Josh Chafetz catches the Kerry campaign sending out a dishonest and stupid email saying Bush is comparing Kerry to Hitler when, in fact, Bush is complaining about being compared to Hitler. (Nod to Instapundit).

If there are any serious Mac geeks out there who can explain why Microsoft word continually quits suddenly and how I can stop it I will be very grateful. I can send the "crash report" it generates whenever this happens (it also happens in AOL too). Just for the sake of maintaining a reasonable email flow, if you don't think you can really and truly help, please don't send guesses and hunches or Mac v PC jabs. I won't be at my computer much today and I would hate to come back to overfilled email box with nothing but "that sounds rough, good luck" emails.

The president of Americans Coming Together, the group which hired the felons to canvas, writes:

"Meanwhile, just today, Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, The Drudge Report and Fox News have been quick to stir up attention to an Associated Press story about some of our ACT canvassers. It’s the same old tactic—it’s disgusting and so predictable.

I’m writing to respond to these gross misrepresentations of our work, our supporters and, most importantly, our canvassers. And I urge you to stand with me today. "

Um, they really don't respond to the AP story at all -- or even link to it. They're just trying to raise money off it and blame Drudge for linking to a story by that known rightwing organ, The Associated Press.

From an interview with Ted Rall:

Susan Q. Stranahan: You've come under fire for your cartoons and commentary, most recently your remark on your blog about the late President Reagan, specifically, "If there is a hell, this guy is in it." As a result, Fox News' Sean Hannity described you as "thoughtless, mean and hateful." Were you surprised by the reaction?

Ted Rall: It was a comment that was typed up really quickly. I said I'm sure he's turning crispy brown right now. Drudge linked to it and it had a life of its own. All the right-wing subjects -- Fox News, the Washington Times, Andrew Sullivan -- got hold of it and went crazy. I think frankly it was a pretty mild comment. The man was the scum of the earth. We were suffering a case of national amnesia. There was not a single conservative who wrote to me who had a meaningful argument to counter what I had to say. Nobody offered a substantive argument in favor of Reagan. They don't want to out-argue you; they just want to make you shut up. It shows how far we've gone.

A guy who says Reagan's burning in hell is shocked that he didn't elicit thoughtful arguments from people. What at an arrogant buffoon. This was at a time when the web was deluged with thoughtful arguments about Reagan's accomplishments and Rall seems to think the reason he got hate mail was that his arguments were so good there were no legitimate responses and so conservatives had to resort to insults? Rall seems to be saying that he's some sort of hero, a man of substance, taking the high road. Even if he weren't lying about not receiving thoughtful rebuttals -- and he obviously is -- to think he deserved one is preposterous. It's like saying to someone "Your wife's a whore" and then ridiculing the guy for not walking you through the reasons she's not in a calm, rational manner.

Lileks writes:

Today Al Gore upped the ante. He coined a new term for the Internet critics of his positions: digital brownshirts. Yes, yes, it’s over the top. But it’s not the sentiment that raises eyebrows, it’s the position of the person who’s saying it. We don’t expect presidential candidates past or present to indulge in Usenet flame-war lingo. We don’t expect serious party elders to call the other side Nazis, and for good reason: it’s obscene. The brownshirts were evil. The brownshirts kicked the Jews in the streets and made the little kids put their hands on their heads as they stumbled off to the trains. The brownshirts were not interested in refuting arguments. They were interested in killing the people who dared argue at all.

At some point, I fear, the political discourse of 2004 is going to seem horribly irrelevant and misplaced in the face of some loud new wretched horror; it will seem as oddly disconnected from reality as the Condit / Killer-Shark news reports of August 2001. An indolent luxury.

Me: Obviously I agree. But I would an ironic twist. The same day that Gore accused a bunch of GOP flacks who email rebuttals to journalists "brown shirts" it was reported that an activist group working in alliance with John Kerry was dispatching convicted felons -- i.e. real thugs and brutes -- to go door to door in neighborhoods to foment support for their candidate. That was certainly part of the job descripton of the Sturm Abteilung. What they were not told to do, however, was send notes to reporters asking them to be more accurate in their coverage.

Now, I don't think the felons are in fact brownshirts, but only in the topsy-turvy world of Al Gore's Brain and the Democratic Party could one take an objective look at the society today and see the emailers as the ones most like brownshirts.

He drinks because she nags, he thinks
She nags because he drinks, she thinks
While neither will admit what's true
That he's a sot and she's a shrew.
---Ogden Nash

From a reader:

Jonah,

In response to the emailer who said you can't have it both ways.

I would say you can. The difference is that the Vice-President said F-U to Senator Leahy because of what he considered to be unfair attacks regarding ethics and Halliburton. Not the sort of rebuttal I would use, but hey, explitives are a part of the English language.... even though I think they show a complete lack of expressive imagination.

Senator Kerry on the other hand, called a Secret Service agent an SOB for causing him to fall off his snowboard. Smart move from someone who wants to be President, don't you think? You would think that the Secret Service agent in question might have second thoughts if, God forbid, bullets started flying in the general direction of the Senator.

Anyhow, neither instance was much news to me, but I would say that if an FU or SOB comments was merited, I think if someone were questioning my ethics, I would have added a finger.

And..

The e-mail that you excerpted in the Corner is comparing apples to oranges. Cheney said something that perhaps he shouldn't have, but he did it in the heat of a personal confrontation, and he said what he said to the person he was having a conflict with. If memory serves, Kerry said what he said after having time to collect his thoughts, and he did so knowing that he was speaking to reporters.

From a reader:

Jonah,

In response to the emailer who said you can't have it both ways.

I would say you can. The difference is that the Vice-President said F-U to Senator Leahy because of what he considered to be unfair attacks regarding ethics and Halliburton. Not the sort of rebuttal I would use, but hey, explitives are a part of the English language.... even though I think they show a complete lack of expressive imagination.

Senator Kerry on the other hand, called a Secret Service agent an SOB for causing him to fall off his snowboard. Smart move from someone who wants to be President, don't you think? You would think that the Secret Service agent in question might have second thoughts if, God forbid, bullets started flying in the general direction of the Senator.

Anyhow, neither instance was much news to me, but I would say that if an FU or SOB comments was merited, I think if someone were questioning my ethics, I would have added a finger.

