Vice President Al Gore Campaigns for Dean in Detriot

Gore to be hosted by Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick

DETROIT--Vice President Al Gore will visit Detroit, Michigan on Sunday, February 1, 2004, to campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D. Vice President Gore will visit four African-American churches in Detroit during his visit: Oak Grove AME Church, Great Faith Ministry, Ebenezer AME Church and Chapel Hill Baptist Church.

The triumph of the comedy series ‘the Office’ at the Golden Globes was well-deserved (it’s hilarious – and it’s out on DVD now) and Ricky Gervais, its creator (and star), plans to take advantage of his fame:

He says he’s planning to become "a little bit more arrogant and lazy, possibly send people out for pizzas that I probably wouldn't have had before. And just do voice-over work."

Who says we Brits don’t have big dreams.

From a report in the January 24th issue of ‘The Economist’:

“In the third year of secondary school, Saudi schoolchildren learn that a good way to show love of God is to treat infidels with contempt.”

From a report in the January 28th issue of the Washington Post:

“[INS official] Melendez-Perez said he was taking a bit of a risk by refusing al Qahtani entry to the United States because Saudis were generally treated more permissively than other foreign nationals by U.S. border agents.”

More evidence that the 21st Century has been postponed:

“In communities like Fremont and Cupertino, south of San Francisco, feng shui experts often consult with developers on the layout of subdivisions, avoiding placing a house at a T-shaped intersection, which would invite negative energy, or sha, the mouth of the dragon.”

This from an editorial in today’s New York Times on the President’s NEA nonsense:

“It's impossible to argue with increased financing for such a valuable enterprise…”

And that seal of approval from the gray lady tells you all that you need to know about this particular White House initiative.

As is usual with such campaigns (the tobacco wars come to mind), the current obsession with the ‘obesity crisis’ is everything to do with ideological fixations and control. It has almost nothing to do with health. Typical of this are moves to ban food advertising directed at ‘the children’. Rather awkwardly for the zealots that advocate this type of censorship, a new study (by David Ashton of Imperial College) has challenged findings connecting the increase in childhood obesity to such advertising (this was reported in Friday’s Financial Times: I cannot find a link). Now, experts often disagree, so there is a limit to how definitive any one study can be said to be, but it’s striking that Quebec’s ban on food advertising directed at kids (in place since 1980) has had no appreciable effect on childhood obesity compared with other Canadian provinces. Sweden has a similar ban and it has proved similarly ineffective.

The real solution (and, as someone who hated school sports, I hesitate to write this): more exercise.

Whether John Haas should toughen his position depends, it seems to me, on distinguishing the intrinsically immoral from the imprudent.

If the researchers at Georgetown did not participate in the abortions that yielded the cells and the abortions were not performed in order that the cells could be obtained, then I don't believe we can maintain that the use of the cells is intrinsically immoral, unless we're going to argue that it is always immoral to profit from the evil actions of others. (I don't think such an argument can be sustained.) I presume that Dr. Haas was asked whether the use of the cells is intrinsically immoral, so his answer, strictly speaking, is correct.

Nevertheless, an action that is not in itself immoral can become immoral if it is performed under certain circumstances. Drinking alcohol is not intrisically immoral, but it is immoral for an alcoholic, because for him it is a gross violation of prudence to expose himself to the temptation to drunkeness.

On the grounds of prudence, I would argue that for Georgetown, a Catholic university, to permit such research is bad, because many will take it to mean that there is really no problem with it. And this impression will be reinforced when, for instance, the diocesan spokesman speaks in consequentialist terms of the expected benefit to society. One would like to see such research restrained in general, to avoid the temptation to harvest fetal tissue specifically for research. One could make analgous arguments regarding the use of Nazi research, both as to the immorality and the imprudence of doing so.

It is unfortunate that the researchers and administrators in question did not (it appears) look into the source of the cells to begin with….The possibility [that]the cells [had] undesirable source must have occurred to someone. One suspects they didn't want to know.

I think part of the problem is that we're suspicious (and why wouldn't we be?) of the ratiocinations of Catholic bishops and university presidents.

It was, delightfully, a bad week for the BBC. Stephen Pollard, as so often, finds the best words to sum up this appalling institution:

“The BBC is an organization that, from top to bottom, sees itself not as a neutral reporter of the news, but as a de facto opposition to whatever government happens to be in power. There is a clear left liberal bias in the BBC’s assumptions. As a body funded by a tax paid by every TV and radio viewer, without any alternative – failure to pay results in imprisonment – that is simply grotesque. Hutton has done the process of democracy a huge service.”

