After I criticized the President’s (or was it Laura’s) ridiculous decision to increase spending for the NEA, a number of people e-mailed me to say that, even if they disagreed with the decision (and almost all of them seemed to), this was a trivial matter, and nothing to be really concerned about. Doubtless, they would have said the same about HHS Secretary’s Thompson’s decision to blow $25 million of your dollars on a nationwide helpline to help smokers quit, but they would have been wrong about that too. As Jacob Sullum discusses over at Reason, if nothing else (and I think that these decisions can be criticized on a good number of grounds), their symbolism alone is disastrous: they reveal an administration wed to a vision of an overbearing, overreaching state and they reveal an administration that cannot be trusted to control government spending, something that is not only a disgrace in a supposedly right-of-center White House, but may also be economically disastrous.

Yes, of course, the administration has achieved a great deal in the war against terror, and, yes, of course, I’d hate to see John Kerry as president, but that doesn’t mean that George W. Bush should be given a free pass on this sort of nonsense. When it comes to growth government spending, Mr. President, slower, please.

Or, dare to dream, how about going into reverse?

A snapshot from USA Today :

“FLORENCE, Ariz. -- Thousands of illegal immigrants, mostly from Central and South America, are being released into the USA almost immediately after they are picked up by the Border Patrol as part of a policy that U.S. officials acknowledge represents a significant gap in homeland security…”

Reflecting the growing unease on this topic in Europe, Norway’s education minister has now found it necessary to tell parliament that there are no plans to ban the hijab from schools. On the other hand, it’s also reported from Norway that a municipally employed teacher has been prevented from wearing a Star of David. Officials have decided that it could be deemed a provocation towards the many Muslim students at the school.

Once again, no further comment needed.

Governor Dean's Statement on AFSCME

BURLINGTON--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today:

"We announced last week that our goal is to win Wisconsin and our supporters responded beyond our expectations once again by donating more than $1 million to wage a strong fight in the state.

"We respect President McEntee and we will work hard to earn the support of AFSCME members in Wisconsin next week. With the backing of hundreds of thousands of Americans, SEIU, and IUPAT we plan to win Wisconsin next Tuesday, regain the momentum our campaign needs, and win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Boston."

Went to Nellie's Intermediate school last night to pick her up after a drama
program. Waiting in the school lobby, I found myself browsing a large board
promoting tolerance and diversity.

The display consisted of pictures of staff members. Each picture had a
question printed on paper & pinned to the picture. Underneath, on a
different-colored paper, was the staff member's reply to the question. Both
question and reply were printed, I guess from a school computer. I jotted
down the following. I have preserved spelling precisely.

---How can we help teach people that racism is not right?
---By excepting [sic] people for who they are.

---What does prejudice mean to you?
---When you discriminate agaist [sic] someone for being different than [sic]
you.

---What does prejudice mean to you?
---Prejudice is a terrible thing. It seperates [sic] all the beautiful
people that should be sharing ideas and gifts.

One of the reasons that many people (including myself) supported the EU was the idea that it would accelerate the global push for free trade. And (with the glaring exception of agriculture) for a long time it was indeed a force for good in this area. That’s decreasingly true these days, as can be seen from this new initiative apparently being discussed in Brussels.

"Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy is said to be pondering plans which could see governments able to veto imports which do not meet individual societies' "collective preferences".

No further comment necessary.

The proposed EU constitution is, once again, lurching back onto the agenda, cheered on by the usual dismal crowd of toadies, madmen, crooks and cynics. Meanwhile, the EU spokeswoman for Denmark’s Liberal party is bemoaning her country’s irritatingly democratic habit of putting major EU questions to the vote. The EU Observer quotes her as follows:

"Referenda have a very conservative effect on development. If the other countries copy us, the EU will fall apart…Referenda are in fact pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately".

Well, give her full marks for honesty.

There has been, for once, good news on this topic. On Thursday, the Department of Defense canceled plans to use an electronic voting system that would have allowed Americans abroad to cast their ballots over the Internet. That seems sensible. The system may or may not have been vulnerable (my guess is the former) to tampering and error, but it looked likely to fail the essential test of any voting system: that it has to have the confidence of the electorate. The Department of Defense has done the right thing.

Meanwhile Meg McLaughlin, the president of the faintly-spookily named Accenture eDemocracy Services (the organization responsible for developing the DoD’s system) tells the New York Times that “we are confident that sending absentee ballots via the Internet is just as secure as sending them by mail.”

Give it up, Meg.

If there was a stir during the day, it occurred when Dean indicated he would consider taking the vice presidential slot on a Democratic ticket. "I would . . . do anything I could to get rid of President Bush," he said on WMCS-AM, a Milwaukee talk-radio station. "I'll do whatever is best for the party. Obviously, I'm running for president, but whatever's best is what I'll do."

TED KENNEDY: "There is no morality in the mushroom cloud. The black rain will fall equally on the just and the unjust, and the world that is left in the ashes of Armageddon will little know nor long remember which was the Evil Empire."

Mrs. Bush was mostly pleasant throughout the interview in her little-used East Wing office. She said she worked mostly from a desk in the private quarters of the White House. But she was testy about what her aides describe as her view of an Eastern establishment press that is antagonistic to her husband. When she was told that the campaign was looking tough already, she instantly disagreed.

"The Implications of Grutter v. Bollinger:Affirmative Action in Higher Education and Beyond."

Monday, February 9,2004,3:45pm

Hutchins Hall Room 100

Michigan Law School

Kudos to Jonah for his superb NRO column yesterday, href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200402051231.asp">Division
Diversions: Enough with this two-Americas, wedge-issues, unity nonsense.
I have a small quibble and a proposed addendum. First the quibble,
though "quibble" is probably not the right word. Although Jonah is right to
note that Democrats like John Kerry imply that they will unite the
American people, I was struck at the time that, in his victory speech on
Tuesday, Kerry did not explicitly promise that he would do so (and of course
if elected he won't). Instead, after chastising Bush's claim to be a "uniter
not a divider" on the ground that we are more divided than ever (as though
this is solely Bush's fault), his very next line began (I quote from
memory), "but WE BELIEVE that. . . ." The "we" here was clearly Democrats
since the litany that followed was his campaign issues that obviously divide
the electorate. This "we" is in contrast to "they" which refers to
Republicans. Unlike George Bush, Kerry made no promise to unite America and
he has no intention of doing so. When Democrats repeatedly call to "Take back
the White House" or, even worse, "Take back America" (a pretty scary phrase
when you think about it) what they mean is take it back from the other half of
the electorate with whom they disagree. Unless they somehow dispose of this
other half, the nation will remain divided as it always has.

Now here is my proposed addendum: Jonah's historical survey reminded me of
my pet peeve which I sometimes even let myself vent to my students.
It is the eternal reference by public figures to "these troubled times" in
which we live--a phrase that has been uttered by public figures for as long as
I can remember--including throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s
when it really started to get on my nerves. I remember the 1970s when we
still had the Vietnam War, gas lines and stagflation and malaise. I recall
the 60s when, after the Kennedy, King, and Kennedy assassinations, one dreaded
hearing the words "We interrupt this program to bring you the following news
bulletin. . ." because it was often followed by some new catastrophe. From
body bags, to riots in all major cities to regular airliner crashes (yes at
least one or more a year), to coal mine disasters, to mass street protests,
sit ins and shut downs, it was a truly miserable time. I even
remember the 50s when as a very small child I was seriously afraid of nuclear
conflagration--with good reason and with the rest of the nation watched the
events of the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold on TV in 1962.