Our friend Terry Teachout disputes the notion that McMurtry's "fellatial" (his words) review of the Clinton book is the product of a conspiracy of some kind. Terry knows more -- much more -- about such things than I do and I defer to him for the most part. That said, it doesn't quite wash that the reviews are unrelated in anyway since McMurtry makes pretty much a direct reference to the first Times review in his attempt to debunk the notion that Clinton's book isn't better than Grant's autobiography. Maybe the Times Sunday Book Review supplement editor, Sam Tanenhaus, is off the hook on the conspiracy charge, but McMurtry's review still seems like a rushed rescue mission for a doomed book than an intellectually honest or even serious effort.

This reader makes a fair point, though Drudge and The Washington Post are different institutions:

I do not remember anyone from the corner questioning whether it was appropriate that Drudge and others reported that Kerry ushered an expletive at a secret service agent who ran into him on the ski slopes. If that was news, then surely Dick Cheney swearing at a senator on the floor of the senate would qualify as newsworthy. You cannot have it both ways.

Personally, I can't get too worked-up about Cheney's use of the F-word, though I think it was undignified. Then again, he didn't do it in front of a camera so he had some reasonable expectation that it wouldn't be public and that it wouldn't therefore make him a bad role model etc. After all, we know that politicians curse all of the time, like most any other group of people. But they know they aren't supposed to do it in front of live microphones etc. So the question here is why did the press find it necessary to publicize this instance? I'm sure Clinton's famous "purple rages," for example, were overheard by plenty of people but we didn't get the profanity unfiltered in the press.

I distinctly remember the scene from "All the President's Men" where Ben Bradlee says that he can't publish the word "tit" because the Post is a "family newspaper." So why was tit no good then, but it's okay to drop the f-bomb on kids reading the paper now?

I didn't get a chance to comment on this yesterday, but I think this story is fascinating. Harvard -- like a lot of schools, I'm certain -- is going oversees to get many of its black students. Lani Guinier and Henry Gates find the trend troubling and for not entirely illegitimate reasons. If affirmative action was intended to even the playing field for the descendants of slaves, then importing blacks from Mali or Niger doesn't really do that.

But that's what is so delicious about this story! Folks like Guinier have set up a system of bean counting and quotas so as to get more "blacks" into colleges and elsewhere. Now it turns out that maybe they are the wrong kind of blacks. I should note that it's not just immigrant blacks that are "troubling" but the kids from mixed race marriages are disproportionately getting in as blacks.

Anyway, the problem is that in order to sustain, defend and expand the racial spoils system liberals have had to argue that affirmative action is no longer a "remedy" so much as an educational benefit in itself, i.e. "diversity." So now Lee Bollinger the former President of the University of Michigan whose case was decided in the Supreme Court last year, must now defend diversity as educational tool and not as a remedy. "I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education," said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. "The issue is not origin, but social practices," he told the Times. "It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action."

But one of the numerous ironies here is that the diversity fixation has created a market for qualified blacks that -- despite the protestations of Guinier & Co -- cannot be satisfied with the domestic supply. So, in the era of globalization there is a flight to quality. I think it's all just really, really interesting.

A bit depressing.

I didn't get to join this conversation yesterday, but let me say I think Will's piece isn't very persuasive at all. Bill Clinton swore in a "60 Minutes" interview that his problems with women were behind him and implying that were it to happen again it would be a major issue (why else insist that they were behind him?). Hillary Clinton said that if the Lewinsky thing were true it would be a major issue, as did much of the press and Congress at first. Bill Clinton ran for office promising "two for the price of one," and made his wife and marriage central components of his presidency -- including giving his signature policy proposal to her. Bill Clinton was in office and hit on an intern which -- when feminists cared about disproportionate power relationships and all that -- was a pretty big deal. Clinton tried to brand Lewinsky as a stalker. Clinton created new executive privileges. He was the chief enforcer of America's federal sexual harassment laws. Meanwhile Ryan was a pig with his wife. Wasn't in office. Isn't married to his wife. Isn't planning on making her an equal partner. Didn't lie under oath. And, as far as I understand it, didn't even lie at all -- he kept secret court records secret.

Now, as I said yesterday I think Ryan should go. But if the hypocrisy card is going to be played, let's play it both ways. Why aren't Democrats defending Ryan if they think the comparison is even remotely apt?

From the NYT:

WASHINGTON, June 24 — Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in

An email:

Stop being so bloody obtuse. You're doing it deliberately. We vote for
a president and a vice-president; the Constitution does not permit a
co-President. Laura Bush is wonderful, but I did not and would not have
voted for her husband because she is his wife.

If the wife wants to have some role in the government, let her go
through the hiring and/or confirmation process. Else, let her confine
her influence to pillow talk.

Hillary Clinton had no legal standing with her little health care
committee, and she was abrogating the office of the Health and Social
Services without going through the hoops. As such, she should have kept
her bloody mitts out of government. Advise Slick Willie, yes; a wife is
free to tell her husband anything. Play an active role in government?
Hell, no.

BTW, you're not missing anything. You're being deliberately dense.

My response: I'm accused of pretending to be dense--an act that must bring special pain to someone like my correspondent, who obviously comes by her denseness honestly. She writes that the president and vice president are elected, while the First Lady is not. No kidding. That's why I brought up the example of a Cabinet officer. Cabinet officers aren't elected either; you have to vote for president making assumptions about what kind of people he will select and how much power he will give them. But you have a pretty good idea of who the First Lady will be, and Clinton indeed promised in 1992 that his election would let voters "buy one, get one free." So, again, where's the lack of accountability?

Kathryn, Rich, & Sentient People Everywhere -- Have you actually read this mea culpa review from the Times? Oh my Lord. It is absurd. It is mortifying. It reads like the confession at a show trial but with the intent of a mother trying to console a weeping, needy, child. It is hackery. It is fluff. It is scandalous. I am ashamed for the Times that they would rush a review to the public in such a blatant sprit of atonement for violating liberal pieties.