That’s quite right. The current arrangements for funding the Beeb should have been scrapped years ago. One of life’s mysteries is why neither Mrs. Thatcher nor John Major tried to do anything about it while they had the chance. Cowardice perhaps, but also complacency – and a failure to understand the way that culture can shape politics. The Tories aren’t alone. We see the same stupidity at work in President Bush’s decision to push for more money for the NEA, the latest feckless initiative from an increasingly feckless administration.

I like NR, the Corner and especially Jonah so I was a little surpirsed to see Jonahs and Alder dismissing reader's comments are uniformed or "rebels". I think its legitimate to question NR's suppport of NEA funding. When did being conservative become a rebel position at NR.

Subject: Wow, and this is a conservative magazine?

I don't understand the silence and spin on the Prescription Drug Bill and the NEA budget increase and the Mars Mission. Does National Review have any principles it stands for beyond supporting a president who happens to have an (R) after his name, no matter what? I don't see how you can claim to be a fiscally conservative magazine.

There is much in our culture that conspires to encourage this dark and superficial view of humanity. It behooves us to resist the inroads of nihilism by withholding the sanction of the law from practices that, however exigent, are never less than morally problematic. By voting to legalize euthansia, the Dutch have given a hostage to the very force they had hoped to placate: death.

BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan resigns - BBC

LONDON (Reuters) - BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who said in a radio report that the British goverment "sexed up" the risk posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons, has resigned, the BBC said.

The BBC told Reuters: "We can confirm that Andrew Gilligan has resigned. We recognise that this has been a very difficult time for him."

Ms. Lopez,

In light of your postings today regarding Bush's work on sex-slavery, here is a link to an AP article published at sfgate.com (the on-line site of the San Francisco Chronicle) about a succesful prosecution of a slavery ring in the US.

In particular, I was impressed by the end of the article: "Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday said busting this ring and a forced-labor ring in American Samoa showed prosecutors were making inroads against human trafficking.

There have been 83 convictions or guilty pleas since the Justice Department launched the initiative in March 2001, a threefold increase over the preceding three years, officials said. Prosecutors have 142 open investigations, the most ever."

This is a part of the Ashrcoft Justice Department that rarely get any press.

Catching up after a trip to yet another undisclosed location... More cash for the NEA? Good grief. Everytime you think that it's impossible for George W Bush to spring another rat from his hat, he goes and does it again, but, to take some recent instances, what else can you expect from a president who signs laws he believes to be unconstitutional, proposes a vast guestworker program in the middle of difficult times for blue collar America, recruits Jules Verne as a science advisor, squanders a SOTU driveling on about steroids, and as for the budget...

Now there's the NEA. Roger Kimball makes the best case that can be made for the White House's decision to hurl money the country doesn't have at an institution the country doesn't need, but he's being far too kind. Even if it is agreed that government should be directly funding 'culture' (I don't think government should, but that's a different debate), the president's decision is bound to backfire. Remember O'Sullivan's law. Any organization that is not explicitly conservative will ultimately end up in the hands of the left. Dana Gioia may indeed be doing splendid work at the moment, but neither he nor George W. Bush will be in office forever. At some point in the future, maybe under a future Democratic administration or maybe just as a result of bureaucratic drift, the NEA will inevitably fall back into its old, bad habits - only this time on a much bigger budget.

As one seems to be saying more and more these days: thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

I hadn't seen Derb's post until I read Peter's. I respect Steve Sailer's intellect too, Derb, but it's sad to see him embracing every bit of paleocon dogma. Sailer disproves the theory of free trade only if that theory is taken to mean that any tariff, no matter how small and no matter what other policies are in place, will ruin an economy. I suppose there are some free traders whose fervor leads them to suggest that, but proving it wrong does not invalidate stronger forms of the theory.

Peter points to one of the minor ironies of early American history: the fact that Jeffersonian supporters of revenue tariffs were willing to impose higher tariff rates than the Hamiltonian supporters of protective tariffs. I would also note that Hamilton did not believe in tariffs on goods that were used by American producers--such as steel and semiconductors in modern times--and thought that the tariffs were an important complement to a policy of mass immigration.

