!"

Capitalist Brother "So do I!"

Those of us who work for a living resent having to give a free ride for those who won't work. Those who won't work are offended when that's pointed out to them.

Kathryn picked my "Jews and War" G-File as the best of 2003. Here are some of the runners-up: "Shady Acres," "The Starry Environmentalist," "Movies & Metaphors" and "The Cosmo Interviews."

From a reader:

Jonah - Since you and many others are making fun of the almanac warning (including some silly people - Olberman - and some not silly people - Volokh), I have to put in a bit of a defense. First of all, it's misleading to suggest that cops are now supposed to look around for guys walking down the street carrying almanacs. The idea is that officers who may have already stopped someone in their car or are searching a residence, etc., to keep an eye out for an almanac if there may be other indicia of terrorist activity. So if a guy is stopped for speeding, has sketchy id, is on a visa from Saudi Arabia, and has an almanac, that's something to be aware of. Or say a hotel maid finds some arabic notes left in a room, freaks and calls the cops. Maybe it's innocent, but what if they also find an almanac? Rather like if he had a map of Las Vegas and a flight manual - not nefarious in themselves, or even necessarily together, but worth investigating. A bit more subtly, the alert can also help to provide "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" to stop and/or search someone. I currently clerk for a federal judge, and one factor (the factor, really) in determining whether a search or seizure is legitimate is whether the suspect did anything to arouse probable cause that he was involved in a crime. By telling officers that some terrorists may be using almanacs, the government is giving them an extra fact backing up their claim of probable cause to arrest someone who may not have given any other reason to arrest them. (Say our guy from Saudi Arabia above is pulled over for running a red light, but has legit id. The officer would have no reason to arrest him - he could give a ticket for the traffic violation, but not arrest - so he'd be set free. But now, if the guy has an almanac in the seat next to him, perhaps he can be detained, or at least questioned further. I'm not saying the police would necessarily win this case, but at least it would give them a chance to check things out.

Compare this story from the LA Times with the beginning of this Simpsonsepisode, "The Blunder Years," which was on syndication on FOX-5 [last night] at 7:00:

Scary ain't it?

I'm not ready to say what I think the most conservative movie of all time is because A) I don't know and B) it really depends on what you mean by conservative. I have written a few times (here and here) that I think "A Simple Plan" was the most conservative movie of the last decade and I stand by that. But a few all-time candidates immediately come to mind. In no particular order: "The Man Who Would Be King," "A Man for All Seasons," "Deliverance," "It's a Wonderful Life," "A Face in the Crowd," "On the Waterfront," and "Ride with the Devil."

The ancient city of Bam, the epicenter of the quake, has a long history of destruction. It was first destroyed in an earthquake almost 1,900 years ago. But such is the unexplainable magnetism of Bam that, almost eight centuries later, it had become an important trading center with a cosmopolitan population of Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.

The city was again almost totally razed by an earthquake in 1911. But by the 1930s it had reemerged as a trading center and a producer of dates and pistachios. Then came other earthquakes in 1950 and 1966.

By the early 1970s, the government had decided not to allow people to build new houses in Bam itself. The city's ancient monuments were declared part of the heritage of mankind under UNESCO and no new buildings permits were issued for almost six years.

The revolutionary turmoil of 1978-79 provided racketeers with an opportunity to seize large chunks of land in Bam and use it for poorly designed and badly constructed houses and shops. The racket was backed by a group of powerful mullahs who, in exchange for a cut in the proceeds, issued fatwas (religious opinions) that canceled government orders that banned house-building in the city.

The mullahs claimed that the shah had wished to keep Bam empty because of a secret plan under which the city would be turned into a Zoroastrian center. They also dismissed warnings from the National Seismological Center in Tehran that opposed the repopulation of Bam. The mullahs claimed that the Hidden Imam would protect the new inhabitants of the city against all disasters.

Thus, more than half of those who died in the earthquake could be regarded as victims of a racket ran by mullahs and their associates with the help of religious prejudice and superstition.

I vote for the original "Sabrina." It has a remarkable scene which actually had me staring, open-mouthed at the screen. In the movie the younger, playboy brother asks his hard-working square brother why he works so hard. The answer is a distillation of how the capitalist system raises people's standards of living and improves life. By building a new factory, he employs more people, more people can afford medical care for their kids, better housing, better food, etc.