Some excerpts:

William Jefferson Clinton's "My Life" is, by a generous measure, the richest American presidential autobiography - no other book tells us as vividly or fully what it is like to be president of the United States for eight years. Clinton had the good sense to couple great smarts with a solid education; he arrived in Washington in 1964 and has been the nation's - or perhaps the world's - No. 1 politics junkie ever since. And he can write - as Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson, to go no farther back, could not.

In recent days the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant have been raised as a stick to beat Clinton with, and why? Snobbery is why. Some people don't want slick Bill Clinton to have written a book that might be as good as dear, dying General Grant's. In their anxiety lest this somehow happen they have not accurately considered either book.

•••

Clinton has the vitality, but with it the inwardly angled gaze of a man who sees too clearly the crack in reality, the difference between what is and what might be, a sense born of all those normal things - the Cardinals, fishing, the Christmas tree and the out-of-state vacation - that somehow were never to occur again.

•••

"During the silly time when Clinton was pilloried for wanting to debate the meaning of "is," I often wondered why no one pointed out that he was educated by Jesuits, for whom the meaning of "is" is a matter not lightly resolved."

Okay, I haven't followed the Ryan thing closely. But here are few thoughts. First, he should go. Maybe there's a legitimate privacy issue, maybe it's unfair, maybe this, maybe that. If he's damaged goods and can't win (I don't know if that's the case, but it sounds like it) he should drop out. Second, if all of this stuff is true, he's a pig. But divorce papers are notoriously slanderous so we should keep that in mind. Third, which brings me to something I'm confused about. Jeri Ryan allegedly says that her husband brought her to sex clubs on more than one occasion, right? And she says she was horrified, disgusted and physically ill from what she saw. Fair enough, but why did she go to such clubs on more than one occasion. If I dragged the missus to one of those places once, I sincerely doubt I could get her in the door (or her foot off my throat) a second time. Fourth, where are the privacy zealots? Throughout Clinton week we're being reminded of how terrible it was to pry into Clinton's private life. Andrew Sullivan and others defended Gary Condit and countless others from less outrageous intrusions into their private lives, why is Ryan fair game?

An email: "If the GOP was demanding as a legal requirement that Clinton turn over all the meeting records, etc. from Hillary's meetings, then yes, they were wrong.

"If the GOP was merely demanding that the records be turned over as a way of putting political pressure on the White House, but were not actually pursuing a court order or claiming it was a legal requirement, then that is just hard-ball politics and was fair game.

"I will say, however, that the scope of the two taskforces - energy policy vs. socialized medicine - makes whatever the GOP said back in 1993 much more understandable. Legal requirements aside, if Cheney's taskforce had been coming up with, say, a plan for federalizing and completely redesigning the U.S. education system, then the White House would be harder pressed to justify not releasing most, if not all the records, court order or not."

I read with some dismay recently the remarks of Judge Guido Calabresi. After reading the article, I was wondering how much he was relying on academic arguments that have to do with the constitution and elections. I was honestly hoping that he didn't have that much of a political motivation to make the case that Bush was like Hitler in how he came to power.

Then I was reading on StudentsForAcademicFreedom.org an article having to do with the graduation of Bush's daughter at yale and filmmaker Ken Burns commencement address given that day. Article is from 5/23/04

What struck me was the description of the people who were protesting Bush's low profile visit to his daughters graduation and subsequent private party. This is direct from the article and the important part is highlighted.

About 50 protesters gathered at Levin's home Sunday afternoon. They denounced the president and the war in Iraq, while holding signs saying "Uproot Bush" and "Resist This Endless War."

The crowd was a mix of students and older Yale graduates.

Anne Tyler Calabresi, 69, of Woodbridge, said she was protesting on behalf of herself and her husband, 2nd Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi, a Yale graduate and former dean of the Yale School of Law.

"I'm profoundly worried about the way this country is going," she said. "And I'm furious about the lies George Bush has told to us again and again. He has led us into a war that is destroying our reputation around the world and creating implacable enemies around the world that we didn't have one year ago."

Please mention this if you can. It would shed some more light on why this guy made such an outlandish comparison to begin with.

Thanks

Tyler Perry

A New Haven man has been jailed for six months on a contempt charge after dropping his pants and mooning a judge.

Richard Brown, 38, of New Haven was jailed Wednesday after an outburst in front of Superior Court Judge Patrick Carroll.

Smith shouted insults and obscenities after the judge had told him to address the court as “sir.”

“Sir? Kiss my (expletive), sir!” Brown shouted, dropping the pants of his two-piece prison jumpsuit and pointing his rear end at the judge.

Carroll summarily sentenced Brown to six months in prison for contempt of court.

Brown continued to shout taunts and expletives, including allegations that court officials are “racist” and “devils,” as he was restrained by state marshals and forcibly escorted through the side door of the courtroom to a holding cell.

It started as a joke last year when a group of Republican Senators, led by Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who has the Southern credentials to get away with wearing a seersucker suit, all wore their seersuckers to work on the same Thursday, with saddle shoes and bow ties, of course.

This year, Seersucker Thursday will be held this week.

It was supposed to be held last week, Lott said, but “the ladies of the Senate requested a delay.” He implied that the women in the chamber may be planning a surprise, although he didn’t know what it was. He mentioned Sens. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) as likely conspirators.

Indeed, the Senate Seersuckers will come with ruffles this year.

“These have been hard days in the Senate. We are dealing with a lot of big and very difficult issues,” said Feinstein, who is leading the Lady Seersucker effort. “I thought it was time to lighten up a bit and inject some humor. The men of the Senate who wear these suits take great pride in them, and I thought we could surprise, or even upstage them. But it seems someone let the cat out of the bag.”

Its a real shame.

As a legal matter, the US doesn't really need the resolution. The ICC cannot, lawfully, claim authority over the citizens of non-party states because it is, after all, a treaty organization that cannot bind, or derogate from the rights of, states that are not also parties. The claims of some ICC supporters, and the ICC prosecutor, to the contrary are just wrong. If the ICC prosecutor decides to move forward and claim jurisdiction over the US, however, a UN resolution is not likely to stop him. If that happens, the US does not have to submit, and the American Servicemembers protection act authorizes the use of force to protect Americans from the ICC overseas.

In addition, given the astounding success the Pentagon has had in obtaining "Article 98" agreements (more than 90 so far, under which countries agree not to hand Americans over to the ICC), the UN resolution is less and less relevant -- from a practical legal perspective.