I think everyone generally agrees that Joe Lieberman is a decent and honorable guy and all that. He's running as a reasonable centrist and he's getting clobbered for it. I agree with all that. But there's one thing he's said more than once which I think reflects badly on his judgment or his honesty. He said time and again in the early debates that "anyone on this stage" would be an improvement over George W. Bush. Lieberman surely doesn't believe that. And if he did, he's got real problems. After all, if you take the war on terrorism as seriously as he does, how can you possibly believe that Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich or Carol Moseley Braun -- or really even Howard Dean -- would be a better pick than George W. Bush. And yeah, I know that such displays of party loyalty are one of the obligatory pieties of electoral politics. But considering how badly he's done, would he really have done worse if he'd said "I'm afraid that replacing George W Bush with Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich, fine men though they are, would be a real tragedy for our party and our nation." In other words, rather than constantly saying he's a centrist, couldn't he show it?" Fights attract crowds and they attract supporters as much as they attract critics. Lieberman missed a chance to do the right thing and it might have helped him. It certainly couldn't have hurt him much more than his existing strategy has.

Of course this is all too late. But it's been bothering me for a long time.

John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Boston, said the ethical issues surrounding the use of fetal cells, embryonic stem cells and cloning are the most controversial facing the church. "I don't see the moral difficulty in using these cell lines, because you're not contributing in any way to the abortions, which took place decades ago," Haas said. "However, there is the risk of leading people to think that [some Catholic institutions do not] consider abortion to be a great evil and are indifferent to it and willing to work with tissue that result from that kind of action."

Fromn a reader:

I dunno, Jonah. I heard everybody complain about the State of the Union speech, trying to cover too much, what are steroids doing I there, etc. etc. etc. Yet each person who complained had praise for a different portion of the speech. Howard Fineman (Did I get the name right) thought the steroid bit was great--a very necessary message for kids. If you put together all the parts that individuals liked, you had a whole speech.

My eldest son, older than you are and should know better, just sent me a "Things you have to believe to be a Republican today" Michael Moore kind of silly rant attempting to prove that all Republicans have committed the vilest of sins, that of being hypocrites. So tiresome. But then I find the Republicans who insist that they will sit on their hands and not vote in this election to teach Bush a lesson pretty tiresome too.

The most basic conservative belief is that man is not perfect, and you can't make him perfect no matter how many well-intentioned laws you pass.

From a reader:

One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his limousine when he saw two men eating grass by the road side. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. "Why are you eating grass?" he asked one man. "We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. Oh, well, you can come with me to my house," instructed the lawyer. "But, sir, I have a wife and two children with me!" "Bring them along!" replied the lawyer. He turned to the other man and said: "You come with us, too." "But sir, I have a wife and six children!", the second man answered. "Bring them as well!" answered the lawyer as he headed for his limo. They all climbed into the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine. Once underway, one of the poor fellows says: "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you." The lawyer replied: "Glad to do it. You'll love my place, the grass is almost a foot tall."

1. Two northeastern liberals on the tickets will lead to a landslide loss.
2. Senator Heinz-Kerry is henpecked enough at home.
3. Candidates never want to be upstaged by their VP nominee.
4. Having placed herself in line to be the standard bearer in 08, Hillary would work to undermine whatever slim chance Kerry has to win.
5. A Hillary vice presidency would mean having Bill hanging around Washington, getting attention. Kerry doesn't want that.
6. Hillary would not be content to be a quiet, dutiful VP. Kerry knows that too.
7. Parellels with Mondale-Ferraro would become compelling.
8. Mrs. Heinz-Kerry will not consent to sharing stage with another woman.
9. One fakeplastic smile is enough for any ticket.
10. Obvious Red Sox - "Yankee" fan tension would lead to fistfights in October.
P.S. I Tivo “Uncommon Knowledge” every week.

Jonah, I've been reading the conversation between you and Mike Potemra and agree with you fully. I think what's missing amongst the "anybody can say whatever they want" crowd is the first half of the Friends of Voltaire quote: I disagree with what you say. Unless and until you state that qualifier, the rest--"I will defend to the death your right to say it"--becomes, by omission, a defense of the _words in question_ not a defense of freedom of speech. By not taking the effort to denounce Michael Moore's statement that Bush is a deserter, Clark is defending the statement, not Moore's right to make an ass of himself. (Moore's bank account alone should be evidence enough of that latter fact.) And Clark has now shown on several occasions that he has no intention whatsoever of denouncing Michael Moore's statement; hell, he hadn't even taken the time to even _question_ its veracity, last I heard. In our culture, unless you explictly disagree with something you're apt to come across as supporting it, especially when you support those who believe it. Wesley Clark thinks he is deserving of the Oval Office, but his actions reveal time and again that he shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of that office."

