WASHINGTON DC, March 13 /RPS News/ -- Rioting in Syria expanded to Hasakah, Dirik, Amouda, and Ras el-Ein, all Kurdish majority cities in northern Syria bordering Turkey and Iraq. According to RPS sources, many Ba'ath government buildings have been scorched in Dirik and Amouda.

Kurdish and Arab leaders are calling for an uprising and indications are that Aleppo, the second largest city in Syria, is heeding the call. Kurds leaders are also calling for an uprising in Damascus.

Eyewitnesses are claiming that many civilians have been killed in Amouda and Dirik when they clashed with government forces. No exact figures were available.

Qamoshli, SYRIA, March 12 12:25pm/RPS News/ -- A soccer match between al-Jihad team of Qamoshli and al-Fatwa team of Deir el-Zour in northern Syria that started at 1pm local time, ended in at least 20 people dead and about 150 injured.

According to eyewitnesses, fans in the stands held up pro-Saddam and anti-Kurds banners and that when Kurds scuttled with them, the Mayor of Qamoshli called the internal security police and upon arrival started firing indiscriminately at the crowd.

RPS learned that most of the dead and injured were people who objected to the public display for support of Saddam. Qamoshli is a multi-ethnic city that includes Arabs and Kurds. Some fans claimed that the police joined the pro-Saddam fans and used their guns on unarmed people. The injured were transported to different area hospitals.

Thanks for your comments about Aznar.

I will never forget the TV images of Aznar after the ETA attempt on his life in 1995. He, like DeGaulle after the liberation of Paris or Reagan after being shot, showed what he was made of. He was calm, unafraid, in charge. Aznar won his election that day [Aznar's party won the election of 1996, and Aznar became prime minister early in 1997].

I will miss Aznar, not the least because he leaves power as the first Spanish ruler that, as far as I know, does so because he wants to [do so], since King and Holy Roman Emperor Charles I of Spain and V of Germany. I hope that he's not the last.

‘Prestigious’ London restaurateurs have formed a joint venture with Cuba to open up a reproduction of a famous Havana bar once frequented by Hemingway. To make the Cuban experience even more authentic, Scott of the Burton Terrace blog suggests that patrons should not “be allowed to use camera phones, access the internet or read books not approved by the restaurant. [They] must bring their own toiletries.” His readers have even more suggestions, including this:

”If you try to leave the restaurant with your child, Janet Reno will make sure your kid is dragged back in, at gunpoint.”

Talking to Bill O'Reilly last night about being pro-life in Hollywood, two-time Emmy-winner Patricia Heaton, from Everybody Loves Raymond said: "it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life." In discussing abortion she said, talking about her work as chairman for Feminists for Life: "The early feminists were pro-life. And really abortion is a huge disservice to women, and it hasn't been presented that way. So -- so it's a -- there's a sort of an in for me because of that take on it."

Several readers noticed the same thing I have. Even when the conjecture was centered around ETA, the Madrid bombings were routinely referred to as "terrorism" by the media. When the same things happen in Israel, they're attacks by militants.

Let's see. Kerry believes that Bush's coalition was fraudulent, that Bush is a unilateralist, America has lost its allies and the Iraq war was...was...I'm sorry I really have no idea whether Kerry thinks the Iraq war was worth it or not since he steadfastly refuses to answer the question with any finality.

But as for the rest, let's see. It seems more and more likely that the attack in Madrid was because of Spain's "fraudulent" "paper tiger" coalition. Seems like al Qaeda thought it was a real coalition.

Meanwhile, we are still in multilateral talks with North Korea and seeking more cooperation from the UN in Iraq.

And, the French, the US and others are fighting in Haiti together.

And, oh yeah, Iraq has a new Constitution.

Am I crazy, or is the world Kerry sees simply different than the way it is?

from the guy whose email I last posted:

I realize you are busy and probably speed-read your e-mails, but you really missed my point.

I clearly stipulated in my e-mail that, “I doubt Jonah would have even mentioned it if Gibson were a not-so-devout believer who had said, ‘I’m making this movie because I just think it’s a pretty powerful story that will make a cool movie.’ ”

In other words, if Sophia Coppola decides to make a biopic about the Apostle Paul, but does it purely as an artistic endeavor and not as an act of faith or a religious “calling,” then I think you will have very few, if any people wondering what she is going to do with the profits. In the case of The Passion, no one is demanding to know what Newmarket or actress Monica Bellucci are doing with their proceeds from the film.

Thus, asking what true believer and inspired-by-God Mel is doing with his likely massive profits will not in any way, shape, or form discourage secular Hollywood types from making similar movies.

While one could hardly describe it as concise, it would be a disservice to fail to mention Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades. Despite the length, Runciman is an engaging writer, and I haven't found a shorter text that truly does justice to the epic scale of the Crusades, both in their glory and in their brutality (which, to be fair, can be assigned to all involved). In addition, he's able to sketch the conflicts not just between the European Crusaders and the Islamic world, but also the oft-neglected Byzantine empire, which found itself caught in the middle.

I didn't say I was done criticizing him. From a reader:

You missed one of the great examples of hypocrisy-when Michael Moore came to Denver to prescreen his "Bowling for Columbine" myth for the parents of those killed he charged them admission. he also did not give a penny to the memorial fund.

From a reader:

Derb has written lots about the Uighurs of Sinkiang, always with the conclusion that they are resistant to al-Qaeda-type nihilism. This is from a September 5, 2001 article, straight out of NRO: "America's war on terror, and the anti-Muslim feeling generated in the U.S. by last September's attacks, have been a godsend to the Chinese. The Uighurs are Muslims, you see. Very few of them are Muslims of the fundamentalist kind: the Turkish/Turkic peoples seem to carry some cultural gene that immunizes them against religious fanaticism. Islam is their faith, though, and it follows that if the Chinese tag the East Turkestan independence movements as 'terrorist,' in the present climate of opinion, nobody will much mind." And remember, "The capital city is Urumqi"!

I did say in my defense that I'm fairly ignorant on the rise of Islam in China. This reader sets me straight:

Jonah,

Please don't tell me you fell for the standard Communist propaganda on the Uighur people of "Xinjiang."

Contrary to that pompous little e-mailer, the Uighurs are the most peaceful, liberal, and pro-American Muslims on earth. No one from the outside who has investigated the Communist claims of "jihadism" has ever found them. If Derb was "in town" he himself would have set that moron straight.

Sincerely (go ahead and use my name),

D.J. McGuire: President and Co-Founder, China e-Lobby
Author of Dragon in the Dark: How and Why Communist China Helps Our Enemies in the War on Terror (Now available at www.dragoninthedark.com, or via Amazon.com)

A reader responds to today's column:

This campaign is really wimpy. Bush should be called a liar and a man who will waste the lives of young Americans in a war for neocon-artists like you. He is a traitor and you are too. So I'd like to see an ad by the Kerry campaign that lays out all the neo-con lies and intrigues that have driven the nation to the edge of a cliff. That wouldn't be nasty enough, but it would be true. I can't wait until January 2005 when Bush is back in Texas on his faux ranch choking on pretzels and crying in his non-alcoholic beer. And I hope you will be kind enough to buy him a round or two. The American people are waking up to the nightmare Bush and the neo-cons have created. Maybe you should send your resume to The Nation because it's going to be a long time before you get anywhere near the hearing you get at the top of this corrupt government. And, one more thing: eff off, ok?

Given Jonah's post mentioning me, this is as good a moment as any to say that I have not (to my knowledge) defended Gibson the man. I've defended the movie he made against certain charges. I am perfectly prepared to believe that Gibson may himself be an anti-Semite, be on a "strange death trip," or whatever else the critics say. But I also think that the usual critical rule of judging movies on their own terms should apply here.

Regarding Rich's solution: It sounds like a compromise but isn't. Presumably Gibson is supposed to tithe his profits whatever movie he makes. The question here is whether this movie imposes a special additional obligation on him. To say all he needs to do is to tithe is to answer that with a no.