However, from the political perspective, the UN resolution was important as an open and undeniable statement that the US would not participate in UN missions unless its rights were respected. I assume they receded because they did not have the votes, and plan to revisit the issue later on. Still, it sticks in the craw a bit.

All week we've been hearing about how Bill Clinton measured the success of his presidency by such things as black home ownership rates. Fair enough. But now that Bush is office we get stories like this one from Reuters bemoaning the high homeownership rates of blacks:

Rising U.S. Homeownership Brings Woes - Study

By Mark Felsenthal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A rise in U.S. urban minority homeownership has been accompanied by an even greater surge in the number of people straining to pay for their homes, the Fannie Mae Foundation said on Wednesday.

"Hundreds of thousands of urban minorities are struggling to sustain homeownership," the study said.

Homeowners stretching to pay for their homes are at greater risk of foreclosure and of spoiling their chances of borrowing in the future, according to the study, "A Tale of Two Cities: Growing Affordability Problems Amidst Rising Homeownership for Urban Minorities."

The study, by Fannie Mae Foundation researcher Patrick Simmons, comes as Democrats criticize Bush administration housing policies, saying they have emphasized homeownership gains while letting rental subsidy programs wither. Administration officials cite minority homeownership gains over the past four years as a central accomplishment of recent housing policies.

But Democratic lawmakers say the increases are due to low mortgage interest rates, not administration efforts.

The number of black homeowners in the 25 largest U.S. cities rose by 16 percent between 1990 and 2000, the survey said, citing 2000 census data.

But, at the same time, black homeowners paying at least half of their incomes for housing climbed 39 percent, the report said....

G-File is up and a glitch was fixed (if you already read it). The part at the end didn't mention that Rather was asking about Mark Rich. It does now. Sorry about that.

From a reader:

Jonah, you know I love your sense of humor and sometimes even your point of view. But you should reign in your Cornerites’ Clinton-bashing. It undercuts the recent plea made by Bush-defenders about the harsh “tone” of the alleged Bush-haters and how disrepectful, coarse, and nasty our public discourse has now become.

Exhibit A: The Corner of the last few days. Plainly, the Clinton-hatred was always there, was very real, and was far more personal than the mostly policy-based criticisms of Dubya you see in the mainstream and liberal press. A bit much (and I’m no Clinton fan).

Me: I do see the point and for the most part I'm just letting readers vent. That said I will add one twist. Those who hate Bush -- from the "respectable" hatred of Jonathan Chait to those buffoons who call him a Nazi -- almost all say they hate Bush because of his policies. Those who hate Clinton hate Clinton because they hate Clinton. It may seem counter-intuitive in today's climate, but it seems to me that the Clinton haters have the more honorable position. I know lots of liberals who have views far to the left of Clinton's. But I don't hate those people. I like those people because they're decent folks with whom I have sincere disagreements. My feelings for Clinton are derived from the man himself.

It seems to me to hate a man because of his policies alone is not a respectable position, unless of course you make the argument that the policies themselves are flatly evil. I think that's an almost impossible sell with Bush. Indeed, most of the people who claim to hate Bush for his foreign policy say they love McCain, Colin Powell, Joe Lieberman etc. But McCain's et al's foreign policy views are not so much different from Bush's. Meanwhile, on domestic policy Bush is quite liberal in most areas and where he is conservative he is still within the mainstream. To hate him because he likes tax cuts and conservative judges would require the consistent Bush-hater to hate all people who agree with Bush on those points. And I see no such rhetoric to support that. Ultimately, much of the Bush hatred (that isn't personal) stems from liberals who just hate anybody who is successful at preventing them from getting their way. And, I do believe that hating people solely because they disagree with you is an instinct of totalitarians not democrats (note the small "d").

From a reader:

Mr.Goldberg,

My moment occurred when Bubba was on the Arsenio Hall show tooting his saxophone. One of Arsenio's jokes in the monologue was about Bush 41's no new taxes pledge. Arsenio said, "he didn't say no new taxes, he said mo' new taxes." There were a few scattered chuckles in the audience, but Arsenio's idiot band-leader and Bubba were the only one's guffawing with approval. It was skin-crawlingly bad acting (foreshadowing his Presidency.)

Regards From Canada,

[Name withheld]

From a reader:

And who could forget his smiling, laughing, having-a-good-time personna at the Ron Brown funeral when, all of a sudden, he realized the camera was on him. Insta-Tears.

Rush Limbaugh played it over and over and over (and over) again on his television show.

Thanks for the memories, Rush

From a reader:

Jonah,

My anti-Clinton moment was in one of the early debates in '92. He had been asked about raising taxes and responded, "I will never raise taxes to pay for my programs."

It was instantly clear to me that he would raise taxes to pay for other programs. And, of course, I've followed his use of language closely ever since.

Fred

Derb, I've pondered the question of why some people are immune to Clinton's charm and some aren't for a long time. Here's an excerpt from how I tried to tackle it a while back:

To explain why hatred for Clinton blossomed overnight, there has to be something more than his Nixon-like governing style, because he was disliked by so many before he started to govern. And here again the Clinton apologists have it all wrong. They would have us believe that Clinton hatred manifested itself out of a deliberate effort to thwart Clinton’s progressive and forward-looking agenda. The theory goes: Bill Clinton was dedicated to make America safe for Swedish economics and Parisian culture, and we angry, hate-filled conservatives – most of whom look like the little bald dude from Monopoly -- were determined to stop him at any cost. This, of course, is revisionism of the silliest sort.

Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 as one of the most conservative Democrats in a generation. He wanted to "end welfare as we know it." He campaigned on a huge tax cut (which he promptly abandoned upon election). He moved to the right of George Bush on foreign policy. He was pro-death penalty, taking time out from his campaign to execute a brain- damaged man. He didn’t even balance his ticket by tapping a liberal for his VP, picking instead another Southern moderate. He antagonized his base by shunning Jesse Jackson and "dissing" Sister Souljah. He was the first Democrat in years to win over major conservative ex-Democrats. Hell, William Safire endorsed him. And yet we conservatives were supposed to think this guy was a Fabian Anti-Christ?