What many fail to grasp when using the phrase 'marketplace of ideas' is that some products often fail to find consumers to demand them, and hence they fail in the marketplace. If the Michael Moores of the world (or Susan Sarandons or Tim Robbins, etc.) are shamed into silence (note that Tim Robbins was quite well-behaved at the Golden Globes, progress perhaps?) by their response to the negative reactions that they receive, this is PRECISELY HOW A MARKET FUNCTIONS, and thus is a very good thing. Markets are about choices, not about mandated diversity. Mike would seem to be hoping for a series of (using the market metaphor) state-financed enterprises to provide make-work for those who simply cannot compete... I am a first amendment absolutist on a level that I doubt you would embrace, but I do NOT believe that the right to speak out obviates the necessity of accepting the consequences of one's words... Just a thought...

Now, it’s true I haven’t written since then that the UN should take over in Iraq. I don’t think I’ve written that it shouldn’t either. Though maybe I have in an incidental way, I just don’t recall – much as I didn’t recall writing the offending passage until people passed it along.

Anyway, I’m not sure I see the huge hypocrisy on my part. Let’s start from the top. If you read that column, you’ll see that the reason I supported the if-no-WMDs-then-hand-it-to-the-UN deal was first and foremost to convince France, Germany and Russia to get behind the US during an ongoing war. If you’ve read the papers since March, you’ll recall that they didn’t join the coalition, they didn’t get with the program. That changes the equation pretty considerably. I was not in favor of handing the keys to Iraq over to the United Nations because I think the United Nations is such a wonderful organization. Deferring to them now, without laying the groundwork for it in advance would be a public relations and strategic blunder of huge proportions at this point. However, I do think the UN should get more involved. I do think the administration was right to try to enlist the UN in the effort more. And I do think the UN is betraying its own humanitarian principles by not helping out simply out of fear and anti-Americanism. The fear is understandable, but by giving into it they worsen Iraq’s prospects for healthy future.

So yeah, things have not gone wonderfully on all fronts in Iraq and the UN could help alleviate some of the anti-American sentiment there.

Also, I proposed that idea because I was still fairly certain there would be WMDs found in Iraq and that French and Russian skepticism was an opportunistic pose designed to make us look bad. I think I was right about that then and now. My deal would have called their bluff. We didn’t offer it, they didn’t take it. In retrospect that might be a good thing. I’m not sure. But I am sure that suggesting I’m a hypocrite because I don’t support an idea which is now totally obsolete is, charitably speaking, unpersuasive.

A blog called Soundbitten zinged me for something I wrote last March. It's a pretty silly potshot since he (she? I dunno) clearly doesn't understand what I was talking about here in the Corner and also skips over the fact that in numerous pro-war columns, I never emphasized the WMD issue as my primary motive in order to make it sound like I’ve flip-flopped. Then Atrios picked it up – without attribution, by the way – and so this afternoon I’ve received a quite a few, almost invariably nasty, emails taunting me about it. On a side note I must say that of the dozens of blogs of the left and right which criticize me with great frequency, the readers of Eschaton/Atrios are without a doubt the most reliably ugly and cheap about it. I can take the criticism, but it really seems like these guys work hard at being unlikable, in contrast to plenty of liberals and leftists who zing me all the time. Anyway, here’s the offending passage I wrote last March 28:

So here's the deal: George Bush — who has rightly been much more reluctant than Tony Blair to toss the U.N. a bone when it comes to the potentially lucrative prospect of rebuilding Iraq — should make it known that if Coalition forces find no Iraqi WMD while we're in there, we will defer to the U.N. on how to run postwar Iraq. If the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein would "change the equation" for the French during the war, why shouldn't the discovery of WMD stockpiles at the end of hostilities change the equation for the peace? If it becomes clear that the United States and Great Britain were right when we said France, Russia, and Germany were being willfully obtuse in not seeing Iraq's noncompliance, why shouldn't the Coalition nations be rewarded for having the courage of our convictions? If these reconstruction contracts must go to someone, and we can credibly argue that we made the greatest sacrifices while the French and Russians were supine appeasers, why shouldn't those contracts go to us?

Now, to be honest, I think they should go to us regardless, because America's motives were right — and our sacrifices are real — even if Saddam doesn't have these weapons. For twelve years he issued bilious clouds of smoke in order to make the world think there's a fire in Iraq. If it turns out it was all smoke and no fire, that doesn't make us wrong for bringing the fire hose.