I really don't want to spend the next day reading and talking about this. So let me say that I think a lot of readers who disagree with me make some excellent points and I've changed my thinking on some of this. Here's where I come down and where I think I'll be staying.

I think Gibson will have an image problem if he truly ends up pocketing as much money as some predict. Whether he should have an image problem is a different, though not irrelevant, point.

So should he?

Well, yes and no. As I said from the begining I don't believe in the notion of "excess" or "obscene" profits as they are defined these days. If, for example, you go into business to make a drug that cures cancer and you end up saving 2 billion lives and making $200 billion dollars, great. You did what you set out to do, you helped the world, you succeeded, hooray for you, go spend your money on a solid gold AMC Pacer for all I care (though again: images proplems are inevitable). (This is not to say I think all businesses are morally equivalent, making baby forumal is different than making porn movies, even if both are legal).

But here's the disconnect with the Gibson movie. Again, as I said, I take Gibson at his word that he didn't go into this for the money. He went into this as an artist, a believer, a messenger. And the message of that movie is significant, isn't it? Or has all of the praise on NRO and the condemnation elsewhere been for show? Ramesh and others even argued, rightly, in response to Gertrude Himmelfarb's op-ed that the message is so special it is sui generis. Well, I think if Gibson made the movie as a true believer and artist, then the profit he makes from it should have some connection to the message as well.

Let me offer two illustrations as to why I think so.

First, imagine Oliver Stone made a movie about the poor in America. Imagine it was full of all of the controversy, deceit and moralizing we've come to expect from Stone. Now, imagine he made $400 million in profits from it and all he did is buy a few more mansions with it. If you can honestly say that conservatives wouldn't have a point in criticizing Stone -- even mildly -- for that behavior, I salute your consistency.

Second illustration: Napster. For centuries artists have been monumental hypocrites. They claim they do art for art's sake, that all they want to do is "raise awareness" and that they do it for free if they had to. And yet, for the most part they've always been eager to limit the public's exposure to their work in order to maximize their profits. Why do sculptors break their molds if they want everyone to see their art? Rodin could have made thousands of copies of, say, the Burghers of Calais, but instead he made a handful and then broke the mold. This is a point I've made many times about the controversy over Napster. Acoustic guitar philosophers swear up and down they aren't in it for the money. They say they're in it for "the music" or "for their fans" and they often mock conventional business men for their "greed." But, it turns out, the second the possibility that more of their fans could get more of their music, they freak out at the thought they might lose their royalty checks.

Now, I believe passionately in property rights and I think people deserve to reap the rewards of risk-taking as much as the next guy. But I also think there's no shame in saying you want to make a profit in the first place. Artists do, or say they do. And when they get caught revealing themselves to be just as "greedy" as other businessmen, they should be called on it. (Imagine the hypocrisy if Oliver Stone opposed the free downloading of his poor-peoples movie by poor people).

Now, Mel Gibson made this movie, he says, as an artist, as a Christian, as a messenger. I believe him. As far as I know he didn't say he was in it for the money. Therefore, I think he's got an image problem. But people of good will can disagree.

to get Gibson-profit emails:

Regarding your latest post on The Corner on the profit motive wrt Christian movies, I think you miss the point.

Newmarket (the distributor) is making plenty of profit. So are the theaters. So are the actors, producers, etc. The only question here is whether or not it is unseemly for Gibson, who portrayed his making of this film as a religious calling, to make a HUGE profit from The Passion’s success. I doubt Jonah would have even mentioned it if Gibson were a not-so-devout believer who had said, “I’m making this movie because I just think it’s a pretty powerful story that will make a cool movie.”

Another way of looking at it: if people were demanding that Gibson AND everyone else simply give all the profits away, then you would have a point. As it is, you don’t.

My response: Really? Movies can get made on a routine basis with all the profits going to the theaters, distributors, etc., and none to the Gibson-equivalents? I doubt that.

E. J. Dionne Jr. says that the weak job-creation numbers, and the press coverage of outsourcing, have put Bush's re-election at risk. Perhaps. But consider the 2002 elections. During the summer of 2002, Republican panic (and Democratic glee) over the economy and the corporate scandals was running higher than it is now. The economy was worse then. And Republicans did extremely well in the fall.

Or consider 1996, the last time a president got re-elected--and re-elected quite easily. The end of 1995 and the start of 1996 saw a lot of press coverage of "downsizing," the hot media scare story about the economy at that time. (It affected about as many voters as "outsourcing" does.)

The major econometric models of elections all show Bush winning, some of them comfortably.

Then there's the what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it problem. Kerry's plan to revive the economy is to hike taxes on high earners. Voters may not have strong objections to the idea, but I don't know that they're going to see it as a way to create jobs.

None of these points means that Bush is going to win, or that the jobs issue won't sink him. But it does mean that it's not a slam-dunk for Democrats.

I've gotten several emails like this:

Jonah,

Your lack of knowledge about the rise of Islam in China is apparent. Was Derbyshire out of town?

The province of Xin Jiang Province is a hot bed of non-Han Chinese Islamic jihadism. The capital city is Urumqi.

Do you know what which Islamic countries border China and the one in particular that has a 25 mile border with China.

Your specific ignorance as to this issue is appalling for someone who has pretenses to erudition.

As usual,

All the best
[Name withheld]

Me: I do not dispute for a moment that I am relatively ignorant about the rise of Islam in China. What this and other readers missed was, well, my point. I was trying to make a joke about how the political correctness around the issue of Islamic terrorists being mostly Arab or Arab-looking would require that Bush's ads warn of a terrorist threat that "looks like America." By the way, I am perfectly aware that there are millions of Chinese Muslims -- and quite a few Norwegian Muslims too.

We bring the Muslims in the world the good news that the winds of black death (the anticipated strike on the United States) is now in its final stage...90 percent [ready] and God willing...soon (at the suitable time for the mujahidin (and the believers will rejoice by the victory of Allah). A warning to the nation...: Do not get near the civilian and military establishments of the crusader United States and its allies.

God is Great, God is Great.... Islam is coming...whatever the price....

The Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades (Al-Qaeda)

Sigh. A new Bush ad has an-Arab-looking terrorist in it and already the specter of "racism" is being raised. If the media plays this as they usually do, we can expect a lot of silliness and then, maybe, some ads featuring blue-eyed Mormon kids, old Norwegian women and Chinese men as Islamic terrorists.

I've got to head out for a while and I've already got several metric tons of Gibson email to wade through. So this is the last one for now, it's fairly representative of the backlash and makes some fine points:

Boy, are you wrong. Being on the verge of baseball season, your post and subsequent weasel words are a huge 'swing and a miss' that can be felt out here in Chicago, even on a windy day...

If a movie about Jesus' death was made by, oh, say Oliver Stone, in which distorted facts were spun into a preposterous conspiracy, and we then saw Stone being interviewed in his Dom Perignon-filled swimming pool, high-fiving his financial backers ("I KNEW those Christian suckers would buy into this!), then I too would be upset at the prospect of his making a gazillion dollars. But not so much with Stone as with the idiots who pay him the money.

Gibson clearly didn't do this as as a financial proposition. I'd wager he expected, at the outset, that he was pretty likely well end up $25mm poorer at the end of it. The fact that he looks to be hitting a gold mine is both a nice snub of Hollywood business acumen, and an opportunity for Gibson to test core beliefs (what would Jesus do if someone dropped a couple hundred million large into his bank account?).
Give him a chance- what with all the defense of the film he's been undertaking, perhaps he hadn't yet made plans on how to spend all the profits?

Of course, if he's filmed high-fiving friends in his Dom-filled pool, you can be sure I won't be buying the DVD of Lethal Weapon VIII.

Otherwise, keep up the good work- you're on a roll.

From a reader:

Hi Jonah,

Just got back from a week in the UK last night.

The whole time I was there all news outlets and programs...especially the BBC, were wall to wall with coverage of the return of the four UK citizen detainees from Guantanamo. The nation was blanketed with stories, reports and chat show discussions, all of which carried the same underlying themes and memes—barbaric Americans...poor lads...evil Bush...etc..