.... I think it has to do with the man, pure and simple. Just as there is something about Bill Clinton that makes a certain breed of self-indulgent, usually female liberal baby-boomer swoon, there is something about Bill Clinton that drives other people nuts.

Perhaps it is his ability to over-dramatize any inconvenience in his life; to transform it into a heroic triumph. For example, Bill Clinton campaigned on his "troubled" childhood. In "The Man From Hope" campaign video, Bill Clinton is portrayed as an incredible success story, overcoming the hardship of an abusive alcoholic father — as if no president has had such a childhood. The reality of course is that compared to the childhood trials of Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and even Gerald Ford, Clinton’s boyhood was unremarkable, though certainly not ideal.

It is what Bill Clinton learned from his childhood that is significant. President Clinton is a man who wallows in self-pity. There is nothing wrong with turning defeats into victories — all great politicians do that, and Clinton is no exception. But Clinton enjoys being the victim, he seems to savor it....

I'm not a huge sports buff as should be painfully obvious to folks by now. So I don't know if Frank Deford from Sports Illistrated is considered a god among men or not. But I like him on NPR. I think he usually hits the right points and is pleasently opposed to a lot of the PC stuff in professional sports. But I disagreed with him a bit this morning.

I don't have a transcript, but basically he criticized the notion that our best athletes should feel pressure to compete in the Olympics because of mere patriotism. He made plenty of good points, but one that didn't fly with me is the idea that the Olympics aren't supposed to be about patriotism or "jingoism" as he put it.

Of course they are. The Olympics are about other things too. But there's a reason athletes are divided up by country and not by religion or, say, height. The Olympics were intended in part to be a healthy replacement for war. Now, these days when America is so dominant in so many areas, it might make sense for the US to decline from sending our best basketball and baseball players so as not to trounce other countries at one more thing, but that wasn't his argument.

Also it's nice to say the Olympics and sports are about "excellence" and not "patriotism" but if Deford is right about that, how is that an argument against sending our best athletes?

Another average individual eager to get Hillary's book was Greg Packer, who was the centerpiece of the New York Times' "man on the street" interview about Hillary-mania. After being first in line for an autographed book at the Fifth Avenue Barnes & Noble, Packer gushed to the Times: "I'm a big fan of Hillary and Bill's. I want to change her mind about running for president. I want to be part of her campaign."

It was easy for the Times to spell Packer's name right because he is apparently the entire media's designated "man on the street" for all articles ever written. He has appeared in news stories more than 100 times as a random member of the public. Packer was quoted on his reaction to military strikes against Iraq; he was quoted at the St. Patrick's Day Parade, the Thanksgiving Day Parade and the Veterans' Day Parade. He was quoted at not one – but two – New Year's Eve celebrations at Times Square. He was quoted at the opening of a new "Star Wars" movie, at the opening of an H&M clothing store on Fifth Avenue and at the opening of the viewing stand at Ground Zero. He has been quoted at Yankees games, Mets games, Jets games – even getting tickets for the Brooklyn Cyclones. He was quoted at a Clinton fund-raiser at Alec Baldwin's house in the Hamptons and the pope's visit to Giants stadium.

Oprah: "What advice did you give [Chelsea] about men?" Clinton: "None."

George W. Bush once again says absurd things about the role of government (Nod to Andrew Sullivan):

"[T]he role of government is to stand there and say, 'We're going to help you.' The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference."

He was talking in the context of federal aid to couples with marriage counseling and the like. I know I've said this before, but if Bill Clinton had proposed spending piles of money on marriage counseling -- other than for himself -- conservatives would have screamed bloody murder about liberal social engineering and whatnot. Now, this might be a good policy compared to others, but it isn't a policy someone who believes in limited government would advocate. And beyond the specifics of the policy itself, it is not the role of the government to say "we're going to help you" -- unless, say, the Chinese Red Army is encircling your town.

Last night I dreamt that Dick Cheney spoke at my alma mater (Texas Christian University) and that I, as a distinguished alum (which I do not claim to be), was allowed to invite two guests of honor. Of course, I chose the two of you. We had a nice dinner, and later the vice president gave a stirring address regarding the current political climate. I had a good laugh when I woke up.

Iraq, al Qaeda, insurgents, Islamists, Jihadists, whatever. Can we all agree that people who snatch-up other people off the street and then cut off their heads without a trial in order to intimidate the United States and our allies are our enemies and we don't care what their reasons, their excuses, their allegiances or their histories are?

Last two emails for a while:

You people (Bushies) are becoming as good as Clinton at parsing the language. Before the part that you quote, the president said: "In the battle of Iraq, the
United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our Nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment" That sounds a lot like a declaration of victory, doesn't it?

Also, between the part I quote, and the part you quote, Bush spoke of the sacrifices of the war, etc. in the past tense. In the part that you quote, he
talked as if the hard work ahead would be mostly confined to law enforcement, and reconstruction, not fighting a guerilla war which would claim more
casualties than the actual war. You may have a point about the New Yorker's supposedly strict fact checking, since Bush did not use the phrase, "I declare victory," but the totality of the circumstances -- his words plus his triumphal carrier landing and speech before the banner -- indicates that is what he meant to convey.

I've been in the Navy for 15 years and have done a med cruise.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was on our ship when we returned from the Med in 1993, and is a common banner used on Navy ships at the end of a deployment.

After two months of workups prior to shipping out and six months at sea, the crew of a Navy ship have accomplished their mission. Because if they hadn't, they'd be steaming home.

That the Democratic Party has tried to spin this into something that it's not is just another example of why they cannot be trusted to defend this nation.

From last night:

Clip of Clinton on 60 Minutes: "I think if Ken Starr didn't run the investigation, I would have confessed."

Stewart: "Let me get this straight...if you weren't investigated, then you would have come clean? That's what I love about Clinton: he has the highest integrity when the situation is at its most hypothetical.

Just for the record, here's what the President actually said when the entire world was Jedi-mind-tricked into thinking the war was over by that banner:

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)"

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.) "

Several readers are taking exception to my post about the Mission Accomplished banner. One fellow says I'm "pulling a Clinton," which I would think would be a lot dirtier than anything I'm doing. Another reader writes:

At best, your arguments about Bush and the "Mission Accomplished" banner sound like shill from an overly aggressive lawyer or advertiser. Even if literally correct, Bush's statements were misleading.