I then ask my students (rhetorically), if we are living in troubled times, can
you tell me when in the past was the good time? Was it the 50s (Korea,
the "red scare")? The 40s (WWII & the holocaust)? The 30s (Depression)?
The 20s? (A few frenzied fun years in between WWI and the Crash marked by
widespread gangland violence and corruption resulting from Prohibition), the
Teens (WWI and the Lost Generation)? The 1900s (Jim Crow)? Indeed all these
decades were marked by racial segregation and a palpable overt racism in the
culture that I am old enough to remember. The end of the Nineteenth Century
(labor unrest and violence, mass immigration into choked cities,
Reconstruction)? The Civil War (about which Jonah writes)? Antebellum
America deeply divided over slavery? The late 18th Century when Madison and
Jefferson organized their Republican Party to oppose the reigning
Federalists? Or was it after the Revolution when factional politics got so
bad we needed to devise an entirely new constitutional order? Or was it the
Revolutionary War? Or....well you get the idea.

No, by comparison, today we are living in incredibly wonderful times, even
after having been attacked by radical Islamic terrorists with whom we are now
at war--though times were definitely better in the years immediately before
9/11. Remember all this the next time you hear a public figure preface his or
her remarks with "In these troubled times." On second thought, why should you
be as annoyed as I am. Never mind.

From a reader:

Jonah, Do I have to remind you that Communist China: 1) Bans all unauthorized religions? 2) Sells arms to terrorist states (Iran, NK, Syria, Libya, etc.)? 3) Has 500 missiles pointed at the island democracy of Taiwan? 4) Has eroded Hong Kong freedoms to the point where some are calling it "one country, one and a half systems"? I know you're not the kind of conservative that goes ga-ga over a tax code, ignoring everything else in the process. That's why I found your corner entry so disappointing.

ME: Oh, I agree with all of that and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. But I do think the Gipper would be pretty psyched about all of this given his view that economic liberty and political liberty are intertwined. Plus, on the narrow issue of economics, it is pretty ironic/fun when the biggest Commie nation in the world throws in the towel and adopts Reaganomics to facilitate growth.

From today's Wall Street Journal (sub required):

China Sets Tax Plan to Aid Growth

BEIJING -- In a major new policy that a senior Beijing official says resembles "Reaganomics," China is preparing to stimulate investment in its economy by reducing taxes for domestic companies and by simplifying the tax code.

The plan, however, would also lead to a de facto increase in the taxes that foreign-invested companies pay, because much of the preferential tax treatment they enjoy would be abolished. By the time the plan is fully implemented in two years or so -- contingent on approval by Chinese lawmakers -- the new tax rate for all foreign and domestic companies will be "in the range of 24% to 28%," Deputy Finance Minister Lou Jiwei, a plan architect, said in an interview Thursday.

"Our major purpose is to standardize the system and block loopholes," Mr. Lou said. But the lower taxes for Chinese companies, accompanied by what he said would be a gradual shift away from using government spending to fuel growth, also underscore how much fiscal policy has evolved in a country that is nominally ruled by communists.

"It's a lot like Reaganomics," Mr. Lou said. "We feel that only through simplifying things and lowering tax rates will revenue collection become more efficient. At the same time, we also want to give fuller play to companies," rather than the government, when it comes to investment in the economy, Mr. Lou said....

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

I once heard (saw?) the great WFB on Firing Line compare the death penalty to speeding tickets: a lot of people speed, but only a small portion are actually caught & ticketed. Should we then stop ticketing speeders because some get away?

Fry that dude.

...got several readers thinking about the Simpsons. Some quotes, most even about sugar, from the episode where Homer wants to be a sugar mogul:

"Must protect sugar...thieves everywhere...the strong must protect the sweet...the sweeeeet" -Homer

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women" -Homer

"I want it all - the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles. Sure, I might offend a few of the blue noses with my cocky stride and musky odors. Oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called city fathers who cluck their tongues, stroke the beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Homer Simpson." -Homer

Homer: And you didn't think I'd make any money. I found a dollar while I was waiting for the bus.
Marge: While you were out "earning" that dollar, you lost forty dollars by not going to work. The plant called and said if you don't come in tomorrow, don't bother coming in Monday.
Homer: Woo hoo! Four-day weekend!

"We hit the jackpot here...white gold...Texas tea...sweetener!" -Homer

"Read your town charter, boy. 'If foodstuff should touch the ground, that foodstuff should be turned over to the village idiot.' Since I don't see him around, start shoveling!" -Homer

"Oww! They're defending themselves somehow." – Homer, while being stung by bees attacking his sugar pile.

Beekeeper 1: "To the beemobile!"
Beekeeper 2: "You mean your Chevey?"
Beekeeper 1: Looks down in shame "Yes."

"A mountain of sugar is too much for one man. It's clear now why God portions it out in those tiny packets." – Homer

From a reader:

Jonah, In a few years, you will begin to hear the exact same argument in your house:

You: I said no!
Little Lucy: But, Dad, Jane's mom is getting her a squirrel for a pet!
That's not fair!
You: Go to your room!

Part of the problem with our culture today is so many liberal parents actually cave to these arguments. They have to, for intellectual consistency's sake.

From a lawyer in Rochester, NY:

That emailer demonstrates the problem w/ all of liberal thought. Liberals aren't happy w/ equality of opportunity (every murderer has the potential to get the death penalty if the gov't can successfully prosecute for it). Instead, liberals want equality of outcome (everyone gets the same punishment). This is akin to liberal desires for universal health care. Liberals don't care that nationalizing health care would simply mean that everyone gets a lower standard of care - as long as the outcome is equal.

Or maybe I don't understand it. A reader writes:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

The argument against executing Mr. Smith is that other murderers (assuming he is, of course, the culprit) have performed substantially similar actions
and have not been executed.

See eg, Reinhardt's argument (his answer to question 10).

Not to suggest it is a particularly compelling argument, but it is certainly valid to question whether it is justice to execute the murderer who makes numerous mistakes, incontrovertibly proving his guilt, while letting the smarter but no less worse murderer receive only life in prison due to a lesser body of evidence against him.

ME: Assuming I understand his point, I don't see why person X should not get the punishment he deserves because person Y didn't get the punishment he deserved. If some murderers are cheating justice because of a lack of evidence, that's too bad. But that's the price we pay for a system based upon fair trials. But it simply doesn't strike me as "unfair" to execute a murderer caught dead to rights even if someone else gets off for a similar crime. The justice system makes all sorts of compromises with circumstance. But if it doesn't have to, and the guy deserves it, why not go for the most just punishment? I think it's terrible that mob hit men strike deals for their testimony, getting cushy safe-houses and/or country club prisons. But just because those mass murderers get such deals, does that mean all mass-murderers should get similar deals?

By the way, I'm not saying that all murderers should always get the death penalty. I think we can discriminate, as most laws do, between different kinds of homicide.

So they found the body of this eleven year old girl in Florida. They have Joseph Smith on video tape abducting her. He has a criminal record. They will probably wrap up the forensics in the next couple days. Let’s just assume they do. Let’s assume they’ll find her backpack and some blood and some other grim reminders of what this awful man did.

So what is the argument against executing him?

Oh, I don’t mean the arguments about the sanctity of life, state-sanctioned murder etc. I respect those arguments even as I disagree with them profoundly.

I’m referring to all of those esoteric arguments about statistical discrepancies, racial disparities etc. What do those arguments have to do with the case for or against executing Joseph Smith? What does it matter if we’ve sentence someone to death incorrectly elsewhere (though, apparently never executed anyone incorrectly) if Joseph Smith is clearly guilty? All of this high-flown rhetoric and statistical legerdemain tends to obscure the fact that certain people really deserve the death penalty. I think Smith -- if proven guilty -- would deserve it if we’d mistakenly executed 500 people this month alone. I think Smith would deserve it if he were black and we’d been executing blacks “disproportionately” for years. I think he’d deserve it if his execution didn’t deter any other crime, anywhere, ever. As Ernest Van den Haag noted in the pages of NR long ago, "If deserved, capital punishment should be imposed. If not, it should not be. Deterrence, however useful, cannot morally justify any punishment."