But, as a political proposition, without the discovery of WMD, postwar Iraq will be a political tar baby anyway — perhaps even if we're greeted as liberators by most Iraqis. We might as well hand it over to the United Nations. I am still confident we will find plenty of such weapons — Saddam didn't buy those chemical suits and atropine injectors because Glamour magazine says they're all the rage….

Mike - We've been having the exact same argument for about two years in here. You come from the perspective, I'm now quite certain, which believes there's a great deal of heft and meaning to such phrases as "I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I come from the perspective which says such statements are usually diversionary treacle, intended to distract from the substance of the issues at hand. When I hear Wes Clark, for example, brush off questions about Michael Moore by saying "I support Mr. Moore's right to dissent" or some such, I think he's being a monumental wuss and, frankly, a coward. Who cares if he supports his right to dissent, that's not the issue. If Clark had the integrity to say what he thinks about Moore's comments, he would say it. Instead he falls back on a tired cliché to dodge the question.

Similarly your "Mosaic" stuff takes the condescending view that there's something quaint or charming about even the most vile speech because of its contribution to "diversity." Fine, but really: So what? All it says to me is that when push comes to shove those who fetishize extreme speech will make for unreliable allies in the fight against the ideas that speech communicates. It's almost like you subscribe to a radical chic that is charmed by the fellow you meet at a cocktail party who would -- if given the power -- put you in a reeducation camp. Indeed, this whole "speech should be suppressed" thing you and your reader raise (again) is really a strawman. Who is talking about "suppressing" speech? Where did that come from? Not from me. Not from your original post about the Brian Lamb book etc. No, you brought it up again, almost reflexively as if any criticism of the sort of un-intellectual diversity you celebrate necessarily implies the organized suppression of dissident speech. I'm sorry, but that's your hobgoblin, not my threat, real or implied. I am for shunning, shaming and mocking voices like Moore's, not for suppressing them with the force of law. And if that drives those voices from public life, Wahoo! Mission accomplished. That to me is what the marketplace of ideas is all about. But if that strikes you as suppression, then I guess I am for suppression.

There endeth my lesson. Amen back at ya.

Kathryn,

The following quote from a reader today in the Corner totally captures the essence of NRO.

"It's kind of like being on a long car trip with some heavily stoned Rhodes Scholars."

I nominate it for the new NRO slogan. That would give the NYTimes something to write about....

PS. If you make it your slogan, I'll buy a NRODT subscription for all my friends....

Mike - I guess I'm in the "that's sentimental pap" column too. Sure it's nice to have a rich mosaic of voices or whatever. But the content of those voices must be weighed on the merits too. Simply asserting that divergent voices add to our diversity and diversity is good isn't enough, because it provides no criteria by which we should judge those voices. It adds to diversity to have, say, Nazis and Stalinists in the national debate too, but frankly, I'd rather have a little less diversity if it meant not having them in it. I am not, repeat not, saying that Coulter and Moore are Nazis/Stalinists. But the point remains; the rich mosaic approach must celebrate all perspectives regardless of content.

I'm partial to the idea of one nation divided by a healthy debate too. But I do not believe that Moore and Coulter are in the same nation. The nation that you, me and Ann inhabit witnessed 9/11 and immediately saw it as an assault on our nation, regardless of partisanship. Moore saw it as something we had coming and lamented that more deserving, i.e. Republican, targets weren't hit. I disagree with Ann quite often but I never doubt that she's on America's side. I can't say the same about Moore. Oh, and if you're wondering if I'm questioning Michael Moore's patriotism, the answer is yes. I think the only thing he truly loves about this country is how rich it's made him.

Interesting:

Jonah,

I think that the letter posted at The Corner that describes Bush as the neighbor next door may be onto something.

Please let me share a demonstrative anecdote. I was recently in my local Meijer store, which is a Wal-Mart like mega-store, and walked down the cheap art aisle and was stopped in my tracks by a painting of George W. Bush. It was at least 18x12 in size and portrayed our President on one knee, with an open Bible in his right hand, and a clear and distinct wedding ring on his left. He is wearing a shirt and tie, but has the sleeves rolled up.

It surprised me, in that, even out here in red country, there is still plenty of cynicism about our leaders. I guess I just don't expect our generation to lionize heroes like our parents generation did.

Or maybe this whole NEA thing is a plot to lionize W in velvet like Elvis or James Dean.....