The banner reminds me of a 48-point credit card offer for a "fixed 4% rate."
In 6-point text on the back, the company explains that the "fixed" rate is
subject to change at any time and will go up after 2 months. While
the "fixed 4% rate" is true in some sense, it is deceptive (although, I
admit, a deception most consumers have learned to live with).

From a lawyer's perspective, I can say in a header, "Mr. Smith was charged
with robbery and murder. The jury found him not guilty." If the text of my
brief explained that the jury found Mr. Smith not guilty of robbery, but
guilty of murder, the header would be literally true, but deceptive.

Likewise, Bush can say his speech was a caveat on the sign, but the speech
cannot undo the message of the banner. The banner was like the "fixed 4%" or
the "not guilty" headers. True is some sense, but deceptive.

The same logic holds for the WMD and Iraq-OBL connections. Some truth may be
there, but the rhetorical headers were exaggerated. Instead of being an
administration known for honesty, W has become the need-to-read-the-fine-
print president.

Me:I'm sorry, but I think this is close to nonsense. As I understand it, the ship put the Mission Accomplished banner up because, well, their mission was accomplished. Maybe you could make a fair argument that Bush should have ordered the banner down, but give me a break. There's plenty to criticize Bush about, but this story has always struck me as opportunistic after-the-fact b.s.

And even if the critics were right, it is still the most over-emphasized banner in history. How many silly slogans have we seen as backdrops at political events? Are they all now more important than what the President actually said? Besides, I would bet that not one in one hundred people watching the coverage at the time would have said, "the president is telling us it's over." Indeed, if I remember correctly, the brouhaha over the banner came long, long after the carrier event. For weeks afterward, the debate was all about how the "hard part" was still to come. Chris Matthews, for example, didn't say "the president is telling us the war is over" he was too busy talking about Bush's masculine bulges in his flight suit and how the carrier landing was a brilliant political coup.

The New Yorker is famous for its fact-checkers. So you would think a section actually called "fact" would be under even greater pressure to get things right. Here's how Sy Hersh begins his latest article : "In July, 2003, two months after President Bush declared victory in Iraq, the war, far from winding down, reached a critical point."

Call me crazy, but I don't think that's true. Bush never declared victory. Indeed, even if Hersh & Co. are once again pinning everything to the World's Most Significant Banner which declared "Mission Accomplished," and ignoring entirely what the President actually said, they'd still be wrong. I know my military guys will correct me if I'm wrong, but a mission and a war are different things. You say "mission accomplished" when you succeed in a tactical or strategic objective like blowing up a dam or bombing a factory. When the guys in The Dirty Dozen killed all those Nazi officers they could declare "mission accomplished" (except of course for Jim Brown, Trini Lopez, Telly Savalas and all the others who didn't make it). But they could not declare victory. If the mission was toppling Saddam the mission was accomplished.

You may not buy all of this, but given the New Yorker's exacting standards, you'd think they'd be a bit less emphatic since they are saying something happened that emphatically did not.

From a reader:

I just saw Tim Graham in the Corner write that Clinton's settlement w/ Paula Jones is an admission of guilt. I've seen this stated in the Corner several times now.

While I dislike Clinton as much as the next guy, as a civil defense attorney, I must take umbrage with the use of "admission of guilt" in regards to a lawsuit settlement. That simply is not true. I may believe Clinton is guilty, but it is unfair to claim that a lawsuit settlement is an admission of guilt. Many, many, many defendants in civil suits settle for a large variety of reasons, such as: the cost of litigation is more than the settlement, the jurisdiction the case is in may have very liberal juries that will vote to award anyone anything, the judge may not be particularly good and cause you concerns, or even public relations concerns. If all settlements were seen as "admissions of guilt" as the Corner implies, defendants would not be able to make economic or strategic decisions regarding lawsuits.

Fair point from a reader (I was merely trying to engage Calabresi's argument on its own terms):

C'mon Jonah! Extra-judicial means? The Supreme Court of the United States "intervened" when a lower court clearly contravened law, convention and the Constitution of Florida. The Supreme Court did nothing, except enforce status quo. Fie on even allowing that much of the judge's argument. (I agree with everything else you said, though.)

From a reader:

Apparently, he said all this without a hint of irony. Along with other Federal Judges, Calabresi is part of a cadre that, with Brennan's "Living Document" theory to guide them, hasn't come across an issue over which they can't assert power....and yet he was subject only to a Senate vote - far less representative of the nation than an Electoral College vote (which is at least somewhat proportional).

From a reader:

First, love your columns and your corner contributions.

Second, since NRO is one of the few places online that is consistently careful with its use of language, I wanted to register my pet peeve of people (including now, unfortunately, you) misusing "standard time" and daylight time", and writing 12:20 EST when in fact we're in the middle of daylight time, so it should be 12:20 EDT (or, more colloquially, 12:20 eastern).

thank you for your consideration.

Instapundit has a good rundown of the story, first posted here by Kathryn, about federal judge Guido Calabresi comparing Bush to Hilter and Mussolini. I defer to Reynolds and Volokh on the ethical problem the judge's comments pose. Though it really does sound monstrously inappropriate. But I might surprise people when I say that in terms of historical analysis he's not entirely batty. Of course, I think it's absurd to compare Bush to Hitler or Mussolini in terms of the substance of their policies etc. But Calabresi is right that fascism is the product of democratic systems gone wonky. And he's also right that FDR assumed vast powers that he had no right too assume (and which invited the charge that he was a fascist from all over the world and from critics on the right and the left) and which were far, far more unprecedented than anything Bush has asserted. Indeed, any extraordinary powers Bush has asserted, as far as I know, are all supported by precedents from the Roosevelt administration.

But what I find absurd and ironic is his argument that Bush should be "expelled" from office regardless of the merits in order to "cleanse" the Democratic system. “That’s got nothing to do with the politics of it. It’s got to do with the structural reassertion of democracy,” Judge Calabresi said.