You would have thought that Army Rangers had swooped down on the Manchester Marks & Spencer’s and ripped these guys out the arms of their blind grandmothers. There was practically no mention of the fact that all of these guys had been picked up in the middle of a war zone in Afghanistan (when they supposedly were visiting Pakistan, which they had suddenly gotten the urge to go visit a few weeks after 9/11.)

Most of the TV channels interrupted regular programming to carry the landing of the C-130 plane carrying the sweet boys. The “presenter” I watched pointed out several times that the British authorities would not be making the lads wear shackles and hoods (unlike some other country we all know and loathe.)

Now the irony...

Yesterday morning the TV channels were in the middle of more live coverage of the Fab Four (preparing to show the release of one of them from the Paddington Green police station and the tearful reuniting with the family) when the reports of the bombings in Spain began to come through. All coverage switched over to cover that developing story.

What a difference a few minutes makes.

Kathryn posts:

E-mailer makes a good point, roughly right, I imagine: "Right off the top 1/2 is going to taxes, that ought to satisfy your social obligation argument."

I'm sorry but this is very wrong and it has nothing to do with Mel Gibson and the Passion. Taxes are not charity. They are not good works. They are not "social obligations" at all. They are a legal requirement ofthe state. Indeed, one sign that our current taxes are too high is that so many people think paying them absolves them of other social responsibilities. This is one of the reasons high taxes are immoral because they constitue the coercion of citizens to do what other people think is right, but you don't (think of federally funded abortions, for example). If paying taxes satisfies your "social obligation" does that mean folks -- like me -- who are always trying to minimize their taxes are less socially responsible, less moral?

Here's another:

I can't tell you how flabbergasted I was to see your post on Mel's Profit this morning. It literally reads like something you'd find on Salonor maybe the DNC's website.

1. He invested his own money on this project because on one else would touch it
2. Until the darn thing was released everyone was predicting (hoping?) he would lose his shirt on it
3. Isn't that the epitome of an entrepreneur? Isn't that what you used to celebrate?
4. For which other entrepreneurs have you questioned what they would do with
their profits?
5. Even if he took no risk on the deal (e.g. if he someone else had financed the deal and he had just contracted for a percentage of the profits) -- isn't it a good thing that the made this movie as opposed to Kill Bill or Lethal Weapon 53 anyway? To my knowledge you haven't made a big deal about the profits he or anyone else has made on other films. Why is it okay to make huge profits on Lethal Weapon 4 (which you could argue is of questionable artistic or cultural value) but somehow unseemly to make profits on the Passion?
6. What business is it of yours (or anyones) whether Mel tithes or not?
"(it's certainly fair for him to recoup his investment and then some)"??!?
My God! Who the heck are you? Since when is it National Review's position
(I know, I know, you never said it was NR's position) -- since when it is YOUR position that someone else gets to decide that it's "fair" for him to recoup his investment? And who is going to decide how much "then some" is? The government is already going to take 40% of it; even if he gives 10% to the church, he's still going to be left with $100+ million! We can't have that! After all, this isn't Ernest goes to Rehab, in which case, absolutely, it's okay to make $100 million.

The mind boggles. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but your post has me baffled.
Do you really believe this?

Me: Ignoring the hyperbole, I think point #5 is the best one and I hadn't thought of it that way. After all, why should a man be condemned for making a profit from doing good when he's not condemned for making a profit doing "bad" -- or at least not good. Put aside the readers implicit suggestion that it's okay to condemn making profit from making bad movies, I think this is a very good point. And I'll keep pondering it.

However two points: First, and again, all of this stuff about me having the "right" to "decide" anything strikes me as batty. And it troubles me that I never get these statements from readers when, say, I criticize Michael Moore for treating his own employees like dogs. After all, what business of mine is it how Michael Moore treats his workers? If you're answer is "hypocrisy," fair enough. But there are no shortage of people who would say there's something like hypocrisy in making a film to spread the Gospel and making a huge pile from it.

Which brings me to my second point. This is largely an issue of appearances. It might be right, wrong or something in between for Mel to get super rich off of a film depicting Christ's agony. But, as a matter of objective analysis, I think some people think it doesn't look great.

I knew these emails were coming:

Jonah,

What business is it of anyone’s what Mel Gibson does with the profit from a movie he financed and made? Why does the fact that it is a religious movie give you, or anyone else, the license to be concerned about the movie’s profits? And why does the AMOUNT of profit dictate the necessity for us all to discuss what he does with the money? If he only made, say $75 million, would you be concerned? By the way, where did Spielberg’s profits for Schindler’s List go? I understand that he did found Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, a non profit organization after the movie came out. But did he pocket most of the profit? If not, good for him, but I’ve searched the internet and don’t see that topic ever discussed (except where a news story said that Schindler’s wife wanted 6%).

Mel Gibson has given significant portions of his earnings to his religious cause long before his movie was made.

I agree with you most of the time, and maybe I’ve just had too much coffee, but that post just flew all over me.

ME: I'm going to respond at length in the hope of anticipating further emails on this point.

It's funny, we can go on for weeks in the Corner judging what various liberals and/or celebrities do and say without anyone saying "Why is that your business?" But, every now and then, if someone turns their attention on what a conservative icon does, we get the "who's buisness is it?" complaints (the last time for me, I think, was when I said some negative things about Dick Grasso). Well, I'm sorry, it's all of our business. I've addressed this point so many times I don't want to repeat myself. But look at it this way: If you are opposed to government interference in the private sector you need to be in favor of increased vigilence by the private sector. The government has absolutely no business whatsoever with the issue of what Mel Gibson does with his money. But we live in a society too. Shaming, judging, encouraging, applauding, celebrating the actions of public figures is how culture gets made.

I don't think Christina Aguilera should be forced by the feds to stop acting like a tramp, but I do think it's entirely legitimate for me and others to criticize her for acting like such a frat house throw rug. I don't think I have the right to make Mel Gibson do anything. But I have every right to have opinions about the guy and, last time I checked, I have the right to voice those opinions. Indeed, that's what I get paid to do.

As for Spielberg, my recollection is that he did give away all of the profits for the simple reason that a mega-millionaire getting really rich off the Holocaust is a bad look, especially for a guy named Spielberg. If I'm wrong on that, fine. But that doesn't really affect my point, does it?

As for the point about the "AMOUNT" being the issue, fair enough. But I think most reasonable people know what I'm getting at (and most email has been in agreement with me). No, if he made $3 million in profit, I wouldn't be raising the issue. He took serious risks and who knows what kind of price he's yet to pay at the hands of Hollywood etc. But this game can be played in reverse. What if he made $3 billion from a movie about the Crucifixion? Would this reader still be untroubled by it if Gibson did nothing with the money?

By the way, I don't mean to pick on this reader, it's just that I'm getting and will get lots of email on this point.

The Washington Post story on the accused spy Susan Lindauer mentions her second cousin Andrew Card by name seven times, including in the second paragraph. Fair enough. But it doesn't mention that she worked for Democrats until the second to last praragraph and even then it's pretty weak: " Lindauer worked as a press aide for some Democrats in Congress in the mid-1990s and as recently as 2002."

Note: I think this is very unlikely.

But all of the coverage of the Madrid bombings focuses on whether it ETA or Al Qaeda (See today's Times, for example). What if the real scenario is closer to both-and? First, if it's al Qaeda, the thinking seems to be that it's onee of al Qaeda's subsidiaries. Second, there's been a lot of conjecture that if this is was ETA then it probably isn't the main faction of ETA. Their political arm, after all, condemned the bombings. So if it was the Basques it was probably a rogue faction.

Now, Al Qaeda is, we've been told time and again, a "terrorist holding company." What if one of these splinter groups of al Qaeda found common cause with a splinter group ETA? It is not like terrorist groups -- and regimes -- haven't formed absurd marriages of convenience before (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact anyone?). Remember all of the weird links between and among the IRA, Libya, the Palestinians and the Sandanistas and others during the 1980s?