Arguments based on error rates, deterrence and statistical analyses of ethnic breakdowns (or left-handedness for that matter) have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Joesph Smith deserves the death penalty for what he’s done. Nothing. They do have relevance, obviously, to the various questions about how – and if—our justice system should be reformed or changed. But executing Joseph Smith – if proven guilty of this crime – would not be an argument for fixing the justice system, it would be exhibit A in the case that sometimes the justice system gets things right.

While playing with this pretty cool interactive electoral map, I thought of something. Will the networks stay with Red for Republican and Blue for Democrats. The reason the Republicans got stuck with red last time was that the challenger party gets red. Well, that should make the Dems get their more logical color this time. But that would also blur the great storyline of the 2000 election. It'll be interesting to see if there's a mini-controversy about it.

Oh, and by the way, if you play with that map you'll see why this will probably be a fairly close election no matter which Democrat runs against Bush (not counting the Shaprton-Kucinich contingent).

And now I'm going to bed. I'll be on CNN around 8:30 AM EST (today, Friday). If you've got a really good suggestion for an undercovered story of the week between now and 7:30 AM feel free to send it along.

From a reader, retired from the Air Force:

I had the pleasure of spending 3 month in Haiti courtesy of President Clinton in 1994. The country is a basket case. If ever there was an argument that wealth has beneficial impacts on the environment, and poverty devastating effects, it is Haiti. I saw NO wild birds in 3 months, only feral chickens. There were a few dogs rooting in US trash, but they were mostly shouldered aside by the Haitians themselves. Cosmo would hate it, no squirrels either. The hillsides were mostly deforested, so when Tropical Storm Gorden came by, an entire pie shaped part of Port Au Prince was washed to sea in a mudslide - estimated casualties 2000, but nobody really knew because there was no reliable census. For disease and vermin, the place was crawling pretty much everything nasty. An Army troop of my acquaintance was bit by a brown recluse spider on the exposed appendage in the port a john - something I would not wish on even Al Sharpton. I also saw the tarantulas that the entomologists had caught, about the size of a good size dinner plate. Given time, I am sure that some of them had desires to play Shelob. We were mostly free of the stomach issues since MRE's are immune to bacteria in the way they are immune to taste. This changed once we had Brown and Root (Oh my gosh Halliburton worked for the Clinton Administration too?) started preparing real and quite tasty food. Suffice it to say that a 100 yard sprint to the port a john is not fun, when around 7000 other folks have some form of stomach distress. Astonishingly, despite the AIDS infection rate of over 2/3 for prostitutes, when the Bangladesh battalion showed up to do their part, their first request upon hitting the ground, was asking for permission to set up the unit brothels.

Bush is apparently thinking of appointing him to the intelligence panel. I think that's a great idea. Here are some other folks who I think make sense for one reason or another:

Joe Lieberman
Sam Nunn
John Breaux
Rudy Giuliani
Robert Strauss
Kenneth Pollack
Richard Pipes
Bill Cohen
Fareed Zakaria

Not that I want to get in the middle of Derb and Peter, but here's an interesting tidbit on the point of what a mess Haiti is (where my brother's wife is from, btw).

My parents were stuck in an airport once and they struck up a conversation with a young doctor/scientist who was on his way to Haiti. Haiti? Why? They asked.

Well, he was specialist in epidemiology, infectious diseases etc. He explained that Haiti has more diseases, documented and "wild," that an epidemiologist could do in one or two years in Haiti what might take a lifetime elsewhere. Haiti is to 21st century disease researchers what, say, Sub Saharan Africa was to 19th century zologists. So, if you're heading there, you might want to hold off on the cheap steak tartar.

Interesting feedback. I would say that one reason NRO isn't as "interactive" about the campaign this year might have something to do with the fact that there was no Republican primary. For example, The New Republic's website -- not mentioned in the PEJ's report -- has extensive and excellent primary coverage in a way that I doubt they would if this were purely a Republican primary season. Obviously, they'd cover a GOP primary but the New Republic isn't a first-stop resource for Republican primary voters and National Review isn't for Democratic primary voters.

Also, I've got to remember to send out that "More 'Bitch-Slapping!'" memo.

Reader Sean Porter writes:

Dear Jonah:

Two things:

1. A nit: I think "really pointy rocks" should have been "really pointy sticks" in order to insert (or better capture) a Monty Pythonesque moment.

2. According to Robert V. Remini in Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars, Viking Penguin, 2001:

"Without doubt the election of 1828 was one of the filthiest in American history, with no holds barred. [Andrew] Jackson's wife was labeled a bigamist, his mother a prostitute, and he himself a murderer. And [John Quincy] Adams hardly fared better. He was called a pimp for the Czar of Russia and charged with living in kingly splendor in the White House. Other charges of immorality or misbehavior by the two men were invented or distorted."

Remini goes on to describe that, by the time of the 1828 election, the North-South divide was starting to take shape; one of the major issues for the South was the constant conflicts arising out of the continuing land grab by southern settlers of Native American territories east of the Mississippi, coupled with British and Spanish intrigue in Florida involving the use of Native American and fugitive slave soldiers against Americans (the Northern states had long before wiped out significant Native American power).

Also, the 1824 election of John Quincy Adams has been decided by a vote in the House, which was led by Speaker Henry Clay. No sooner had Adams been inaugurated then Clay was appointed Secretary of State, an office that at the time was a leading position in which to ascend to the presidency (the 1824 House vote was called "the corrupt bargain").

Just thought another slice of a divided America may be of interest.

Keep up the great work.

An interesting point from a reader about today's G-File:

Jonah, I generally agree with your piece. It nicely points out the way liberals think a uniter is someone who agrees with their position, and a divider is anyone who disagrees with them.

However, I think you legitimize their criticism (and perhaps equally misunderstand the meaning) when you say that Bush does divide America, just as Clinton did and Gore would have. I think this is untrue. When Bush campaigned successfully with the "uniter not a divider" line, it was clearly understood by me, and I believe most conservatives, that he would not intentionally and often unfairly pit people against each other for political gain. Notice how Bush often says that reasonable people can disagree, but he is doing X because he believes it is right. This was in stark contrast to Clinton and Gore, who typically would say that those who disagree with them had genetic abnormalities or were bigots. The latter is obviously much more divisive, because it aims to remove any legitimacy from the view of the opposition.

So, I agree with you that it is unfair to claim someone is "divisive" just because they take one side of an issue on which the country is divided. However, I think you imply that this is the only way that political leaders are divisive. This clears Clinton and Gore of their divisive behavior, and ignores Bush's actions which are, in fact, less divisive.

From a reader wise beyond human reckoning:

For what it's worth, here's something the great Jesuit John Courtney Murray said about partisanship:

"The whole premise of public argument, if it is to be civilized and civilizing, is that the consensus is real, that among the people everything is not in doubt, but that there is a core of agreement, accord, concurrence, acquiescence. We hold certain truths therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, anad within the context, of agreement. Mutatis mutandis, this is true of scientific, philosophical, and theological argument. It is no less true of political argument."

From "We Hold These Truths," p. 11.

P.S.: When Rich was at AEI on Tuesday, I asked him about giving you a raise. He seemed cool to the idea.

The Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu waza Banga of the world wide frick'n web! Kathryn, let's take an extra moment to gaze at the company NRO is counted among:

* ABC News. Has built its political Web site around ''The Note,'' a daily insider Web log that is considered among the best.

* AOL. Easy to use, with plenty of wire copy.

* CNN. Very user friendly, solid information.

* MSNBC. Lots of information, but easy to get lost.

* The National Review online. Tart, breezy, snide and fun.

* The New York Times. Most balanced of all sites studied, lots of access to other Web sites, different personality from the newspaper.

* Salon.com. More conventional, less edgy than in 2000.

* USA TODAY. A lot like the newspaper. Safe, not too edgy, interpretive or analytical.

* The Washington Post. The richest of all sites, but hard to navigate, a bit cluttered.

* Yahoo. Once a home for old wire copy, now one-stop shopping for campaign coverage from outlets across the country.

I would bet our budget is less than 1% of any of these operations, and if you take Salon out of the mix less than .01%. I wouldn't care if they called us "crapulent dung beetles" (and I'm a little surprised they didn't). That's excellent company to be in and we have Kathryn to thank for it more than anyone else.

I don't want to get into the whole did he or didn't he say Iraq was an "imminent threat" thing again. But when the head of the CIA gives a speech supporting the president, doesn't this seem just a bit tendentious? From the AP:

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.

I think that should be pronouncy Enrology, by the way. Anyway, this reader -- and a few like him -- wants to know who plays well together and who doesn't:

Jonah,

I used to get the impression that you and Ramesh got along quite well. While reading The Corner lately, I have the impression that there are some hostile feelings between the two of you. You also seemed to have a bit of a heated debate, dare I call it an intellectual fight, with someone the other day. I'm sorry I don't remember who it was with or what it was about.

I guess it wouldn't be proper to respond to this topic in The Corner, but my curiosity is aroused as to whom you -meaning the other writers also- get along with and how heated do your debates get.

Here is an idea a creative person like you could take off with. The newest smash animated tv show is "The Halls of NRO!" It's about a group of junior high school aspiring conservative pundits at war with the liberal world around them... but also each other.

Pardon the silly and meaningless nature of this email.

Me: For the record Ramesh and I get along great -- as do our spouses. As for the rest of the NR posse, it's hard to say. I'm convinced, for example, that Rick Brookhiser framed me for a murder in Mexico once. But that's a story that will have to wait for the whacky sitcom.

Well, you're asking me two different -- and two highly inconvenient -- questions. The first is, What would I have politicians do? The second, is what do I think should be done. As for the politicians, the answer is easier. Be honest. Dean and Kerry both pay lipservice to being against gay marriage but they are clearly delighted that the courts are running with this issue and they have nary a word of criticism for the activist judges responsible. If they had more integrity on the issue they would at least criticize the judges who are trying to do by judicial fiat what they oppose as a matter of law and policy. I would certainly be impressed with Kerry & Co. if they were willing to actually fight for what they say they believe, one way or the other.

As for me, you know I've wrestled with this. Intellectually, I don't have a problem with saying that judges who make up the law should be impeached. If they're elected, they should be recalled or thrown out of office. But I know that on a practical level that's not all that helpful. Neither is launching a public campaign to solve this problem through the state legislatures. Though certainly Kerry & Co. could say some things on that front too. My public policy solution, "civil unions si, marriage no" is only a political solution if politicians show some leadership on the issue -- which means first and foremost taking a stance against gay marriage if that's actually you're position. My objection to the FMA was never based upon the substance of the policy it represents (depending on which FMA we're talking about of course), but on my reluctance to make this a constitutional issue rather than a state issue. Regardless, at the end of the day, since nobody seems to be listening to me, what else I would do doesn't seem to matter. But I'll keep pondering anyway.

Everyone knows he's for gay marriage. How should we get there? Sullivan has said that he would prefer for the decision to be made by legislatures, not courts. He regularly says that it should be made state by state, not nationally. So, in short, the ideal decisionmakers would be state legislatures and the least ideal one would be the federal Supreme Court. What I'm wondering is whether he is actually against a Supreme Court resolution of the issue--and if so, on what grounds.

Sullivan writes today: "Courts are supposed to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all, and marriage is one of the most basic civil rights there is, and gay couples can and do fulfill every requirement that straight couples can, what leeway does any Court have? I'm constantly amazed by these claims of judicial 'tyranny.' Was Brown v Board of Education tyranny? It's exactly the same principle as operates here: separate but equal won't do."

If Sullivan's argument is correct, what possible reason could there be for the Supreme Court not to rule in favor of gay marriage? What reason could he have for not wanting it to?

I listened to Rumsfeld last night on C-Span radio in the car. He was really very, very impressive. I'm not sure that the news coverage does it justice.

I probably should have waited until morning. Sometimes the night blogging -- like the night-putting gets the better of me.

I've heard from several bloggers and others who make a good case that not all of it is bad and sometimes it's necessary. Most specifically, when bloggers do it from inside an industry or profession about that profession. I think that's totally fair. Indeed, as one fellow mentioned we do have Jack Dunphy who writes under a pseuodonym in order to keep his job. Of course, Jack began as an actual reporter-of-fact, not an editorialist, and he's not a blogger. But the point is still a good one. Obviously, I think bloggers in Iraq, for example, have an understandable reason for maintaining a secret identity.

I guess my ire was directed more at the pundit blogs. For a long time several leading liberal journalistic sites -- Tapped, TNR -- ran Corner-style blogs without signed entries. That bugged the hell out of me -- since when do professional journalists need to protect their identities? But they've changed the policy and I think they're better for it.

As several people have noted, my objection is with cheap shots not with anonybloggers (which, according to some, makes me a hypocrite). Yes and no. I think it is particular cowardly to write insulting stuff about other peoples' character, looks etc while staying safe behind skirt of anonymity. If you're going to mix-it-up that way you should be ready to take your lumps.

Nevertheless, I shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush. Damn that night-blogging.

An email:

Ramesh, you know the problem with the Bush AWOL story is not Bush's
completion of his service. That part of the story may have been
successfully debunked. The problem for Bush is the overall meta comparison
of Bush with Kerry. One graduated from Yale and volunteered for combat
duty, despite his privelidged background. He served and was wounded three
times, returning with bronze and silver stars for heroism. The other Yale
graduate, faced with the same choices, jumped the line to get into a coveted
Texas Guard unit that was highly unlikely to be called up. He then
requested a transfer to another unit so that he could work on a political
campaign, and completed his service later, at a more personally convenient
time. None of these basic facts seems in doubt.

The question isn't going to be about whether all the T's were crossed and
all the I's were dotted in the service records. The question is going to
be: who had [more guts]? In the larger meta narrative, Bush could be the
loser here, and it would seem to me that the White House ought to change the
subject quickly.

Eric Alterman used to feel sorry for me but now he just thinks I'm an a**hole and idiot for saying that Edward Said and I.F. Stone should be gibbeted. Alterman, my old landlord, and the man who recently said he wished Rush Limbaugh had gone deaf, has particular expertise at asininity so I should take this seriously. And I did know that Alterman has long been a woshipper of Izzy Stone -- a man who sided with pretty much every anti-American totalitarian regime he could at one point or another and who accused America of using WMDs in the Korean war. As for Edward Said, "political decency" is hardly the first phrase I would think of to describe a man who considered Yassir Arafat too moderate.

For the record, my gibbeting list was intended metaphorically. In other words, I don't think, and didn't think, most people would take me seriously in my "desire" to literally dig up people. But I was completely serious when I said that I think Edward Said and I.F. Stone were enemies of what Alterman would call political decency -- if he really knew what that is -- and they don't deserve our reverence. One difference between Eric and me is that he's far more fond of drawing-up enemies lists of the living.

I would unburden myself further in my views on Alterman's gift for asininity and idiocy, but that might give the false impression that I care more about his opinion than he deserves.

According to U.S. Appeals court.

Update: A different take from the Volokh Conspiracy.

Folks, I'm sorry the Trek ban is still in effect. I can't post everyone's Trek email without Kathryn activiating my pain collar, like in the "Gamesters of Triskellion."

Lowry: 10,000 quatloos Goldberg defies the ban again!
Lopez: 20,000 quatloos Goldberg will behave once disciplined!

From a friend (just in case you think this is another "anonymous source"):

Dear Jonah,

There is more ridiculousness in the New York Sun story you skewered in the
Corner than you realize.

More than half of everyone involved in the creation of that story -- reporter included -- were college classmates at Harvard or were contemporaries there. At least 6 of the 11 people quoted, to be precise. Schneider-Mayerson was Harvard '00, Lee was '99, and five others graduated
between '99 and '01.

I know most of these people personally (having also been a contemporary at Harvard). I can attest that they are wonderful people. But disinterested observers they are not. Most of these people worked together as reporters and editors at the Harvard Crimson in the late 1990s.

The words "puff piece" come to mind as apt characterization of this Sun story, but I hate to be so harsh.

Clearly some journalistic liberties have been taken. In calling the piece absurd, you were more correct than you knew.

[Name withheld]

ps. Not that you asked, but I can attest that Jenny 8. Lee's parties are in fact quite fun. And the dumplings are superb.

Blogger Jesse Taylor, who seems incapable of disagreeing with me without making some sophomoric potshot, wonders if I've ever watched Star Trek.

First of all, his name is Patrick Stewart. Second of all, Star Trek revolved around one major philosophy: secularistic utopianism. In fact, a lot of Star Trek focused by and large on the idea that a technologically advanced humanity had unified as it headed into space, and the great conflicts came between interstellar races (more accurately species) governed by planetary single-system governments and/or coexisting multilateral factions.

In fact, if you look at most of the conflicts on Star Trek, they come from the fact that various systems of governance and/or governing attitudes are fundamentally flawed, usually in terms of aggression (Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians) or avarice (Ferengi). Humans/the Federation were the de facto lawkeepers of the universe because they either didn't have or had overcome the fundamental flaws that governed other species' behavior.

I guess the question is, did Jonah watch Star Trek?

I don't really disagree with much of this. Though, first of all Star Trek begins with The Original Series (TOS) not with The Next Generation (TNG). In TOS the show was explicit about Federation culture being American culture. This is why one academic dubbed the show "Wagon Train in space." The conflict with the Klingons (and Romulans) was an excplitly Cold War morality tale.

I agree that TNG turned a lot of this stuff on its head. Picard was a diplomat instead of a cowboy, a Frenchman instead of a Midwestern American etc. The chief enemy -- in the begining -- were capitalistic Ferengi rather than Communistic Klingons. But, it should be noted that the Ferengi stunk as villains which is why the producers brought back the Romulans and introduced the ultimate totalitarians -- the Borg. Moreover, even the awful politics of its leading actor couldn't completely swamp the show's dedication to scientific discovery, the quest for truth and individual liberty -- which still came through as essentially American in flavor and entirely Western in substance. I can quote episodes if I must.

Whatever. This is all stuff I've written about before and hardly controversial.

Taylor writes, "In fact, a lot of Star Trek focused by and large on the idea that a technologically advanced humanity had unified as it headed into space." True enough I suppose, but how this exonerates Patrick Stewart or contradicts me is a mystery. As Taylor concedes, humanity unified as it went into space, not before it went into space. The spirit of exploration and the ability to put old grievances and differences behind them came with space exploration. Stewart's terran isolationism rejects all of that.

In short Jesse: scoop of chocolate, scoop of vanilla, don't waste my time.

It was bound to come up. Actually, there have been many references to Disney of one kind or another. First of all, they often spell it Diz-Nee so as to avoid being squashed by the cartoon world's Big Brother. Plus, "The Itchy and Scratchy Show" is often depicted as a Disney product. There's even Itchy and Scratchy Land -- which is broken up into its constituent parts: Torture Land, Explosion Land, Searing Gas Pain Land, and, of course Unnecessary Surgery Land. This is a pretty comprehensive list of Disney references in the Simpsons (though they misspelll "Diz-Nee" at the top of the page).

My favorite swipe at Walt from the Simpsons came in the short film "The Roger Meyers Story" which profiles the Walt-esque creator of Itchy and Scratchy. The narrator explains:

Roger Meyers senior, the gentle genius behind Itchy and Scratchy, loved and cared about almost all the peoples of the world. And he, in turn, was beloved by the world, except in 1938 when he was criticized for his controversial cartoon, "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors".

While the "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors" line is funny, what I find hilarious is the fact that he "loved and cared about almost all the peoples of the world."

Bob Novak, after being taunted by a jackass who followed him around, might get charged with assault. The actual "assault" was minimal according to the Post's accountand the provocation was considerable. Some site called Takebackthemedia is hyperventillating about the whole thing.

What I want to know is how these people can get outraged by a 72 year old grabbing a guy's arm and shoving him after being followed around and called a traitor over and over again while they don't seem to care that Al Franken tackled a guy from behind for heckling a speaker. I mean if what Novak did was bad then what Franken did was evil. I don't think either events are very big deals. But if you're going to get outraged over Novak defending his honor, you've got to be troubled by Al Franken sucker-tackling a guy simply because he thought he could.

Kerry may think Bush is a deserter but he was certainly willing to let Bill Clinton off the hook. Here's his 1992 floor speech on the subject:

VIETNAM INSERTED INTO CAMPAIGN (Senate - February 27, 1992)

[Page: S2479]

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we

now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware.

Don't ask me how to pronounce it, but here's an email about it from a friend of mine:

Jonah, A good friend of mine from Princeton was golfing on the Princeton University course one spring afternoon and, unbeknownst to him, breaking the rules by wearing shorts. A nerdy little man playing one whole behind them came up to yell at him for not wearing pants. My friend apologized and said he didn't know the rules and he would wear pants next time. The man said that wasn't good enough and they should leave. My friend told him to get lost, he was a university student using the university golf course and the guy should relax. At that point the man got really angry, turned, pointed at his party and said "Do you know who my wife is? She is the Governor of New Jersey!" My friend replied "That's nice," and continued playing. He told me that same afternoon and there were people with him to corroborate. All the Best, Phil

Statement by Roy Neel on the Nomination Contest

BURLINGTON--Dean for America's Roy Neel issued the following statement tonight:

"After tonight's election results come in only 10 percent of the delegates for the Democratic nomination will be chosen. The voices of millions of Americans in states like Wisconsin, Washington, California, New York and Florida, have yet to be heard. Dean for America's Roy Neel issued the following statement today:

"We always knew fighting the powerful special interests would be tough. That is why we have prepared ourselves to continue the fight to change America's politics and change Washington.

"Democrats want to send the strongest possible candidate against George Bush in November. Howard Dean has energized hundreds of thousands of passionate new voters, new activists in this battle. And he is the only Democrat to carry the powerful message of change since this campaign began.

"If we are going to change Washington we have to send the candidate of change against Bush and his corporate cronies.

"This campaign will continue to fight for ordinary Americans who want to end the influence of special interests and restore respect for this public interest.

"It's way too early for a coronation of the candidate who has taken in more special interest money than any other candidate."

From a reader (and possibly not true!):

Jonah,

Dickie Barrett of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones (If you haven't listened to them, well I'm sorry.) pulled the DYKWIA move on my cousin at a restaurant in Newport RI. He was trying to get back into a night club without paying the cover charge. Needless to say, he paid. However, I just found out that according to Snopes and Crooked Timber that couldn't of happened because it didn't happen to Fonda.

Sincerely,
Name withheld

From a reader:

"Feckless crapweasel" is now - as of 4:12 pm, Central Time, February 3, 2004 by the Gregorian calendar - up to thirty strikes on Google.

Does living in a trailer while in high school now classify as serving your country in the same regard as being Supreme Allied Commander?

I mean, I drove a car with over 200,000 miles on it in college...surely I can at least be a governor?

"It's been a really disillusioning experience," the candidate's 34-year-old son says. "We sacrificed a hell of a lot for this country over 34 years. We lived in a damn trailer when I was a freshman in high school."

Several readers from Crooked Timber have sent me links to this bit from Snopes saying that the "Do you know who I am?" emails I posted about Kerry must not be true. With all do respect to Snopes, which I consider pretty authoritative, and a little less respect to the folks sending me the email, So what?
The Snopes page largely debunks a story about Jane Fonda and Ted Turner. Okay. But the idea that self-important Senators, media bigwigs and the like don't ever say "Do you know who I am?" is batty. I've heard it said by self-annointed big shots numeroues times. At almost every political convention you'll find a scene where some bigwig isn't on the list for a party and pulls the DYKWIA card. I have no doubt that there are more stories like this than real-world instances, but there lots of real-world instances. And I still fully believe Kerry has provided more than a few of them.

1) If Clark finishes third in OK and a poor second in AZ, he is done. I gather the Kerry people would like him to survive, because (a) he might draw votes from Edwards in VA and TN, and (b) he might draw votes from Dean in WI. They're still marginally worried about a Dean rise from the grave. And speaking of the Ho:

(2) You'll note Dean is below the delegate threshold in all five states. He'll almost certainly cross it in NM, but that's pretty slim pickins. Look for McAuliffe to make pointed statements tonight or tomorrow about the need for losers to pull out. And look even more for something from Andy Stern, the [Service Employees International Union president,] who endorsed Dean in November. Last week Stern suggested Dean needed to win something today, or at the latest, this weekend.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,
you've got to understand, there are Husserlites and Husserlites. Husserl's original school of Phenomenology in Gottingen was a powerhouse of post-Kantian philosophical realism. His early students have had a major impact in developing the personalist philosophy that has had a major influence on, among others, John Paul II, who did his phil. dissertation on Max Scheler. Among his students were Adolf Reinach, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Edith Stein, and in our own day (my own marvelous former profs) Josef Seifert and John Crosby. My husband is a philosophy prof at the new Ave Maria University. Both he and his colleague, Maria Fedoryka, were trained in what is called "phenomenological realism," based on Husserl's motto "Back to things in themselves" and a rehabilitation of the idea of the mind's ability to know OBJECTS, not just mental images of objects.

Husserl took a disastrous turn later in his career, which led right to Heidegger, but please don't paint all Husserlites with the same brush! I think his lesser known stream of followers will one day be seen at the forefront of the great renewal of realist philosophy that's just around the corner.

Otherwise, no complaints about your list.
Best,
Katie van Schaijik

The discussion over at Crooked Timber is actually very entertaining. I like this post:

My first thought upon reading “Jonah Goldberg’s onto the plan!” is: Goldberg’s too clueless to know what Crooked Timber is? If he had any clue about the collective brain power here, he wouldn’t be so smug.

For the record, I don't doubt they have brains. I just don't think they're using them very well at the moment.

According to sources, the early exit polls in most of the states are in, and they look like:

AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11

Stay tuned today to see if these preliminary numbers hold when the polls close.

From a reader (who CC'd that CTH blog):

Jonah-

Please publish this email in The Corner. I want my $10 gift certificate to
Amazon so I can finally buy "Legacy". I guess I should make up a story about
a Dem contender to play by the rules....John Kerry bought me a Slurpee, but
bogarted that cool, hybrid straw-spoon thing you get with it. When I asked
for it back, he shot a look at me and snarled, "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM???"

Gracias!

Okay, the criteria are recently dead and have done terrible damage to the culture, right? Well, I don't like John Dewey as a nominee because he seems to be a decent guy, whatever mistakes he may have made. Ditto for those Supreme Court Justices. They may have been wrong, but they weren't traitors or enemies. So here's my brief, off the cuff, by no means final, in no particular order, list:

1. Franz Fanon.
2. Edward Said.
3. Che Guevara (and the rest of that very good list posted by Derb below).
4. Norman Mailer & Gore Vidal -- once they're dead.
5. Mumia Abu Jamal -- assuming he dies of old age.
6. Pol Pot (unless he falls into the too-obvious-villain category).
7. Paul De Man, Martin Heidegger and a slew of lesser post-modernists, phenomenologists, Husserlites, post-structuralists, etc.
8. The Krupps Family circa WWII
9. All Soviet dictators whose bodies have enough coherence to still dangle.
10 L. Ron Hubbard
11. The Rosenbergs, just to emphasize we were right the first time.
12. The Assaads, Jong-Ils, Khomenis and other assorted recently departed dicators.
13. I.F. Stone.
14. Margaret Sanger

Jonah ...Hanging the dead is an old practice. It was called “gibbeting a corpse.” Exhuming a body and gibbeting it was a special way of exposing a miscreant to public scorn. Sounds about right for most of the people on the lists others have posted.

Let me concede right off the bat, that I know less about economics than Derb. So when he says he doesn't know much, I know less.

That said, I'd like to come at this from a slightly different angle, individual liberty. Conservatives of nearly all stripes, including protectionists and free traders, are typically quite comfortable arguing against government regulations which do violence or otherwise impose on individual liberty for the sake of the "common good." Anti-smoking laws, laws restricting employer's rights to hire whoever they want, speech codes, anti-parents' rights initiatives, etc: pretty much all conservatives are fluent in the arguments against such things. Why shouldn't I be able to hire only Christians in my hardware store? Why can't I smoke if the proprietor of the bar is okay with it? Or, why can't I allow smoking if I am the proprietor? And so on. When someone says, But it's better for the society as a whole to ban smoking or force minority hiring, the conservative says something along the lines of: "Maybe so, but losing individual liberty is worse. And the government does not or should not have the authority it is asserting."

But for some reason, free trade is exempted from this rule. By what right does the government in Washington tell me where and from whom I can buy my rubber shower shoes or stereo equipment? Even if you could prove that free trade was contrary to the public good (I don't think it is, though it's certainly a net loss for some people in the society), why does that mean the government has the right to forbid me to do what I want? We're not talking about censorship of the lewd or purient (which I think can be defended) we are talking about prohibitions on what kind of car or tractor I can buy and, inevitably, sell. And these are not small regulations. When the federal government raises taxes on foreign goods, it is surely putting many small businessmen out of work by making the materials they need too expensive. And it is transferring huge sums of the consumer's money to companies and corporations through the special tax code at the border.

"The socialist society," wrote the late philosopher Robert Nozick, "would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." It seems to me that regardless of the economic objections, anti-free trade conservatives need to answer a second set of questions about why Washington should make these hugely important decisions for its citizens when we constantly claim it is outrageous for Washington to make much, much less significant decisions.

Jonah,

For my talk radio callers who are veterans, both Republicans and Democrats, Kerry's war record can be summed up in two words: "Jane Fonda."

When he joined Fonda's anti-war movement, he permanently linked himself to the one woman less popular in the military than Hillary Clinton. I've been surprised by the number of Vietnam vets who still remember Kerry's testimony and the fallout from it.

Sure, GWB got the Congressman's son treatment, but at least he didn't HURT the war effort or help create the climate in which soldiers could not wear their uniforms in public back home.

So Kerry wants to make an issue out of Bush's guard duty. Fine, that's fair game I suppose. But Kerry can't have it his way. If Bush's service is open to question, then Kerry's is too. And not just what he did in Vietnam but what he did when he got back (as has been chronicled on NRO at some length). That's a tough problem for the Bushies strategically. It means having to call attention to Kerry's good record in order to go after his bad. But I think it has to be done. Letting Kerry define himself as an unadulterated war hero and use that unchallenged record to credibly talk about foreign policy is a non-starter. First of all, Kerry's record on foeign policy stinks (if you get a chance read Michael Crowley's take-down of Kerry's 1997 book about terrorism. Kerry touts it as pophetic when pathetic is far closer to the mark [requires subscription]). But if Kerry starts every sentence with the equivalent of "Mr. Bush I really know something about aircraft carriers..." Bush is going to have to come back with something.

Dean's fond of saying that lack of foreign policy experience didn't keep him from being "right" on the war. Well, Bush -- or his surrogates -- must come up with some language which says "Just because Kerry was 'right' in Vietnam doesn't mean he was right after Vietnam" and then dig into the ribbon-burning, America-bashing rhetoric of the 1970s).

Sorry, but there really isn't much [activity]. I have seen a few guys on the corner with Clark signs, and one pickup truck with a giant Clark banner in the back.

Nothing else from anyone. I haven't seen a single Dean-dong in weeks, even though I drive past his headquarters on a daily basis.

I don't see many outward signs that a primary is happening here tomorrow. Polls say Kerry has a big lead on Lieberman who is running second. I've only seen a handful of Dean signs and there were some Dean supporters doing a sign waving at one busy intersection on Saturday. Not much else. Kerry and Lieberman both did small events here over the weekend. There is no Republican presidential primary here. We have one in September to pick our candidate for governor.

You probably aren't hearing much about the primary here in Delaware because there really isn't any excitement about it around here. I work [at] the University of Delaware in Newark, the second largest city in the state and a hotbed of student activism (or as much as you'll get in these parts anyway, Delaware is much better known as a party school then a center of political activity). Even in this relatively populous part of the state there's very little evidence of the campaigns. Very few signs in yards (mostly Clark), and no ads out of the Philly market (Delaware doesn't have it's own commercial TV station) that have been directed towards us at all that I've seen. Dean had a campaign office down the street here in Newark but since his fast fade in the last two weeks there's been very little activity on the part of the local Deaniacs, they've pretty much had the wind taken out of their sails. I was talking to a friend of mine who was hot on Dean but now realizes that he's not going anywhere about if he'd support Kerry now. He shrugged and said "You know, A.B.B." (anybody but Bush). This is a good example of the lack of enthusiasm that Kerry is going to be getting from the Denniboppers.

Kerry and Lieberman were both here last week, each for about an hour or two tops, Kerry getting some support form the local IBEW and Lieberman hitting some old folks homes. Joe has made the biggest and most consistent effort in the state, he's been here a few times and his wife and daughter have also made a few appearances. I suspect that he was hoping to get a win here to boost his sagging fortunes and set up some momemtum before going on to the other staes that he thought he had a chance on, but with the rise of the Kerry machine that looks very doubtful.

Going strictly by yard signs, here in Tulsa I see a lot more support for Clark than any other candidate, followed by Dean. The Dean signs were up earlier but have been overtaken. I have seen exactly one sign each for Kerry and Edwards, nothing at all for Joe Lieberman, who received the most financial support from Oklahoma contributors….

Tulsa has a city council primary the same day, and a friend of mine is running as a Democrat in a heavily blue-collar Democrat area -- mostly white but with significant black and Hispanic populations. He says he isn't detecting any enthusiasm for the presidential primary and doesn't believe the presidential primary will boost turnout significantly. In terms of real impact on everyday life, there's a lot more at stake in that city council race.

Local bloggers haven't had much to say about the presidential primary. My blog has been focused on the local elections. The activists on okdemocrat.com seem split between Clark, Dean, and Kerry.

For the record, I would love to own the H-Wing and if the suits really loved me, I'd be cruising around in it right now. Anyway, from a reader:

Jonah:

I know Shawn Crosby, the creator of the car. He's a very nice person - and so
is his wife, Colleen. While he did decorate the car *after* they were married,
she certainly approves and is also a science fiction enthusiast. There are
pictures and some verbage about them on their web site - or would be, if heavy
traffic over the last week hadn't made their ISP close them temporarily.

As an aside, you might want to know that the car had another prominent admirer
not too long ago: VP Dick Cheney, who stopped his motorcade to pull over and
look at it. He had a short chat with Shawn, shook his hand, and so on.

Just thought you might want to give ol' Shawn a break.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY RECEIVES CLEARANCE TO PULL PLEDGE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA CONTACT: Nu Wexler (803) 917-7858
Monday, February 01, 2004

DEMOCRATS, INDEPENDENTS, AND REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO VOTE IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ARE WELCOME WITH OPEN ARMS

COLUMBIA – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Joe Erwin announced today that he received clearance from the National Democratic Party to pull the voter pledge in the South Carolina Democratic Party.

“Excitement is building for the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary and hundreds of thousands of South Carolina voters want to take part. We at the South Carolina Democratic Party have heard their voices and today we are acting to send a message that they know they are welcome in our primary,” said State Party Chair Joe Erwin.

This letter from a reader sounds awfully consistent with the "beignets" story I posted last week:

Dear Jonah Goldberg,

let me share what a friend of mine, a college professor originally from
Massachusetts and with liberal point of views, told 1 year ago about his so far only encounter with John Kerry.

My friend was standing in line at Barnes & Noble, when John Kerry approached the sales clerk, demanding to have his purchase processed immediately. The clerk was not inclined towards granting Kerry that favor, whereupon Kerry asked him: "Don't you know who I am?" The clerk had an answer ready: "Yes, you are the guy who has to position himself at the back of the line." :)

Note to Ed Gillespie: Don't your attacks portraying Kerry as a consistent "liberal" (as opposed to, say, an inconsistent straddler for whom every vote is a play-it-safe vote) actually help him. Please butt out of the Democrats' primary. We're trying to have some damaging internecine warfare here! I thought it was Terry McAuliffe who wanted to pick an early winner. ...

From a reader:

Jonah,

Just read Jim Geraghty's article on Wes Clark. I, for one, will be glad when he is out of this race. He is, IMO, the single most dangerous candidate the Dems have ever had in terms of national security and our nation's future.

I went through the armor officer basic course with the general's son, Wes, Jr., and then freshly promoted 2-star general Clark spoke at our graduation. That was 1992. For a man to go from 1-star to 4-star as quickly as he did is amazing, especially considering how much he claimed to despise the CinC during that period.

You see, Wes Jr. and I got to be pretty good friends during that period. Our views on politics and the world in general were much the same. My politics and views haven't changed. Wes Jrs' certainly have. I have seen his rants on countless blogs and websites and it's not the same Wes I knew. He has definitely passed over to the dark side.

At Fort Knox, he was a stand-up kind of guy and a fine junior officer in his own right. We had some great times in Louisville and at the O-Club on post. He was very knowledgeable and opinionated about any number of issues. Very conservative, I might add.

In talking to Wes, Jr., I found out among other things about Clark's first hand knowledge of Clinton roaming all over eastern Eurpoe while at Oxford. I also heard of his father's disdain for Clinton's tax policies and governing practices while in Arkansas. According to his son, Wes Clark couldn't stand Clinton. I remember speaking with Wes Jr. on the phone after we had finished AOBC about our fear of Clinton winning the election. We concurred that Clinton would prove to be the worst CinC in US history.

I had communications with Wes Jr for a few years afterward and never once did he seem happy about the state of things. I feel strongly that his take was his fathers. That makes Gen Clarks' recent words of praise for Clinton absolutely revolting to this army officer. I would say Gen Clark has done a complete 180 on the matter but from others, I take it that he has always been a political opportunist.

I also recall that Gen Clark despised the reserve and guard forces of the army. He railed to his son about the ineptitude of the forces sent to NTC in 90-91 when he commanded there. Years later, I have learned from officers on the ground at NTC that, in their opinion, Clark set them up to fail. In light of our country's current situation, I'd say an attitude like Clarks is the last thing we need to rally our forces and continue the global war on terrorism. His elitist views on the miltary and the citizenry leave too much to be desired.

Bottom line; Wes Clark is as dangerous a man as I have ever personally met and I shudder that many in the media considered him a legit challenge to win the nomination. I hope he is swept by the wayside soon enough. I appreciate all that you and NR do to promote a better understanding of the smoke annd mirrors that is the Democratic party. Keep up the good work.

[Name withheld by request]

From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

As a longtime resident of Kennedy Country (South Boston Ward 6 to be precise) I can confirm that no one here likes him either. We know him best and he is a sanctimonious pompous ass. Prior to his marriage to the pickle-and-ketchup heiress he was also known as something of a man-about-town. After he moved to her Louisburg Square townhouse (the best address in the best neighborhood), he ignited a local mini-scandal by getting the public works department to relocate a fire hydrant that blocked a particularly convenient parking space. Considering that a deeded parking space in that area could sell for $300k this was a sort of ultimate Marie Antoinette moment. This snob di tutti snobs managed to piss off even his neighbors with that one.

Let's just say that no one around here would ever buy his man-of-the-people schtick. If they do nominate him it will be interesting to see if they film him walking from his townhouse to the convention every day- it's maybe a five minute walk.

Lots of email like this:

Jonah,

I suppose that I am the type of person that the Superbowl halftime show was supposed to shock. I am a mom of two young, boys, a cub scout leader and a conservative living in the suburbs. But I have to say I was not exactly shocked. To be shocked, you have to be surprised but how can you be surprised when every big entertainment "spectacular" reaches for a new low.

Unfortunately, my husband and I realized a long time ago that we didn't want our boys watching most televised sporting events because every commercial message either endorses the beer orgy lifestyle or promotes sexually explicit and/or violent television and movies. So, our boys weren't watching the halftime show.

There was a time when I was shocked, usually by Madonna but she used up my last bit of shock with that "kiss." At this point, seeing Janet Jackson's breast was actually a yawn. What I felt was disgust. Disgust that there is no talent at the top of the popular music industry and that they have try to distract us from that by rubbing their crotches and butts against each other, or by exposing some skin. That used to be shocking, but now it is just sad.

I suppose there is one thing that is shocking about the Superbowl halftime show, that would be the amount of money spent to display talentless extroverts bumping and grinding "for our entertainment pleasure." If I'm not mistaken, they could have found that kind of talent at any "gentleman's club" for a bargain price and those girls could probably lip-sync to over-dubbed music too.

And this...

Ditto on the Janet Jackson comments -- the vulgar language, the crotch-grabbing, the exposed body parts has gotten so old. It reminds me of a bunch of five-year-olds standing around taking turns saying "poo-poo" and laughing their heads off....

I think it's probably too late to stop Kerry from getting the nomination. But here's a little tidbit that may end up being Bush's greatest advantage. No one likes John Kerry. I've now met a fairly wide assortment of liberals, Democratic activists, reporters, scribblers etc over the last year -- in green rooms and at cocktail parties. And while none of my conversations were on the record, I can report that there's an astonishing amount of animus towards John Kerry. Lots of reporters just hate the guy. They think he's arrogant and condescending (largely because he is). Even Democrats who were terrified of Dean winning the nomination because they feared he'd be unelectable, want nothing to do with Kerry. Obviously, this isn't a universal sentiment. But it is a very real factor. But once the media gets over its shame for misreporting the whole Dean boom-that-wasn't I predict they will turn on Kerry very hard. We're already seeing a little of it now.

From a reader:

You hit the nail on the head. I found it depressing, banal, un-sexy, unimaginative, degrading and condescending. It was so obviously designed to "shock and offend" us middle-class goobers. They substitute "shock" for actual talent. No doubt the MTV types evaluate their success on the level of public "outrage".

What we need is a word or expression for being offended/disgusted but not offended/shocked; for being outraged that they think you are so stupid and tasteless, not that you find sex or body parts inherently offensive.
Indifference/yawning is the biggest insult you can give them but how can you let such trash go on without a comment? Watching it with my 10, 11 and 13 years old nieces/nephew really brought it home to me - how much a toilet pop culture is. Come up with a word/phrase, Jonah. Make it a contest, such as the one in the Atlantic Monthly

I agree with pretty much with what everyone here has had to say about the Janet Jackson incident. However, I think there's another aspect worth emphasizing.

This morning on CNN I caught Jack Cafferty (who's great by my lights) reading viewer email on the whole thing. One viewer gave the hackneyed "we all have body parts, get over it" defense. I haven't had time to scan the blogosphere, but I am sure there are already plenty of people having a good laugh at the "prudes" who took offense to Jackson's display.

But here's the thing. Shocking the sensibilities of the bourgeoisie is so old. The people who thought Janet's boob-watch moment was a good idea -- beforehand or afterwards -- almost surely didn't actually enjoy the spectacle themselves. What appeals to them is the idea of shocking other people. Clearly, they weren't shocked -- enjoyably or otherwise -- by seeing Janet's tassledness. They're used to such displays. No, what was cool about it was that it would offend the sensibilities of fuddy-duddies. This sort of thing is the source of a vast, vast amount of bad "art," music, fiction etc. The value of a song or a video is measured not by its creativity or excellence, but by its ability to elicit the desired response from the other side. This sort of thing is so unimpressive. It's tired, it's played-out, it's Madonna. So I'm fine with being might peeved with CBS. But let's not forget to mention that part of their mistake was being predictably banal.

Infuriated by the fall-out from Hutton, BBC journalists have been reacting with characteristic modesty. Here’s an example of what they have been saying:

'The majority of our journalism is bloody good, world-beating.’

Ha ha ha ha.

Still, it looks like they won’t have to change their ways too much. The current favorite to become the new chairman is apparently none other than EU commissioner Chris Patten, a man long notorious for his embrace of humbug, hypocrisy and hysterical anti-Americanism.

He should fit in nicely.

A reader writes to tip me off about two more issues to watch for during the Superbowl tonight:

"Will the Dodgers win in straight sets and without taking a mulligan?"

Thanks, Richard, it seems like I still have a lot to learn about American football.

One of the more irritating aspects of contemporary life is the way in which phrases, words or ideas are drained of all meaning lest they give someone, somewhere “offense”. Here’s a recent example from Georgia:

”The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

The only thing more ridiculous than this decision has been Jimmy Carter’s response:

“Former President Jimmy Carter had harsh words for the change on Friday, calling it an embarrassment and saying it exposes the state to nationwide ridicule.”

Hmm, before Jimmy Carter starts condemning embarrassments that expose his state to nationwide ridicule, he should do one thing first.

Walk over and take a look in a mirror.

I received a tidal wave of e-mails (well, five or six anyway) on the vitally important topic of Kerry’s shirts, cufflinks and all round limousine liberal status. There were conspiracy theorists who noticed that cufflinks imply French cuffs, and then there were admirers of Mrs. Kerry:

“Kerry and Dean are both bluebloods, but at least Kerry's wife sneers openly at people who can't speak French. After Clinton and Edwards and Dean, there's something refreshing about that.”

But the definitive word on this matter comes from a reader in Dayton, Ohio:

“Maybe Kerry would throw his cufflinks over the White House fence in solidarity with those of us who shop at Wal-Mart.”

As a (very) poor man’s Grace Kelly, Gwyneth Paltrow is usually been pretty watchable, but, alas, when it comes to geopolitics, dim Gwyn seems to have signed up for the Julia Roberts/Susan Sarandon school of stupidity. This is from the London Evening Standard:

“Paltrow said she would worry about bringing up a baby in the US adding: 'There's a weird over-patriotic atmosphere. It's like, "We're No.1 and the rest of the world doesn't matter".

”With all the guns in schools, it's not too great. We'll probably move about until school age and then choose a place and stick with it.'

Perhaps Alec Baldwin could hop over the Channel to babysit.