Why wouldn't a landslide re-election of Bush reassert the authority of democracy? That's why politicians stand for re-election in the first place, isn't it. Gerald Ford wasn't elected -- or even voted on. But he ran for president. Several vice-presidents were made president by "extra-democratic" means -- i.e. assasinations -- and then ran for election themselves. That's how Teddy Roosevelt -- no stranger to asserting presidential power -- became president. Doesn't Calabresi's formulation suggest that intervention by the Supreme Court is somehow more damning than murder?

And let us not forget the recent election in Missouri which put the widow of a candidate in office even though her name wasn't on the ballot. Then there was the New Jersey election in which a disgraced candidate withdrew and a new one was put on the ballot in defiance of the rules. Maybe I missed Calabresi's speech on those cases.

Calabresi's argument for ousting Bush seems like a silly and partisan rationalization for his desire to oust Bush. And, I should say, that demanding a popular uprising to "cleanse" the decadent democratic system in order to sweep your side into power is itself an argument a great many fascists would find very familiar.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say that Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), who died this month, will be remembered as a better president than Bill Clinton (news - web sites), who is trying to improve his image with a new autobiography, according to an Associated Press poll.

Seven in 10 say history will judge Reagan superior, based on the survey conducted one week after the Republican icon's state funeral and nonstop media coverage focused not only on the ceremonies marking his death at age 93 but a lifetime of achievements from Hollywood to the White House.

Out of office just 3 1/2 years, Clinton recently returned to the limelight with a primetime interview to publicize his memoir, "My Life," which goes on sale Tuesday. The expectation long before the 957-page book reached the stores was a tome that would provide insights into the sexual scandal with a White House intern and impeachment — the nadir of the Clinton presidency.

"I think Reagan will be remembered as the better president, just because of the kind of man he was," said Judy Humphrey, a 66-year-old retiree from Palmyra, N.Y. "I didn't have a lot of respect for Clinton because of his personal life, though he may have done some good things."

Some 83 percent of those questioned said they have a favorable view of Reagan as a person, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. The former president completed his two terms in office in 1988.

A majority of 53 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Clinton while 41 percent rated him favorably. In January, people were about evenly divided in their view of Clinton as a person.

Although stocks soared and the deficit fell during Clinton's tenure, many Americans associate the Democrat with the marital infidelity that nearly toppled his presidency, impeachment by the House and the Senate vote that saved him. Women were slightly more likely than men to have an unfavorable view.

From a reader:

Jonah -

Always enjoy your work, but spelling and grammar mistakes bother me. With
that in mind, I must correct you on your assertion that "Reagan waved
privileges during Iran-Contra." In fact, Reagan 'waived' prvileges.

This is at least as important as a debate about split infinitives, or
prepositions at the end of a sentence.

Thanks,

The talking point seems to be that Starr wasted $70 million on an investigation that didn't have worthwhile results. Would that liberals condemned every government enterprise based upon the right intentions (the Independent Counsel law was a liberal favorite for years after all) which didn't pan out.

Of course, if the money was the issue and Clinton did nothing wrong in Whitewater, the travel office etc, you'd think Clinton wouldn't have stonewalled the way he did. Reagan waved privileges during Iran-Contra while Clinton invoked every one he could, made up new ones and dragged his feet at every turn. That probably added a few mil to the IC's tab.

The scene: A smoky bar. The character: He and she. Old line: “My wife doesn’t understand me.” New lines: “I’m the victim of a right-wing conspiracy.”

Frankly, I think Lockhart's full of it. Sure, if Clinton died tomorrow there would be some rude conservatives -- as there were rude liberals in the wake of Reagan's death. But assuming Clinton dies at a ripe old age, I sincerely doubt many conservatives will make much of a fuss.

Here's Clinton's basic problem in this regard: it wasn't a very special presidency. As political history there's some interesting stuff, sure. Also he'll probably loom very large in the history of the Democratic Party because of the changes he represented. But as American history, the Clinton tale will not be remembered as a particularly great one because he wasn't a great or even near-great president. It's difficult enough for the average person today to list three things he did that were significant. And the one thing most people would mention -- the economy -- will doubtlessly recede as we get further away. History has a tendency to recognize macro economic trends at the expense of presidential micro decisions. Quick: Did Eisenhower do a good job on the economy? Most people have no idea.

Clinton to his credit continued American support for free trade and he coasted with the Reaganite push for Welfare Reform. His most memorable policy proposal, Hillarycare, will be remembered for its failure not its success. On foreign policy, he did some good things and some bad, but now that the foreseeable future will be dominated by America's role in the war on terror, he will largely be the guy who kept things going "while America slept."

I think Clinton was a terrible president for how he conducted himself as President up to and including criminal behavior. Not just the Lewinsky stuff, but all of it. He was the tackiest President since at least the dawn of the television age. But on policy, Clinton wasn't that terrible for a Democrat. But "not terrible for a Democrat" also means "not particularly significant" for historians. As for his tackiness, historians have a tendency to play down that stuff too, alas.

Re Social Security reform: The Clinton administration showed some interest in private accounts--if I recall correctly, it was early in the second term--or at least a willingness to compromise on the issue. Erskine Bowles was at the time rumored to be especially interested. The conventional wisdom from 1998 on was that the Lewinsky scandal forced Clinton to stay with the Left on the issue.

Re his not thinking of resigning: I believe that's been reported before, and I don't doubt it for a minute.

Re that Kurtz column: Lockhart's analogy between the Right's recent treatment of Clinton and the Left's of Reagan is obviously faulty for a lot of reasons. One does wonder what we conservatives will say when Clinton dies--what can we say that is both charitable and true? There are positive things to say about his administration, but they don't make for grand eulogies.

Frankly, I'm torn about whether I should keep paying attention to the Clinton-fest. On the one hand, he's still a very newsworthy and influential figure and he's obviously still a megalomaniacal liar and all that. On the other hand, I just don't care about him very much anymore.

So, I've decided on a compromise. I won't go out of my way to pay attention to the coverage but I won't deliberately avoid it either. A couple observations so far:

First: Clinton says in interviews and his book: "I was involved in two great struggles at the same time, a great public struggle over the future of America with a Republican Congress and a private struggle with my old demons. I won the public one and lost the private one. I don't think it's much more complicated than that."