Indeed, the Islamists could have duped ETA into doing something like this -- or vice versa.

What would make that so troubling is that it would give Al Qaeda a new way of getting around most of the usual security measures designed to foil Islamist attacks. Anyway, just something to ponder.

First email on the issue:

Jonah,

Good point but seems a bit premature. He has not yet realized the gain.

I do think Mel’s history of spending his money on the Church gives us a clue as to how he will spend this.

Thanks for all the great discussions. I am addicted to The Corner.

The Democratic Underground's analysis.

The Journal also reports today that Mel Gibson stands to make between $350 and $400 million in profit from The Passion. I am not someone who thinks profits are ever "obscene" -- at least not in the way liberals use the word. However, is no one remotely troubled by this? Whether the movie is wonderful or offensive, it is still about the Crucifixion and Mel Gibson has said time and again that he made the movie out of religious and artistic passion. I take him at his word, and considering the trouble he had in making it, there's a lot of evidence on his side.

But doesn't that raise the question of what he's going to do with all the cash? If he's going to use the money to make more biblical pictures, as he's said he wants, I think that's one thing. But simply pocketing all of the cash (it's certainly fair for him to recoup his investment and then some) without doing good works with it seems, to me at least, problematic. I mean this isn't "Ernest Goes to Rehab," it's a movie about, well, we all know now what it's about -- and he's making a third of a billion dollars from it. Shouldn't he at least tithe it?

Maybe he's addressed this elsewhere and I missed it?

Other than John Miller's excellent piece in the Journal today, there's also a piece by Sharon Begley on the problems with opinion polls. It's a very useful primer on a problem I've heard about from pollsters and the like for years and it's only going to get worse. Alas, the article's behind their subscription firewall. But two points worth noting:

First, the plus/minus margin of error is the most inconsequential of the problems built into opinion surveys. She explains:

Don't be fooled. For all its apparent precision, the plus-or-minus statement bears little resemblance to how accurately a poll reflects the opinion of voters. It is error of a completely other kind that trips up polls.

(Math-averse readers are allowed to skip this paragraph.) The sampling error represents the range of possible outcomes from taking a random, representative slice of the population. For practical purposes, it equals one divided by the square root of the number of people surveyed. If you poll 1,600 people, then the sampling error is 1/40, or 2.5%.

Second, the real problem with polls is their non-sampling error. These are the people who don't get asked questions because they are either unavailable or unwilling. Surly people, for example, are radically under-represented in public opinion polls. If certain attitudes are over-represented or under-represented among the surly, what are pollsters missing? Pollsters randomly dial phone numbers, but since rich people have more phone lines, are they over-represented? Pollsters won't call cell phones, but young people increasingly have only cell phones. etc etc. Anyway, it's a useful piece.

From John in Briggs, Texas:

Dear Jonah,

I couldn't have said it better than Dave, the NRO reader's quote you posted yesterday (Wednesday) around 5:30 pm under the heading of "THE SUITS DIDN'T WRITE THIS" . So I, too, decided to stop freeloading and subscribed to the dead tree version of your excellent magazine. Even though I have been unemployed for a very long time, struggling to find employment (the job market is not as rosy as some at NRO think it is), and my financial condition is tight, I felt that becoming a subscriber was the least I could do to show you and everyone at NRO how much I appreciate, enjoy, and learn from what I read at NRO. I can not believe what I would be missing if NRO didn't exist.

Thanks for everything you do.

With warmest regards,

Spain has not only taken a firm stand against domestic terrorism, but joined the global War on Terror as an equal partner. The most striking strategic moment of Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't the opening salvo lighting up Baghdad, but the Azores summit before the war began. The three boldest leaders of Western civilization stood shoulder to shoulder: President Bush, the valiant Tony Blair and Prime Minister Aznar - in many ways the bravest of the three.

On the eve of war, Aznar faced a situation much like the one FDR faced between 1939 and Dec. 7, 1941. FDR knew that we had to join the fight, but the American people didn't appear ready to accept that necessity. Aznar went FDR one better. He ignored the political torpedoes - a majority of Spaniards didn't support sending their troops to Iraq - and did what he saw as essential for the future of his own country and our common civilization.

Aznar risked all politically to do the right thing.

As a result, the forces of international terror want vengeance against Spain.

In 1992, the year after the Soviet Union was dissolved, I attended a dinner at which former secretary of state Henry Kissinger described a trip he had just made to Russia. Speaking to high officials in the government and military, Kissinger had asked each to name the critical factor in the demise of the USSR. “Almost without exception,” Kissinger said, “they named SDI.” “The Soviets may have overestimated our technical capacity,” Kissinger now says. “On the other had, we didn’t have to build a complete version of SDI to make their calculations difficult. If the Soviets no longer knew how many missiles would get through, then they might have hd to launch hundreds more to have had a chance of success.” Hundreds more? But the Soviets could never have afforded hundreds more. “You can see,” says Kissinger, “why SDI had them so rattled.”

A reader from the Hill sent me this:

Jonah,

Just a quick FYI

I pulled the Congressional Staff Directories from 1993-1999 and not only did M-B have several Press Secy's during her time but Lindauer was not listed in that position or as Asst.

He writes: "Answering the question 'Is Bush a Conservative?' in Commentary, Daniel Casse of the White House Writers Group notes that a major theme of Bush's governance is 'deconstructing domestic-policy monopolies (Medicare, Social Security, teachers unions, etc.).' And NCLB, although flawed, 'has succeeded in changing the terms of debate.'

"'For years,' he writes, '"progress" in education was measured by the expenditure of ever more federal dollars and the appeasement of Washington-based pressure groups.' Today the argument is about standards -- how to measure and meet them -- and how much autonomy schools should have in doing so. That is progress that will not be easily reversed, partly because it is popular with a constituency, the inner city poor, that Democrats often abuse in order to mollify a rival constituency, the teachers unions."

Will has picked out one of the least persuasive of Casse's points in that article. In the actual debate over Bush's education reforms, opponents have two main themes: 1) Standards are bad and oppressive, 2) Meeting the standards will require more money from Washington. The argument simply has not evolved the way Casse and Will claim that it has. Besides, national politics has featured debates over "standards" since at least the Williamsburg summit of 1989.

Getting lots of email along these lines:

Jonah,

Does it strike you as odd that the Mosley-Braun camp claims the former Senator "does not remember" Lindauer? According to the reports, Lindauer was her press secretary (which would make sense considering her journalistic background). I can see not remembering some low level staffers or interns that open your mail, but your press secretary? It seems a bit strange that you wouldn't remember a person whose job it was to represent your views to the media and who you would work closely with to craft your message. Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe I'm reading too much into it, maybe I should take off my tinfoil hat...

Lions Of Al-Mufridoon Claim Madrid Bombing (from Jihad Unspun - their web site is down)

"In Europe's worst terror attack and the bloodiest attack ever on Spanish soil, a well coordinated and executed series of bomb explosions hit commuter trains in the capital of Madrid as the morning rush hour was in process. On the eve of Spain's general election, over 173 people have been killed and hundred more wounded, with estimates of the wounded expected to escalate near the 1000 mark.

A total of 13 bombs sent pieces of the trains flying through the air at nearby houses and left gapping holes and crumbled metal entwined with human body parts. As rescue workers arrived on the scene, many of the seriously wounded were treated where they lay.

JUS has learned the Lions of al-Mufridoon has claimed of responsibility for the attack. Previously unknown, the group is said to be made up of Morrocan, Algerian, and Tunisian operatives, with suspected links to Al-Qaida.

Spain has been warned of their involvement with the "Crusader" army of George Bush and Tony Blair in previous Al-Qaida statements and more recently in both the last statements issued by Osama bin Laden and Dr. Aymen Al-Zawhari, which followed the attack on the Spanish embassy in Iraq.

While law enforcement authorities are casting a wide net of possible suspects in the attack, Spanish government officials were quick to blame ETA, the Basque separatist party that has been a thorn in the side of the Spanish government for the past 25 years. This attack however in not inline with their previous actions.

Spain has been the most vocal supporter of the "War on Terrorism" with troops still inside Afghanistan and currently 1400 soldiers fighting in Iraq. It is thought that if this latest attack is attributed to the war in Iraq that it could collapse president Hosay Marie Aznaar vote in the Sunday's general elections.

This is a developing story. More details to come as they are available."

Hmmm. Rod, maybe Irving Kristol's saying needs to be change?

Instead of "A liberal is one who says that it's all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a pornographic movie as long as she gets paid the minimum wage."

How about "A liberal is one who says its all right for a man to canoodle a horse so long as the horse has no regrets."

I'm sure someone can come up with one of those Antioch College stages-of-consent guides for this sort of thing. Okay trigger, I'm going to take off your saddle. Is that okay with you? Good. Ok, now I'm going to...."

Some critics of the Hatch amendment--which would reserve decisions about same-sex marriage to state legislatures--are saying that it would make it possible to legalize polygamy. I say they're wrong. David Frum, in response, says that I'm right about 49 of the 50 states, but wrong about Utah. So he's saying, in other words, that I'm 98% right.

His argument about Utah goes as follows: Congress admitted Utah to the Union on the condition that it ban polygamy, and that this ban could not be lifted without the consent of Congress. Passage of the Hatch amendment would constitute consent. So the Utah legislature could, in fact, legalize polygamy under the amendment when it could not have done so before.

Frum goes on to say that "it is probably very unlikely that Utah would be tempted to legalize polygamy." Mormons now reject polygamy. But, he warns, others will take up the cause. He concludes, "And if there is any lesson of the same-sex marriage debate, it is this: Be prepared for the worst – because there will always be some judge out there who can be talked into it." As I explained, however, the Hatch amendment would block judges--whether at the state or federal level--from imposing polygamy. If Frum's argument about Utah is correct, then the Hatch amendment gives the Utah legislature a power to legalize polygamy which it will (by his own admission) almost surely not use. That's all that this objection amounts to. Which isn't much.

I just finished listening to it on CD-audio book in my car last night. I think John Cornwell has written a very fine book, until the very end. I have the hardcopy of the book around here somewhere so I'll check it for the actual quotes later, but he says some really outrageous things about Edward Teller and makes some ludicrous comparisons to Andrei Sakharov, a true hero. Basically Cornwell plays two games of moral equivalence. First he says that Teller's enthusiasm for building as big a hydrogen bomb as the American military wanted was significantly the same thing as using slave labor to build missiles to bomb Britain. Second, he suggests that Sakharov's resistance to the Soviet Union's ambitions makes Teller look very bad because Teller supported Star Wars. You can dislike Teller if you want, but this struck me as unfair across a wide spectrum of perspectives.

All of this came out of blue for me considering that neither Teller nor Sakharov were "Hitler's Scientists." What also came out of the blue is the fact that Cornwell's a very old acquaintance/friend of my parents. I can only assume Cornwell never made these sorts of arguments around my dad. Because if he did there would be a whole lot-o-cussin' going on.

From a reader (I haven't looked into the Clear Channel stuff, btw):

For What It's Worth

By going to concerts by imbecile leftie musicians and buying their
music you validate their world view, and, coincidentally, provide them
with the wherewithal to fund imbecile leftie politicians.

* * *

There was a loud outcry when some DJs signed on to a "Boycott the Dixie
Chicks" movement. Quite a few writers boldly proclaimed that Clear
Channel Communications owners were fascists and etc.

But Clear Channel Communications owners never called for a Dixie Chicks
boycott, neither did Clear Channel management. In fact, Clear Channel
Communications were the promoters of the Dixie Chicks Tour.

Conspiracy theorists might offer the thought that the whole "boycott"
was a PR gimmick for the Chicks Tour.

Rehnquist: “Well, at age 79 you can't help but thinking about retirement.”

NBC's Jamie Gangel: “Seriously? Are you making news here?”

Rehnquist: “No, I’m not. I assure you I’m not making it. I’m just saying, when you get to be 79-years-old you know your life expectancy isn't what it once was and you've got to think about the possibility of retirement.”

Gangel: “For the foreseeable future though, you're staying on the court?”

Rehnquist: “Well, I’ll just stick with what I just said.”

In Chicago today, Kerry stepped up his criticism of Bush supporters' tactics. Told by a worker to "tell it like it is," Kerry said, "We are going to keep pounding, let me tell you, just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've seen. It's scary."

Spokesman David Wade later told reporters traveling with Kerry to Washington that the candidate was referring to "the Republican attack machine'' that ran ads against Arizona Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primary and against Georgia Democrat Max Cleland, who lost his Senate re-election race in 2002.

My comment: The legend of Max Cleland, like that of South Carolina 2000, are for today's Democrats what Willie Horton was for an earlier breed: examples of horrible Republican campaign tactics that no amount of argument will convince them to relinquish.

From a reader:

Don't you have time to get outraged about something a little less trivial than a band who made a stupid decision to ban a stupid T-shirt? And I love how you post the anecdote from the guy who called them "leftist imbeciles" without having any idea whether or not he's telling the truth. I've been to a Sleater-Kinney show and own all their albums, and I've never encountered any radical feminists trying to beat me up.

Most of my favorite entertainers and artists are liberal/leftists. Most of them do obnoxious things and aren't ardent supporters of free speech when they hear opinions that contradict theirs. Big deal. Enjoy the music, ignore the message, and move on. The fact that Sleater-Kinney has political beliefs that don't necessarily match mine doesn't mean that they don't rock--they've made some of the best albums of the 90s (just ask Rolling Stone or any credible indie music mag if you're not convinced.)

Anyway. I still love you and your columns.

Nor did K-Lo. From Dave in Arlington, VA:

Jonah--

Where else other than the Corner can one get nifty bloody Flash games, wise scrutiny of John Kerry's campaign, and a discussion of the political idiocy of my favorite women-in-comfortable shoes rock band, Sleater-Kinney?

That last discussion clinched it for me-- I mean, how obscure can you guys get? Even if I can't stand S-K's politics or lyrics, I love their actual music, and obviously some NRO readers do too. Which just proves that, unlike so many folks hanging out on the other side of the aisle, conservatives don't have to see everything through the lenses of politics, and can sometimes appreciate the joys of life in their own element. And with Ms Lopez you have a wonderful editor that lets everybody be themselves, instead of forcing everyone to talk about universal health care or gerrymandering day after lifesucking day.

That's what makes you guys so cool to hang out with! And that's why, after many years of freeloading, as of today, I am now a subscriber to Digital. Gotta do whatever I can to get you that living wage, pal.

Thanks for everything,
Dave

Excellent question, Kathryn! Here are some more:

If I were in a burning building and in one room was a neighbor's three-week old triplets and in another was your own nine-year old daughter, and I only had time to get into and out of one room safely, who would I rescue?

If I were in a burning building and in one room was the healthy mother of four small children who were utterly dependent on her, and in another were two patients in the final stages of terminal cancer, who would I rescue?

If I were in a burning building and in one room was a research scientist who was making great strides towards a cure for Alzheimer's and in another room were four heroin addicted fifty-eight year old men who move in and out of the penal system and will likely do so for the rest of their lives, who would I rescue?

If I were in a burning building and in one room was a five-year old child and in another were seven people in comas, who would I rescue?

If I were in a burning building and in one room was a five-year-old child and in another were two older women suffering from advanced cases of Parkinson's disease, who would I rescue?

If I were in a burning building and in one room were five men and in another were three pregnant women, who would I rescue?

I could go on.

Answers to any of these questions do not justify actually killing anybody or treating anybody as unequal to anybody else precisely in respect to basic human dignity and the right to life (i.e., the right not to be killed or have one's life used as a mere means to benefit others). In all of these cases, there is no question of my actually killing anyone. The question would be whether I was showing unfair favoritism toward some over others. In answering that question, all kind of things become relevant that would not be relevant to a decision on whther to kill: family ties, the life prospects of the potential rescued beings, the suffering they would undergo if not rescued, etc.

One more from a reader:

Jonah,

I've been to one Sleater-Kinney show here in DC. A four-foot tall butch teenage girl tried to start a fight with me for not letting her jump on my shoulders (I'm a guy, in my late 20s at the time). But the highlight was the Planned Parenthood booth set up at the back of the 9:30 Club. To say they are leftist imbeciles is an understatement.

This reader thinks my own sarcasm detector malfunctioned:

Jonah,

I’m not a fan of this band, but come on – do you really think that they’re going to be banning certain t-shirts at their live shows? It’s clearly meant as sarcasm. By that standard, I guess that means Derb really was serious about his gibbeting list.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Thanks for clearing things up. I live on Capitol Hill, and every evening when I walk my dog we see a beat up car bearing a Sleater-Kinney bumper sticker (as well as the first Kucinich sticker I’d ever seen). Until today, I assumed the car belonged to a House staffer and that Sleater-Kinney was a piece of legislation, most likely health care.

Murphy the Dog was more correct in his assessment. I suppose I shouldn’t yank him away so quickly…

I take your word for it that it's a good band, even that it "rocks." But don't you think you might be overstating things a tad when you compare them to Mozart and Shakespeare?

Let's see how much they rock two or three centuries from now.

After last night, the Texas Democratic Party might change its logo from a donkey to a shark. Trial lawyers consolidated their control last night, thanks in large part due to unprecedented primary intervention by colleague/state Democratic chairman Charles Soechting and a new trials-funded PAC called “Texans for Insurance Reform” that funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into key state House primaries. They defeated three of Republican Speaker Tom Craddick’s black and Hispanic committee chairmen and forcing another Hispanic member of his leadership team into a runoff he will almost certainly lose. Two of the four voted with the GOP on tort and medical liability reform. Of the other two, one supported congressional redistricting, while the other did not join his colleagues in their quorum-breaking trip to Ardmore and was insufficiently aggressive in protecting Rep. Martin Frost’s district. (That legislator’s successor quit Frost’s staff to file for the race.) Trial lawyers unsuccessfully targeted a pair of rural white Democrats, but one could get knocked off by a Republican in November. Nevertheless, the trial lawyers have sent a message that minority Democrats who don’t toe their line can kiss their careers goodbye.



Last night’s results probably make school vouchers a now-or-never issue. The legislature is expected to convene in special session next month to consider school finance reform. Despite House interest in including vouchers in a reform package, the drafts being circulated make no reference to vouchers. But with two key Democratic supporters and five other Democratic incumbents made lame ducks last night, their window of opportunity may be about to slam shut.

But I'm going to link to it anyway, even though some might protest. I am fairly confident that a certain subset of Coernites and G-Philes will like it. I don't mean to be defensive but full disclosure is required: this is a videogame which involves intense violence and a Catholic priest. If the priest were not on God's side I wouldn't link to it. Catholic second amendment enthusiasts should at least watch the opening animation.

Anyway, here it is. If you're looking for a public policy angle, this is a good (okay, terrible) example of my point in re Easterbrook and the need for providing context for violence.

Also note: It's hard and loud. I changed the setting to give me infinite lives and all three guns from the start -- just to save time.

From Matt in Alabama:

Jonah,

While I'm a pretty big Sleater-Kinney fan, they're hardly ones to talk. This is a great rock band but so far left politically it makes me gag. Their last album had a song or two about 911. It featured such lyrical gems as "...and the President hides while working men rush in and die..."

The idiocy in that thought is staggering. People with that mindset shouldn't be voting at any age.

And yes, they should lighten the hell up about that t-shirts, even if Urban Outfitters is the most infantile store in America.

Matt

A reader pointed me to this announcement at the official website for some band called Sleater-Kinney:

Urban Outfitters, the store dedicated to reselling your childhood back to you via nostalgia and irony based fashion, is selling a T-shirt that says:

"Voting is For Old People"

Unless you are under the age of 18, this shirt will be banned from all Sleater-Kinney shows.

ARE YOU REGISTERED TO VOTE?

Have a good March.

One more email:

If you can stand another comment on this subject, please indulge me.

Your correspondents miss the point. Stewart was not charged with insider trading because what she did would not fit the definition.

Here is an example:

If you were accompanying a relative to his cancer treatment (God forbid) and you saw Bill Gates and it became clear to you that he was there for an initial consultation and you sold your Microsoft stock before Gates could announce that he was getting treatment for cancer, you would have traded on information not really available to the public but it would not be insider trading.

If, however, you were a director of Microsoft and Bill Gates told you that he had cancer and that he needed to announce to the investor community and you sold your shares before such announcement, you have insider trading.

I would say that Martha's is more like the former. She obtained the information from her broker that Waksal was selling his shares. She did not know why, she did not have some inside tip from an Imclone person, she connected the dots on a piece of information offered to her by her broker. Now, her broker might have committed some ethical lapse and went against Merrill's code of conduct, but, again, no insider trading.

People have to get off the fact that Martha did not commit the crime of insider trading. Now, it seems entirely reasonable that a jury could find that she lied to investigators and for that she should be punished.

People, including the jurors, do not seem to understand what the issue was in this case.

Here's a fun one from a reader:

It never amazes me how the right wing will find a reason to criticize liberals and Democrats in just about everything. Now it's the concern about young people thinking that voting is something that should be avoided. The answer why some Democrats might be concerned about this is pretty simple if you would only open your mind. The religious right, in cahoots with the GOP, is already out there enforcing its views of culture and morality on all of us. This faction is more concerned about contracting our existing constitutional rights -- rights to equality, privacy, freedom from the establishment of religion, press, dissent, to name a few -- rather than expanding them, such as insuring that all people eligible to vote can exercise that right, and have such votes counted when so exercised. By the way, "lighten up, Francis"? Did you go to school in the 1920's?

Another email I got this morning:

Ramesh, you are letting me down, what Martha did was sell a stock she was sure was going to go down to someone who did not have access to the same information that Martha did. If I sell you my car at full price knowing that the transmission is going to fall out in the next few hundred miles but say nothing about it, did I do something wrong? As much as I like the principle of caveat emptor, the government is there to hopefully protect you from my fraudulent behavior.

My response: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Stewart shouldn't be facing jail time. (I thought Jay Nordlinger got the issues just right the other day.) I was responding to one specific argument.

But let's follow up my correspondent's thought. First of all, in the hypothetical situation he mentions, we would have a civil action, not a criminal prosecution, right? Second, a better analogy would be: I have reason to think that the government is going to impose a recall of that car in the future and don't tell you that. It seems to me to be a different situation. But let's say you disagree. Let's think up another analogy. Let's say I have read a report on a company that is publicly available but that you haven't read. Knowing what's in that report, but not mentioning it to you, I sell the stock to you. Does this action, too, deserve criminal prosecution? Why not, on my correspondent's theory?

From a reader about today's column. I have nothing to add:

Jonah,

I about fell out of my chair when I read that Al Jourgensen was complaining
that Urban Outfitters had "referred to our nation's senior citizens as 'Old
People'". Back in the eighties, I used to be a big Ministry fan. I had to
quit listening to their stuff when Al turned into Satan. What did it for me
was a song on their album "The Land of Rape and Honey." It had a line that
went something like:

Pnematic drill
Through her skull
'Cause I hate her!
'Cause I hate her!

repeated over and over.

I guess I should be happy he's found new interests. But, his outrage seems
a tiny bit disingenuous, doesn't it?

Every single time Ashcroft has brought charges against jihadists in America, he has been mocked and vilified. Every single time he has tightened the screws on Islamic terror recruitment and financing, he has been lambasted as a racist. Every single time they have been arrested, the defendants have proclaimed their absolute innocence. And each time Ashcroft has won convictions against them -- neutralizing terror cells in Lackawanna, N.Y., Portland, Detroit, and now northern Virginia -- he has been met with more condemnation and derision.

John Ashcroft has nobly taken on the grueling job of protecting a nation of ingrates who take joy in his illness while terrorists continue to plot to kill us all. God bless you, Attorney General, and get well soon. America, land of the free and home of the thankless, needs you back.

One view:

Hi Jonah;
I am a 4th generation Democrat.
I voted for Clinton twice, and Gore.
I will vote for Bush.

I hate Kerry.
I voted for Clinton and Gore because they were "DLC" Democrats.
Gore had been a "hawkish" Senator, that's why when Clinton picked him I felt that the party had indeed tuened a corner and gotten away from its McGovern/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis left-wing loser past.

Well... since getting the nomination in 2000, Gore went left - and Kerry has always been there. So I have always hated Kerry, and Gore NOW.

Kerry is a flip-flopping dove trapped in 1970: anti-war/anti-industry/anti-free trade/anti-national defense/anti-traditional pro-family values.

His nomination will set back the DNC decades - condemning it to minority status for decades. BUT... if he is what the DNC wants to stands for, well then: This is a good thing!

An email:

Ramesh,

I’m sure you’ve gotten 1000 emails on this since you posted, but your thinking is flawed. You wrote:

“I don't get it. The crime was selling a stock MS had reason to believe was going to go down? Isn't that a major reason for selling stocks?”

The crime was not in selling a stock she knew was going to go down. It was in selling a stock she knew would go down because she had access to information not publicly available. Free exchange on the stock market is predicated on freedom of information. Traders place value on a stock due to the information they have available to them. If one person has information that is not available, no matter how much research is done, to the other person, then it is dishonest, unethical, and illegal. The free exchange would collapse if rules were not there to prevent this.

The hard thing to understand, Ramesh, is why you pretend not to know this for your post. Your writings tell me you should be intelligent enough to!

My response: Technically speaking, actually, her crime was lying to investigators and obstructing justice. I don't think insider trading should be a crime, although in some cases it should be prosecuted as a violation of contract. As for the reason I said what I said, it's because an earlier post had suggested that Stewart deserved criminal prosecution because she sold a stock she knew would go down.

It's funny. I really didn't like Al Gore and I've disliked Kerry for not particularly dissimilar reasons. Gore was a panderer, he was arrogant, aloof, he saw government as a solution to any problem etc etc. I think you can make a very similar case about Kerry, though I understand there are differences too, particularly on foreign policy.

Anyway, what I think is weird is that I've now spoken to a lot of liberal journalists a few professional DC Democrats and, of course, read a lot of negative stuff about Kerry in Slate, The New Republic and the Washington Post from the A-list of pro-Democratic scribblers. But pretty much all of these folks were adamantly pro-Gore and they are very down on Kerry. Now, some of this can be explained by Gore's earlier incarnations as well as his closer relationship with the liberal establishment, particularly The New Republic. But from my vantage point I still find it kind of baffling that smart liberals could really like Al Gore and dislike Kerry, on ideological or personal grounds. I mean, I think I'm on solid ground when I say that most Republicans and conservatives in all honestly don't see a lot of daylight between the two men ideologically or personally. What are these anti-Kerry liberals seeing that I'm not?

From a reader:

Oh man, I really missed the boat. I'm a couple of days late. This was REALLY my moment! Like the Far Side with the dogs when the giant mailman is attacking the city. I am one of only three world class authorities on pancreatitis who also happen to be card carrying Reagan Republicans. For verification....[Details Removed]. I can interpret the news about Ashcroft's pancreas in an understandable and meaningful fashion, throwing in fascinating hypotheses on the molecular pathogensis of gallstone pancreatitis. Hello, are you still awake? Hello?........

From a reader:

What Martha Stewart did is knowingly try to sell a defective "product", for which someone would unknowingly pay a premium and take a loss. Immoral? Yes. Unethical? Yes. Wicked? Yes. Dishonest? Yes. Deceitful? Yes. Against the law? Shouldn't we hope so?

One of the points I often try to make with my more ideological friends, particularly some libertarians, is that there isn't enough time in a day to make every principled conflict a high priority. I agree with most of the arguments made by gun rights advocates, but it's not an area that grabs my passion all that often -- save perhaps when it serves to highlight the hypocrisies of the left. For others, it's their top priority. Similarly, I am sure that the there are plenty of second amendment enthusiasts who also agree with the pro-life movement. But they put their energies elsewhere. I meet a lot of libertarians who are very thoughtful and persuasive on a lot of issues, but their blood only seems to boil about the drug war, gay rights etc. I think some people fail to appreciate the degree to which your overall philosophy becomes subordinated to the battles you decide to pick.

Anyway, this is probably painfully obvious. I bring it up because, frankly, I cannot get passionate about Martha Stewart. I don't like her. I think she lived the sort of life which all but begged for a huge karmic backlash. It may be true that as a matter of principle that she doesn't deserve her fate and I am open to that argument and, if persuaded, I'll gladly say so. But even if she's a total scapegoat I will leave it to others on the Right to carry the fight on the issue of Martha's Martyrdom.

New Jersey authorities sued Nissan North America Inc. on Monday, alleging the automaker failed to warn customers that the super-bright headlights on its Maximas were hot targets for thieves.

"David Hart, chairman of Texas-based Hart InterCivic, which manufactured Orange County's voting system, said it would be impossible to identify which voters cast ballots in the wrong precincts because of steps the company had taken to ensure voter secrecy. For this reason, an exact account of miscast ballots is impossible."

No recount capability, no confidence: it really is that simple.

Legalizing same-sex marriage does not simply extend an old institution to a new group of people. It changes the definition of marriage, reducing it primarily to an affectionate sexual relationship accompanied by a declaration of commitment. It then gives this more narrow view of marriage all of the cultural, legal and public support that marriage gained when its purpose was to encourage and temper a more complex set of goals and motivations.

Same-sex marriage changes the purpose of marriage law. It no longer will serve, in concert with other aspects of society, to direct sexual and parental behavior to achieve a complex synthesis of goods. It will function instead to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual partners.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah- Is it better to buy a Mercedes or Honda assembled in the United States, or a Ford assembled in Canada or Mexico? There are plenty of easy cases. But on those big-ticket items, it gets much more complicated. All the best,

ME: I agree, but wouldn't the fact that the problem is more complicated, also make it easier, not harder? After all, you could defend your purchase by saying "this car was made in America." And, you could say, "Hey man, this is an American car, back off." Indeed, I have no doubt that Honda and Ford would expand their marketing strategies to emphasize their side of the argument. Also, as for cars made abroad, wouldn't such a popular preference stem the tide of even more factories moving abroad? Again, I am not saying that I necessarily favor a buy American campaign -- and I know I don't favor such campaigns being translated into law. But I'm still iffy on why it's necessarily a good thing to have a culture of free trade even if I firmly believe it's a good thing to have laws based on free trade. I mean, wouldn't a pro-America premium encourage even greater innovation by foreign firms? And, if so, wouldn't that maintain market pressure on domestic firms?

Despite all of the table-thumping from liberals, even our lower middle class enjoys historically enormous levels of disposable income. Since disposable income not invested is always going to go disproportionately to purchases of taste, why would it be bad if more consumers had pro-America tastes?

Stuart Buck sends me this email (sorry guys for never getting around to joining in):

A further round between Jack Balkin and me. The posts are both lengthy.

Balkin:

Me:

And don't miss Larry Solum's contribution:

And, from now on you can check-in with these guys yourselves to stay abreast of the argument.

From a reader:

Jonah:

My local NPR affiliate, KUT features a weeknight drive-time line-up of "All
Things Considered," "Marketplace," and "The World." I heard something last
Friday (3/5, but which program I'm not sure) that just stopped me dead in my
tracks. I've tried mightily to find it archived on the web, but to no
avail. If you heard it too, maybe your legions of crack NRO researchers
will have better luck digging up this gem.

The program featured interviews from some sort of rally for Kerry. On being
asked why she supported Kerry, a female respondent noted that she was
"scared" of the Bush administration and supported Kerry because he won't be
"afraid" to "get on his knees" and go back to the U.N. and "say that we're
sorry, we've made some mistakes."

I kid you not. The words "on his knees" actually came out of her mouth, and
this was the reason she supported Kerry. Of course, this is not necessarily
Kerry's policy. But nonetheless, you've got to wonder about Kerry and his
supporters: Kerry for giving them the impresison that this is what he'd do,
and his supporterrs for thinking this is a reason to vote FOR the guy.

All I could think was, "Yep. You've got the right candidate, darlin'."

I have a question for my fellow free-trading Cornerites: What exactly is wrong with buy American campaigns? I fully understand and agree that as a matter of public policy such campaigns are inadvisable. When the government imposes buy American laws it's little more than a tax on consumers and a tarrif against trading partners.

But as a matter of culture-politics, what's wrong with asking Americans to spend a larger share of their ample disposable income on American products? We already put a premium on specific brands, styles etc. We think -- not necessarily correctly -- that Cuban cigars, Polish Vodka, Swiss Chocolate, Czech nude models etc -- are worth paying extra for. Gucci bags sell more than their knock-offs precisely because American women are determined that their friends and enemies know how much they overpaid for them.

I understand that a buy American campaign fundamentally rewards a certain level of inefficiency by telling producers they can make a slightly worse product than their foreign competitors' and still win in the market. But certainly in the areas of fashion and food similar incentives already exist (again: Gucci bags). So it's not so much a case as creating inefficiencies based on consumer preference as switching to other inefficiencies based on other consumer preferences. Wouldn't it be better if the consumers generally preferred American-made stuff?

One danger I can already anticipate is that in America, in the age of mass politics, it would be very difficult to deny the public their desire to translate public sentiment into public law. But what is the economic argument against this? Ramesh? Andrew?

John Kerry says world leaders want him to win:

Mr Kerry named no names when he addressed a fundraiser in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. But said: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'you've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy.'"

An e-mail: "Yes, actually, I can think of two reasons:

"1) It’s another opportunity to bash Bush (any reason is a good one for Kerry).

"2) It’s a chance to pander to the Congressional Black Caucus and their boot-licking minions.

"Does he really need any other reasons?"

My response: I would think so. Kerry and his advisers aren't stupid. They know that not all Bush-bashing, and certainly not all CBC-pandering, is equally helpful to them in a general election. This seems to be a fairly low-return way of doing those things.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Where's that from?

I was surprised to read that you have not only not seen The Passion, but
have "very little desire to see it." How can NRO's Mr Pop Culture (I say
this unsarcastically) not feel some desire (or at least responsibility) to
see what will certainly become the most successful R rated movie of all
time? Really, you should see it. I (and many others) would appreciate
reading your take on the various controversies (it's anti-Semitic, it's the
bloodiest movie ever (that's a laugh -- apparently most film critics don't
actually watch films such as Kill Bill or Starship Troopers), etc), as well
as your overall impressions from the movie.

Me: Yes, I do feel like I should see it. But I don't think I will find it enjoyable as entertainment -- something numerous fans of the movie have confirmef for me. I am so swamped these days with my book etc. my desire to go out and see a movie like this is pretty low. Though the subject matter is different, I postponed seeing Schindler's List (and the Washington Holocaust museum) for similar reasons.

TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?

KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament.

TIME: But it turns out there was nothing to disarm.

KERRY: Well, if we had kept on inspecting properly and gone through the process appropriately, we might have avoided almost a $200 billion expenditure, the loss of lives and the scorn of the world and the breaking of so many relationships.

TIME: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank?

KERRY: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively.

TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?

KERRY: I didn't say that.

TIME: I'm asking.

KERRY: I can't tell you.

TIME: Might the war have been avoided?

KERRY: Yes.

TIME: Through inspections?

KERRY: It's possible. It's not a certainty, but it's possible. I'm not going to tell you hypothetically when you've reached the point of exhaustion that you have to [use force] and your intelligence is good enough that it tells you you've reached that moment. But I can tell you this: I would have asked a lot of questions they didn't. I would have tried to do a lot of diplomacy they didn't. ...

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?

KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?

KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

Former congressman Dan Lungren is hoping for a comeback in a different House seat from the one he held in the 1980s. The Republican primary for the third district of California was held last week, but it still hasn't been called. Lungren is narrowly ahead, and hopes to be declared the winner on Wednesday.

Lungren was the early favorite for the nomination and racked up some big endorsements. But Lungren became--with apologies to both men--the John Kerry of the race. The pre-season of the campaign did not go well for him. Some conservatives, notably the Club for Growth, backed Rico Oller for the nomination instead. The reasoning, as Club president Stephen Moore explained to me two weeks ago, was that Lungren was going nowhere and that conservatives had to get behind Oller to keep a third candidate--Mary Ose, a moderate and the incumbent congressman's sister--from winning the primary. Oller also won the support of some Republican congressmen, such as John Doolittle, a low-ranking member of the House leadership.

As it turned out, Ose came in a distant third. Well, hindsight is always 20/20.

If Lungren wins in November, he will almost certainly be voting with the Club for Growth on all the issues that count. Here's hoping that the Club has a better success rate for the year than it had last Tuesday--and that it picks the right battles.

Robert P. George e-mailed: "I scored 29. A bit higher than Aristotle would have scored. Probably about where St. Thomas Aquinas would have ended up, give or take a few points in either direction."

So far, the order of the results--in ascending order, Robby (29), Rick (40), Jonah (41), me (73), and Jonathan (89)--was about what I would have expected. But then I got this e-mail from Charles Murray:

"72 for me. but I was quibbling (you can't have free immigration in a welfare state, in Milton's famous formulation). In my heart, I'm at least an 85. Still, I may need a few weeks in a reeducation camp."

I out-libertarianed the author of What It Means to Be a Libertarian. Amazing. And I don't even consider myself a libertarian.

The Passion is arousing a lot of discussion. I hear it at work, in restaurants - everywhere you go people are talking about it. As an evangelical Christian, I can only be grateful for that.

I'd like to point out however, that the fact that this movie is pretty much in everyone's face these days is understandably a little hard on our jewish friends. Can't we be considerate of one another and keep our enthusiasm for the movie to a minimum when we exit our homes and churches?

I'm a fan of hers generally, but I thought it was a pretty weak op-ed myself. Particularly because it violates one of the basic rules of cultural writing: See the subject before you write about it. It's because of that rule I've tried to avoid discussing the movie (also because I still have very little desire to see it). Also, as K-Lo's readers have noted, Himmelfarb compares apples and oranges when she compares Jesus on the Cross to the horrors of the Inquisition. Judaism isn't about the Inquisition, Christianity is largely about Jesus on the Cross.

I believe that there is a difference between the groups that Himmelfarb uses and the scourging of the alleged son of God. (I consider myself to be an atheist.)

The reason the thought experiments don't work in [Himmelfarb’s] piece is that, for Christians, this is the event on which all history hinges. Have any of the incidents that she mentioned had nearly the amount of voluminous writings, controversies, and "passion" surrounding them as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Winston Churchill once said that a test of a civilized society is the way in which it treats its prisoners.

So what does this story say about the US?

From the Independent:

”In a huge tank of water, sides of beef and a cow's head are suspended from hooks, brains fry in a pan, a skull sits on a butcher's block and strings of sausages are draped everywhere. Swimming serenely around these gory visions of death are dozens of brightly coloured tropical fish.

Elsewhere, a huge black gorilla is staring at its own severed arm, the bottom half of a torso sits on a stainless steel lavatory and a family of pigs, covered in tiny beads, go out for a stroll, clearly elated that their baby has sprouted wings. Above all this floats a zeppelin made from Coca-Cola tins, and a Christ-figure constructed from Marlboro Lights cigarettes hangs from the wall.”

Emperor. Clothes. New.