Ah, yes, the glorious victory against the Republicans which cost the Democrats the House, the Senate and arguably the White House in 2000. The victory which caused the first two-term Democrat since FDR to tack right on Welfare and trade and abandon the dream of single-payer health care.

Second: This morning I heard Katie Couric ask Dee Dee Myers if she felt "vindicated" by the revelations in the Clinton book. Um, how does that work? Clinton sticks to his stories and the person who originally peddled the stories is vindicated? When George Bush releases his memoirs will Couric ask Ari Fleisher if he feels "vindicated"?

From James in Nebraska:

” I ransacked my house this a.m. for John Simon's Paradigm's Lost without success so I'll have to rely on memory. I believe he gave his endorsement to the Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of the English Language as the standard for American pronunciation…We have two editions (1945 and 1966) and both agree with you on the English pronunciation of Don Quixote. Interestingly, on foreign words they list the English pronunciation first, followed by the pronunciation in the original language, i.e. as distinct from the English pronunciation. Other examples from the same page: Donizetti (don-ah-zetee, not do-nee-dzetee), Don Juan (don joo-awn), Dordogne (dor-dawny)”

Goool! (as I believe they say in Spain).

The sagest advice my father ever gave me was essentially "keep your shirt pressed and your shoes shined, raise the last bet when Lady Luck is sitting in your lap and never argue with crazy people. "

Even if he hadn't fathered, fed, clothed and educated me, I think he should go into the Fathers Hall of Fame for that.

Rick Reynolds
Reading, PA

My father only ever gave me one piece of advice but it could be universally applied. A good example of this is when my parents dropped me off for college. My mom had a million things to say to me, none of which I remember today.

My father just said: "Don't do anything stupid."

Then, he followed that up with, "If you don't know if it's stupid or not, it is."

Curtis

Sometimes the best thing a father can do is say nothing. During my early teens, I had to accompany my father one Saturday to buy parts to fix a broken water pump. Dad and I were battling all day (mostly about an adolescent's laziness in helping him fix the pump) and so I sulked in the pickup while he was buying the parts. As he usually did, Dad got to blabbing with the store owner, and I became restless, so I decided to go for a walk. It was only after I locked my door and slammed it shut that I saw the keys swinging in the ignition. Knowing this stunt would have been the icing to our combative day, I tried every trick I knew to get the door open before he came out, including going next door to the job service agency and borrowing a coat hanger. I struggled for another 15 minutes with the door as Dad (thankfully) continued gabbing with the store clerk. After giving up on the passenger side door, I walked around to try the other door---only to find the window rolled down.

I ditched the coat hanger, got back in the truck, and thanked God that Dad hadn't seen that performance. He came out shortly thereafter, got in the truck, and as we drove off looked at me like he wanted to say something. At that point I knew he had seen the whole thing, but resisted a prime chance to jab me good. It's a good story today, but when you're a self-conscious 14-year old boy, embarrassment can be sometimes tough to take--especially if you're trying to show Dad you can be capable. He could have made a joke, but didn't. He's always had the ability to know when to speak up and when not to. That's probably why he's been married for 47 years and has three children who love him deeply.

Thanks Dad.

Ray Hageman

"But since the FBI chief gets a presumptive 10-year term, I didn't feel what I thought was outrageous treatment of us, particularly by him personally, was worth replacing him, because all of you [in the media] would have said, Well, he's doing it because he's got something to hide, and I didn't have anything to hide," he tells TIME.

Radley Balko is a brave, brave individual. He surveys legislation so deranged that it would drive a lesser man, well, to drink. Here and here are his latest examples of asinine neo-prohibitionism. Not all of these laws pass, of course, but do they show the way that the wind is blowing.

Be afraid, very afraid.

“France has been accused of agreeing to a crackdown on exiled opponents of Iran in return for lucrative commercial contracts. Lawyers for France's human rights league, speaking on the anniversary of a huge police raid on the National Council of Resistance of Iran near Paris, pointed out "troubling coincidences" in the timing of the operation and a series of deals with Teheran.”

Surely not.

...about the mental health of the president of France:

The Observer reports:

"... the increasingly volatile Chirac is in no mood for pandering to the British. 'He's tetchy, unhappy, doesn't quite know which way to go - his officials are all frightened of him and nobody's giving him any advice,' says one Foreign Office source."

Well, maybe that's not such bad news for the old crook after all. Better a padded cell than a jail cell, eh, Jacques?

There’s some interesting new research on smoking due to be published in the British Medical Journal next week. The research is the result of a fifty-year study and the conclusions are good news for ex-smokers:

'Nowadays we have lots of them. We can see that even if you are 50 and have been smoking for 30 years, stopping more than halves your risk of dying from smoking. Stopping at 30 cuts the risk by 90 per cent.'

The most important message? That it’s still worth the while of older smokers to give up. And so they should. Thinking about this for a second, however, there may be a few other implications, none of them too healthy for the anti-tobacco jihadists:

(1) Those long-term smokers who sue on the basis that they took up smoking before it was widely known to be dangerous (an imaginary time, but let that pass) have to answer the question why they did not give up at the point that the US health authorities really got into the tobacco wars – decades ago. Yes, yes, of course cigarettes are ‘addictive’, but there are tens of millions of ex-smokers who have shown that all it takes to quit is some willpower. That a few poor souls keep puffing through their way through their tracheotomy tubes does not cancel that argument.

(2) While, clearly, no teenagers should smoke, perhaps some of the hysteria on this topic is, well, just hysteria. “For those who quit at 30, the risks of dying from smoking are negligible.” Let’s hope that all those somewhat Orwellian propaganda outfits that claim that to tell youngsters ‘the truth’ about smoking pass on that statistic.

(3) If the reduction of an individual’s intake of smoke can have such a dramatic effect, can we really believe that the microscopic amounts absorbed by ‘passive smokers’ are really that dangerous?

Hmmm, definitely a two-pipe problem.

As his celebrated 1993 speech in Memphis to the Church of God in Christ demonstrated, former President Bill Clinton is capable of soaring eloquence and visionary thinking. But as those who heard his deadening speech nominating Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta well know, he is also capable of numbing, self-conscious garrulity.

Unfortunately for the reader, Mr. Clinton's much awaited new autobiography "My Life" more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words "In closing . . ."

The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.

In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration.