(Boffo British TV drama series about the English Civil War): Anybody know a
way to put pressure on the BBC or PBS to get this out on DVD? Lots of
readers remember it being really good. Sample:

"John---I remember this series well. It was quite sympathetic to the
Royalists and (it seems to me) presented the Roundheads as hypocritical
proto nanny statists. There was a scene where one of the Roundheads rode
into a little town on horseback, proclaiming 'I have come to set you free.'
Someone shouted back at him: 'We *are* free. We just want to be left
alone.' My philosophy in a nutshell.---Regards..."

And yes, I am now aware that I was until yesterday the only inhabitant of
Western Civilization who did not know that Jeremy Clyde (the actor who so
superbly played Charls I in BTSD) was one half of the 1960s singing duo Chad
and Jeremy, sort of Peter and Gordon knockoffs.

Surreally entertaining Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee is at it again, this time in an article on the UK’s international role. As usual, her real message is that Britain should integrate itself ever deeper into the EU. Madness? Apparently not. Readers are told this:

“Average wages in western Europe are far higher than ours, their standard of living better, yet we brag about our brief recent economic growth while conveniently forgetting how far behind we remain. Won the war, lost the peace is still true.”

Blimey, crikey, strewth, tear up that Union Flag, scrap that awkward history, is it time for Brits to sign up for that El Dorado across the English Channel? Er, well, no. Indefatigable Toynbee fact- checker Scott Burgess has this to say:

“Polly must have missed the latest report from Eurostat (PDF), which states that "the MS [EU member states] with the highest level of earnings are Denmark and the United Kingdom. If we compare "Average gross annual earnings in industry and services of full-time employees in enterprises with 10 or more employees," we find that, of European countries, only Switzerland, Norway and Denmark have higher earning levels. Indeed, 2001 figures (the latest complete dataset) put UK earnings at 22% higher than the 15 nation EU average. "Far higher," one might even say.”

Ha ha ha.

I note that poor Polly also refers to the UK’s veto-wielding position on the UN Security council as “unearned.” Now, it’s quite possible to argue (I wouldn’t, but it’s at least possible) that the UK should no longer have that role, but to call it “unearned” seems a little hard on the Brits, at least to anyone who recalls what happened between 1939 and 1945. Something, about a war, I think.

Several readers have let me know that I have let Wilson off too easy. They make some good points. For future reference, all criticisms of Joe Wilson should be considered partial, not exhaustive. Anyway, here's one:

You let Wilson off too easy.

Wilson wrote:

"Other inaccuracies and distortions include the suggestion that my findings "bolstered" the case that Niger was engaged in illegal sales of uranium to Iraq."

Wilson is attempting to frame the issue in a completely misleading way that you overlooked and fell prey to.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that Wilson's findings bolstered the case the "Niger was engaged in the illegal sales of uranium to Iraq." What Wilson's findings did, in fact bolster (and not merely fail to debunk) was the case that "Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger." Those are two completely different things. Whether Niger reciprocated has nothing to do with Iraq's intentions. After all, there are sources other than Niger that Iraq could have turned to.

The news that the administration will extend Medicare coverage for certain ‘anti-obesity’ treatments is bad news for the budget (well, we are talking about the Bush administration), bad news for those of us who believe in personal responsibility, bad news for the food industry, and bad news for freedom. Why the last two? Well, by apportioning some of the costs of the so-called obesity crisis onto the taxpayer, the White House is paving the way for food mullahs to argue for ever more regulation of ‘junk food’, portion size and so on. The rationale for such intervention? Well, you heard it in the tobacco wars. If we all pay for obesity (just as we all supposedly paid for the costs of cigarette addiction), the government has some sort of right to tell people what to eat.

Trial lawyers will be thrilled. Perhaps some of them should take Health and Human Services secretary Thompson for a celebratory meal. Low fat, of course.

As he contemplates the wreckage of his presidency, Jacques Chirac is displaying increasing signs of instability. Perhaps the prospect of prosecution (as president he is immune from indictment for, uh, questionable behavior while mayor of Paris) is proving a little unsettling. In any event, restlessness in the ranks of the French right over the failures of his administration, are increasing. Step forward Nicolas Sarkozy.

Now read on. And enjoy.

Joe Wilson responds to the Washington Post today. On the question of whether or not his wife pushed him for the job, he writes:

The decision to send me to Niger was not made, and could not be made, by Valerie. At the conclusion of a meeting that she did not attend, I was asked by CIA officials whether I would be willing to travel to Niger. While a CIA reports officer and a State Department analyst, both cited in the report, speculate about what happened, neither of them was in the chain of command that made the decision to send me. Reams of documents were given over to the Senate committee, but the only quotation attributed to my wife on this subject was the anodyne "my husband has good relations with both the PM (Prime Minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In fact, with 2-year-old twins at home, Valerie did not relish my absence for a two-week period. But she acquiesced because, in the zeal to be responsive to the legitimate concerns raised by the vice president, officials of her agency turned to a known functionary who had previously checked out uranium-related questions for them. [Italics mine]

This is misdirection. As best I recall, the charge was never that Wilson's wife made the "decision" to send him to Niger. It was that she promoted him for the job which, until recently, he categorically denied (or he made it sound like he was categorically denying it). I'm sure Wilson's telling the truth here. But so what? He can also deny that his wife was the the second gunman on the grassy knoll, and that would be just as relevant. Wilson now makes no attempt here to claim that his wife didn't tout him for the job. That is quite telling.

Wilson continues:

But that is not the only inaccurate assertion or conclusion in the Senate report uncritically parroted in the article. Other inaccuracies and distortions include the suggestion that my findings "bolstered" the case that Niger was engaged in illegal sales of uranium to Iraq. In fact, the Senate report is clear that the intelligence community attempted to keep the claim out of presidential documents because of the weakness of the evidence.

More misdirection. Wilson claimed that he had debunked the Iraq-seeking-Yellocake story. This was the premise for the "Bush-lied" hysteria which ensued. Now he's arguing that his report merely didn't "bolster" the case that Iraq sought uranium. I think he's on thin ground here too. But saying "I didn't bolster the case" is a far cry from saying "I debunked it." It's now pretty clear, in the wake of the British and Senate reports, that the uranium question was an open one. Wilson claimed, or gave the impression, that it was a closed one. Indeed, Wilson freelanced that Bush was a liar about the Yellowcake story when he clearly didn't have all of the facts. That much is still obviously true. Whether or not Wilson's report bolstered the case that Iraq sought Uranium from Niger or not is an important question insofar as it would help demonstrate the degree of Wilson's dishonesty, but not the fact that he has been deeply dishonest.

Also: For a detailed response to Wilson's letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee see Tom Maquire here.

Jonah:

On a quick'n'dirty pass thru the data, I don't see any significance -- I mean, bias towards oldest-sibling in getting to be President.

Just tallying numbers of siblings where known, and ignoring all complications about adoption, half-siblings, etc., we have the following list for the 41 Presidents for whom we have data:

{5,9,11,4,4,2,4,1,7,9,8,8,6,10,2,1,5,1,4,7,8,9,8,4,3,3,7,1,2,1,2,6,8,4,4,6,3
,1,4,1,5}

If we go through and tally whether or not each President was the oldest
among his siblings, we get this corresponding list:

{Y,N,Y,N,N,N,Y,Y,N,Y,N,N,N,Y,N,N,Y,N,N,N,N,N,N,N,N,N,Y,Y,N,N,Y,N,N,Y,N,Y,Y,N
,N,Y,Y}

...for a total of 15 Ys.

Now go back to the first list and ask: Suppose a RANDOM sibling, in each of
the 41 cases, got to be President. How many Ys would we expect to get?

So I did this:

---Generate a random integer from 1 to 5. (That is, roll a 5-sided die.)
If it's 1, count a "Y", otherwise count a "N".

---Generate a random integer from 1 to 9. (That is, roll a 9-sided die.)
If it's 1, count a "Y", otherwise count a "N".

---Generate a random integer from 1 to 11. (That is, roll an 11-sided die.)

If it's 1, count a "Y", otherwise count a "N"....(all the way through the 41).

Count how many Ys you got (so this will be some number from 0 to 41).
Now repeat this entire process 10,000 times, noting how many Ys you got each
time.

This gives you a list of 10,000 numbers, each in the range 0 to 41.
When I actually did this, the smallest number of Ys in any of the 10,000
trials was 8; the largest number, 24. Here
http://www.olimu.com/Notes/PresidentialBirthOrder.jpg is the actual
distribution I got.

As you can see, 15 is whack darn in the thickest part of the distribution
(in statistical jargon, around the mode). That's why I don't see any bias.

I conclude that being oldest sibling gives no advantage in the Presidential
stakes.

This is, however, as I said, just a quick'n'dirty first pass at the data.
You can always squeeze a bit more out of data. You could give more weight
to Presidents in earlier times, when families were bigger; or eliminate
female siblings, etc. etc. But I gotta mow the lawn.

This should be more than enough data for the Derb. From a reader:

Name # of Siblings Oldest? Oldest Boy?

G. Washington 5 Y Y

J. Adams 0 n/a n/a

T. Jefferson 9 N Y

J. Madison 11 Y Y

J. Monroe 4 N Y

J Q Adams 4 N Y

A Jackson 2 N N

M Van Buren 4 Y Y

Wm H. Harrison 1 Y Y

J Tyler 7 N N

J. Polk 9 Y Y

Z Taylor 8 N N

M Fillmore 8 N Y

F. Pierce 6 N N

J Buchanan 10 Y Y

A Lincoln 2 N Y

A Johnson 1 N N

US Grant 5 Y Y

R Hayes* (Older bro died when he was 3) 1 N Y

J Garfield 4 N N

C Arthur 7 N Y

G Cleveland 8 N N

B Harrison 9 N N

Wm McKinley 8 N N

T Roosevelt 4 N Y

W Taft* Oldest Surviving 3 N N*

W Wilson 3 N Y

W Harding 7 Y Y

C Coolidge 1 Y Y

H Hoover 2 N N

FDR * 1 half brother 0 N* N*

H Truman 2 Y Y

DDE 6 N N

JFK* 8 N N* (Oldest surviving when elected)

LBJ 4 Y Y

R Nixon* Oldest surviving 4 N* N*

G Ford* (6 half siblings) 0 Y Y

J Carter 3 Y Y

R Reagan 1 N N

G HW Bush 4 N N

W Clinton* 1 half brother 0 Y Y

G W Bush 5 Y Y

From a reader:

Hi Jonah, Why are we not surprised. We have instituted parental controls on access to aol for our kids. I was amused (dismayed) to discover that I could not access NRO (my favorite site) while on their account. I was led to check out a few more sites both liberal and conservative to see which were allowed and which not. This is far from an exhaustive list but gives you the flavor. NRO - no The New Republic - yes Washinton Times - no Washinton Post - yes Heritage Foundation - no Brookings Institution - yes American Spectator - no The Nation - yes Progressive Review - yes New York Review of Books - yes Talking Points Memo - yes Instapundit - yes Michaelmoore.com - yes NY Times (kiddie edition only allowed) NY Post - no LA Times - no Guardian UK - yes Some surprises: Realclearpolitics.com - yes marksteyn.com - yes kausfiles.com - no I think you all at NRO need to complain. Conservative ideas definitely are not harmful to kids. Best regards and keep up the good work.

Several responses:

Jonah, Slow day here at work, so I ran your numbers. Assuming almost half of 43 to equal 21 and about 13 to equal 15, the relationship is statistically not significant (by Fisher's Exact Test). In fact, the p value is greater than 13% (while <5% is usually considered the point of significance). So, while it might be suggestive, you will have to wait until the sample size is considerably larger to see if the apparently higher prevalence of first borns among US Presidents is anything more than random chance.

And...

Jonah, I don't think that stat means much. This is my off-the-cuff, 2-minute so I don't kill too much time version. By the way, I'm an actuary, which means I actually like this stuff. Let's start with simple distribution of family size similar to today's (and I'm estimating here): 1/3 of families: 1 kid 1/3 of families: 2 kids 1/3 of families: 3 kids. From the above distribution, if you select kids randomly, 50% are going to be first kids. There are 3 first kids out of 6 total kids; that's where 50% comes from. Now another question comes into play. When the study says firstborns, does that mean firstborn males only, or firstborn period? If it means firstborn period, then we would actually expect on 25% firstborn males, so your study would be pretty significant. If it means firstborn male, then we would actually expect the number of firstborns to be somewhat higher than 50% (using the above distribution) because a male could be born 2nd and still be the firstborn male. Throughout history, family size has been larger, so these numbers would be reduced somewhat. All-in-all, if it's firstborn period, you've got a significant stat. If it's firstborn male, I think you've got a "doesn't mean much" stat.

And...

Please. While there might be a small statistical variation because families were bigger way back when, I would think that we have not reached a point where the numbers mean anything. I just rolled a dice 43 times. 14 sixes came up. That’s 33% of the time when statistically, the odds are that I’ll roll a six 16.6%. If I roll the dice a thousand times, maybe we’ll see a more even distribution.

I feel cheated. I want back the five minutes I put into this exercise. CNN should be ashamed; this falls under the WGAS banner anyway.

Me: One request: If you disagree with the number crunching on display in these emails, please ask yourself -- before you email me about it -- whether you so passionately disagree that it's worth carrying on this conversation far outside the borders of actually being interesting.

DUBAI: Hundreds of alleged members of Al Qaeda, including 18 of its top leaders, and other terror groups are living in Iran, some under tight security, Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported on Thursday. “More than 384 members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations are present in Iran, including 18 senior leaders of Osama bin Laden’s network,” the London-based daily said, citing a senior source in the Iranian presidency. The Saudi-owned newspaper said the terrorist leaders were living under tight protection, some of them in villas in the Namak Abrud region, near the town of Chalous on the Caspian coast, 100 kilometres (60 miles) north of Tehran. Others are living in Lavizan, in the north-west of the capital, and which also houses a large military complex, it added. The report could not be verified in Tehran. According to the source, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad convinced Tehran, during his visit to Iran early this month, of the “seriousness” of using Al Qaeda elements in Iran as a card in its policy with the United States. afp

From a reader:

Dunno about Derb, but I think it's statistically noteworthy.

My own subjective but (insofar as I know) unbiased inspection would put the equal-distribution percentage at somewhere around a third. And as the missus pointed out, at least in the 1800's families were routinely larger than merely three kids. That would drag my gut percentage even lower.

But say that in this timespan, 33% of all males are firstborn or only children. The report you cite says "nearly half" so put it around 47%. That makes a firstborn/only male child 14% more likely than not to be president. Not huge news but I'd elevate it to "of interest."

I eagerly await the "real" opinion from Derb. But there's mine.

"We had testimony a couple of months ago from the past president of United, and current president of American Airlines that kind of shocked us all," Lehman told me. "They said under oath that indeed the Department of Transportation continued to fine any airline that was caught having more than two people of the same ethnic persuasion in a secondary line for line for questioning, including and especially, two Arabs."

Wait a minute. So if airline security had three suspicious Arab guys they had had to let one go because they'd reached a quota?

That was it, Lehman said, "because of this political correctness that became so entrenched in the 1990s, and continues in current administration. No one approves of racial profiling, that is not the issue. The fact is that Norwegian women are not, and 85-year-old women with aluminum walkers are not, the source of the terrorist threat. The fact is that our enemy is the violent Islamic extremism and the overwhelming number of people that one need to worry about are young Arab males, and to ask them a couple of extra questions seems to me to be common sense, yet if an airline does that in numbers that are more than proportionate to their number in particular line, then they get fined and that is why you see so many blue haired old ladies and people that are clearly not of Middle Eastern extraction being hauled out in such numbers because otherwise they get fined."

Salvatore: Every major civil rights movement in this country has eventually prevailed. Looking through the prism of history, do you feel that same-sex marriage is inevitable in America as a legal right?

Senator Kerry: I can’t predict what’s inevitable in America. I think it’s important to protect people’s rights. And in my own personal judgment--somebody may deem me wrong, I may be wrong--but my judgment is that balance of respecting rights and tradition--[his cell phone rings.] excuse me one second.

Salvatore: Mrs. Heinz Kerry, is your opinion about same-sex marriage different from your husband’s?

Mrs. Heinz Kerry: I wish there was another word other than “union” or contracts” that signifies such a relationship. To me, a marriage has always been Mom and Dad. On the other hand, you have children who are adopted, and/or are the children of same-sex marriages--moms and moms or dads and dads--and that’s a dilemma. And I’ve been thinking about that. So it should be acknowledging a formality that’s not just a contract. But as a mother, I would like to be able to open my arms to someone that my child or children loved, whether or not they were what I would normally expect them to be. And I would not like to feel stigmatized by my friends. I would like my children not to suffer from it. I’d like them to be as welcome and as happy and as much a member of the family as anyone else. I speak as a mother. And that’s all I think we owe to one another--respect and dignity and civil rights, and peace.

Salvatore: Senator, you were saying?

Senator Kerry: It’s not too dissimilar. Teresa raises an interesting question. Civil union is a way of respecting the rights in the fullest way, providing you have federal assumption. Marriage, in the way we’ve thought of it in terms of men and women, is a way of respecting a traditional value that has great meaning across the country. I’ve thought of it as a fair way of respecting both.

Mrs. Heinz Kerry: The problem is the kids.

Senator Kerry: Sweetie, I understand. But--

Mrs. Heinz Kerry: For a little kid who goes to school and feels like your mom and mom are not married--

Senator Kerry: Yeah, but not all things apply to all people, anyway.

Mrs. Heinz Kerry: No, but something else. Another word. First of all, I don’t think the country is even ready to discuss this properly. It’s foreign to a lot of us. And so for the time being, I would say, absolute civil rights, absolute respect, absolute dignity. And I wish we could find something that held sacred the commitment, in a way that didn’t shake anybody else’s foundation.

Is it me, or don't you think you would have first heard about this from the "Today Show" and not Tech Central Station if it was about Bill Clinton keeping a promise to a wounded soldier? Here's the opener:

This sounds like a scene from some weepy, bad movie.

There's this young Army National Guard sergeant lying in bed at an Army hospital.

He's really down. He lost his right leg to a landmine in Afghanistan. Lot of hustle and bustle out in the hall. Someone's coming to visit the wounded.

Turns out it's the President of the United States.

He stops by the young sergeant's bed. They talk. It's a little awkward. What do you say to a guy that loves to run, loves physical activity, and now his leg is gone from the knee down.

But this sergeant tries to be upbeat and he's been told all about prosthetic legs and he has resolved that, dammit, one day he'll run again.

The President is impressed. Tell you what, he says to the sergeant, let's keep in touch and when you're ready to run a mile I'll run it with you.

Yeah, sure.

But, sure enough, a year and a half later, there's this young sergeant in shorts and an Army windbreaker, running on his prosthetic leg. And running beside him? The President of the United States.....

I confess it took some serious imagination to answer some of these questions! But it was, like, totally cool and I'm, like, way psyched to be a "Mary-Kate." OMG!!!!!

Salon.com has a "defense" of Joe Wilson. For the most part, the piece is a dull, he-said she-said about the controversy so far, generally sympathetic to Wilson, with some sneaky bits hid in the dull prose in order to make them seem more reasonable. For example the author, Mary Jacoby, says "But no sale of uranium ever took place, Wilson reported, and that conclusion is not in dispute." That's true, but Bush never said Iraq purchased the uranium, he merely said Iraq sought it. Wilson said Iraq didn't and that his cryptic sweet-tea swilling conversations proved it. That's the part that's in dispute. Nobody sent Wilson to Africa because they thought Iraq actually obtained the uranium. This is a back-handed way of bolstering Wilson's "credibility" in an area where it was never questioned. Wilson, by the way, also contends that Africa is by and large a very hot contintent with many exotic animals. That conclusion is not in dispute either.

Another minor cheap bit is the author's positive gloss on the memo from Plame touting her husband. Jacoby writes:

The report also quotes an internal CIA memo written by Wilson's wife, Plame, stating: "my husband has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." Based on Plame's internal memo and other evidence, three Republicans -- Roberts and Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Kit Bond of Missouri -- wrote additional views appended to the report, concluding that "the plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested" by Plame.The three GOP senators criticized their Democratic counterparts on the panel for refusing to endorse this conclusion.

In his letter to the committee, Wilson disputed the Republican senators' characterization. "There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip," he wrote. A CIA spokeswoman declined to comment. In an interview, Wilson said that his wife was stating facts about his background, not pushing that he go to Niger.

Two things: First, if I declare I really need a great personal assistant and someone sends me an email saying "My husband can type 150 words per minute. He's very well organized, sharp and has great research skills" -- that would strike me as an effort to push her husband for the job. Second, Jacoby notes that Wilson disputes the memo's significance. What about "the other evidence" used to draw the conclusion Plame touted Wilson for the job?

Anyway, there are a few other clever sentences like that in the piece. But the only truly annoying assertion is in the opening. The author begins:

Choreographed editorials and Op-Ed pieces on Thursday in the Wall Street Journal and National Review and by conservative columnist Robert Novak signaled the revving up of a Republican campaign to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his claims that President Bush trumpeted flimsy intelligence in the drive to invade Iraq.

"Choreographed"? Where does Jacoby get this? Where is the evidence? Consider the irony for a moment. The whole debate about "Bush lied," WMDs, etc. is about whether or not various facts and developments were intentional or not. Were all of the CIA mistakes actually lies? Was every thing which went wrong done on purpose? And here Salon blithely asserts that conservatives colluded to attack Wilson upon the release of this report.

I know, I know, the Salon style manual seems to insist that all inconvenient arguments from the Right are coordinated for maximum effect. Sidney Blumenthal is their Washington Editor after all. But, seriously, where is the evidence for this? As someone fairly deep inside the "right wing attack machine" or whatever those guys call it this week, I can tell you for a fact that I saw no coordination. Most of the reaction was initially driven by bloggers (including yours truly). Salon should know that you can't "choreograph" bloggers. And I defy them to prove that Bob Novak was being choreographed. That's just flatly dumb and defies common sense. Is Jacoby lying on orders from Blumenthal? Or is she simply imagining things? I mean, come on, there is some actual merit to the case that Wilson deliberately lied for partisan reasons about some of the most serious issues imagineable. That's pretty much been proven. The case that Bush lied, meanwhile, continues to fall apart.

UPDATE Jacoby was Wes Clark's press secretary.

He also dipped into Scripture, quoting Matthew. "My faith teaches me, 'Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,' " he said. "Let me tell you where my heart is: it's with the middle class, who are the heart of this country. It's with the working families who built this country.

After his speech to the NAACP, Kerry visited voters on a front porch in the Philadelphia suburb of Lansdowne. At the two-story brick home of Bill and Mary Kay Bowden, Kerry took questions from a crowd of about 100 people gathered on folding chairs in the front yard.

Two neighborhood boys offered their opinions about the war in Iraq, with one calling it evil and the other calling it necessary. Kerry, who voted to give Bush warmaking authority, did not dispute either opinion.

I also watched the Andrea Mitchell report on Joe Wilson and found it disconcerting (the nicest thing I can saw about an Andrea Mitchell report). Ms. Mitchell reported that Ms. Plame was a "covert operative" within the CIA. I don't believe that is true. Ms. Plame was an analyst and and expert in arms proliferation at the time of the Wilson mission to Niger; however, I can concede that at some time in her career she was "covert". For the present, the only thing covert about Ms. Plame, fleetingly, was her sponsoring Wilson for some pool-side tea-sipping far, far away.

Another thing too, Ms. Mitchell wrapped up her report by saying that the Senate report only "adds to the confusion" about Wilson's role (and implicitly, the role of his wife). My take is that the Senate report demonstrates that Wilson's a liar and Plame's to blame. Mitchell, chief NBC correspondent of something, demonstrated that she's still a network toady.

Here is what will happen later this month at the Dem convention:

There will be a groundswell of "draft Hillary" sentiment, but it will be for the Presidential nomination, not VP. She will emerge as the Dem candidate for President for '04. Perhaps with Kerry as her VP candidate, perhaps she'll tap Edwards.

I'm not sure what type of skulduggery the Clinton's and their allies will engage in, but it will be effective, and it will start soon. Perhaps they'll "prove" that Kerry is French.

From Gphiler Eric Spratling:

Jonah, You mention that Kerry (aka "John Kerry President!") is an incedibly boring etc. public speaker. That's true, but a month or two ago I heard a clip of him on the radio, and it occurred to me why his speaking persona REALLY bothers me: He ends *every* *single* *sentence* as if it were an applause line. Seriously. I mean he's trying to deliver each individual line as if it were the rhetorical climax at the end of a huge dramatic build-up. I'd imitate it for you but it's hard to get across in text. If you can stand a geek analogy, it's sort of like the "Death of Superman" comic book issue from back when, wherein every single panel was a full-page spread of Supes and Doomsday clobbering each other (most of them unrelated to the previous one, I might add); it looked pretty but the attempted drama it was going for got old real fast. Anyone can say what they will about GWB's speaking abilities, but, for the zillionth time, I'd rather have an imperfect but genuine public speaker than a phony and demagogic speaker. Oh, spoiler warning for the death of Superman above, by the way.

If you're tired of reading this exchange on federalism and social issues, read my piece today about trial lawyer Fred Baron. My emailer again (whose emails I always appreciate, in case people can't tell from the fact that I'm spending so much time on them today):

Let me just say that I feel strongly that if a state passes a law which seriously infringes upon the rights to life or liberty of free citizens, then the Federal government has an interest in acting. You mentioned child abuse. If a state or states made child abuse legal (or at least decriminalized it), then I would have no problem with the Feds stepping in and saying, "You can't do that." States may have different laws regarding child abuse, but all of them criminalize it and punish offenders in at least a minimally acceptable manner.

Yes, if abortion were only legal in one state, then it might be easier as a practical matter to fight it in that one state. But if the effort were unsuccessful, or if other states started hinting that they, too, would like to legalize it, then an amendment would be in order.

In this case, abortion is legal in all 50 states thanks to the Roe decision. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, it would have the same effect as a constitutional amendment assigning the matter of abortion to the states. We could probably expect that about half the states would then outlaw abortion outright, with a few more severely restricting it. So there we would sit, with millions of babies continuing to be killed. I just don't see this as a tenable position, any more than was the position of those who felt that slavery and Jim Crow should have been left to the states.

My response: The question in our debate has not been whether it would be wrong for the federal government to step in one or more states legalized abortion or child abuse; it has been whether it would be wrong for it not to step in.

Pro-lifers have spent more time and energy over the last 20 years trying to get Roe reversed than trying to pass a Human Life Amendment. The movement is theoretically on the same page as my e-mailer: Most pro-lifers do seem to think that to move away from a constitutional ban, at least as a long-term goal, is a surrender of principle. Practically speaking, the movement has for the most part been trying to get the issue back to the states. (I don't think the campaign for federal and state bans on partial-birth abortion invalidates this point.) I don't think this has been a retreat from principle.

In a post-Roe world, a few states might generally ban abortion, several would generally permit it, and many would regulate it much more than they do now. Pro-lifers would work in those states to get as much protection for the unborn as possible. They might find that calling for a federal constitutional ban on abortion was an important part of their strategy in getting more protection. But while they worked for that long-term goal, they would be trying to ban it state by state. If they were successful in the constitutional campaign, presumably they would first have to be successful in many states.

By the time you could amend the Constitution, you would have to have most states in the pro-life camp already. Maybe--this is a fantastically optimistic projection, but the idea that you would be near ratification of the amendment is fantastically optimistic to begin with--you would have six states left that allowed abortion. Under those circumstances, it might well make sense to have a federal constitutional amendment. It would give the pro-life policy more durability, include those states even if majorities there were recalcitrant, etc. On the other hand, it might still work better to work within those six states. Maybe by that point you would have a consensus in 44 states to ban abortion, but still have many voters there who find the idea of amending the Constitution radical, or don't wish to dictate to other states' citizens; or maybe there would be other factors that made an amendment harder to accomplish. (I'm not saying those voters' judgments would be right.) Maybe, even under those circumstances, it would be wisest of pro-lifers not to go the federal constitutional route, or at least not to put 9/10ths of their energies into that effort.

You could end the day banning abortion in all fifty states; or banning it in the federal Constitution; or just working forever to change the law in those states. Throughout any of these possible future histories, pro-lifers could have done everything in their power at every point to protect unborn life without ever necessarily making a big push to amend the federal Constitution. How best to advance the principle that unborn life must be protected in law is itself a question of prudence, not principle.

If you have any remaining shreds of doubt that Tony Blair's Labour Party is dedicated to unecessary meddling, read this:

"A minister for the Olympics could be appointed as part of the summer reshuffle, to increase London's chances of securing the Games in 2012."

The Olympics are not only dull, corrupt and riddled with hubris, they are a blight on any city on which they descend. If he possessed any commonsense, Blair would appoint a minister to save London from this menace. Meanwhile, Nurse Bloomberg, a man on a mission to make life in New York City as miserable as possible, is doing his best to bring the revolting Olympics spectacle to the Big Apple. No surprises there. Hopefully, neither man will prevail.

Go, Paris, go!

London (CNN) - Another Saudi militant has given himself up, this time in Damascus, according to Saudi security sources. Details are sketchy, but Ibrahim al-Harbi gave himself up to the Saudi Embassy in Damascus today. He is said to have been with bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9/11 but there was little other detail about him.

Two days ago, Khalid al-Harbi surrendered to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran. Both men, who are thought to be from the same Saudi tribe but not necessarily closely related, were said to be taking advantage of an offer of amnesty extended by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah last month

My emailer is not giving up that easily: We "let" each state decide how to punish most murderers, but only within prescribed Federal court-mandated parameters. States are only allowed to implement the death penalty because the Supreme Court has deemed that it does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment for certain types of major criminals. Let a state pass a law that allows capital punishment for shoplifting and see how fast the Federal courts stop it!

I admit ignorance on the history of legalized abortion in this country, but I assume from your message that 1960 was the year that a state first legalized abortion. [I just used 1960 because I know all states prohibited abortion at that time, and was too lazy to look up which year the first legalization took place. -- RP] Going with this assumption, then no, the U.S. was not unprincipled from 1889-1960 because none of the states had legalized abortion; there was no need for an amendment. We don't have a constitutional amendment against ritual sacrifice, either, but it (along with billions of other theoretical amendments) is unnecessary because no state currently allows it. If, however, California were to legalize ritual sacrifice and the Supreme Court were to rule that states have the right to legalize it if they want to, then I would definitely support an amendment to stop it. And yes, it would be unprincipled to take the position that ritual sacrifice is an issue best left to the states.

My response: Hell hath no fury like a Ponnuru accused of being unprincipled.

The Supreme Court got into the business of regulating the death penalty in recent decades. Whether it was right or not can be debated. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we were living in a country where the Constitution, properly interpreted, left the states alone in this matter--that the historic rule were correct and applied here. How would that set of affairs be unprincipled? Child-abuse laws are almost entirely state-level. Unprincipled?

As I've said before, I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection to all persons requires Congress to see to it than the unborn are protected from homicide in all 50 states. But let's assume that the amendment did not exist (or that I'm wrong, as the vast majority of legal analysts believe). It's 1867, and some state decides to permit abortion. You could very well try to amend the federal Constitution to block this. Or you could just try to change the law in that state. Let's say that it's easier to work within that state to change the law than to amend the federal Constitution--as it very well could be. Under those circumstances, it would make a great deal of sense for pro-lifers to work within the state; it would be perverse not to do so. And there would be no reason in principle that they would have to amend the Constitution: the course of action they should choose would depend on those circumstances.

Today is Day 13 of the Joe Wilson abduction. A quick Nexis search shows that the last time he was on television was July 2. This is like a diabetic going two weeks without his insulin. Clearly, he must be handcuffed to a radiator somehwere. Why else would he not explain himself publicly?

In all seriousness, as James Taranto noted yesterday, for Joe Wilson to turn down TV appearances must mean he's got real problems. Indeed, Josh Marshall says that White House staffers subject to criminal prosecution should just come forward and admit they accidentally outed Valerie Plame if that's all they did. I agree in principle, but in reality that's a bit naive. Who knows what's going on behind the scenes between the lawyers and the prosectors (and I don't recall Marshall saying all the Clintonites should just come clean to Ken Starr).

But Marshall's disingenous suggestion can much more easily be directed against Wilson. Why on earth has he shut up? Can anyone think of another public figure who enjoyed preening in the limelight more than Wilson? Why, suddenly, when demand spikes for him to trot out to the studios has he gotten stage fright? His honor is at stake. He's being called a liar -- by lots and lots of people. His wife has been called a liar. And yet Wilson, who is facing no criminal charges, tells CNN he's not doing television interviews. Indeed, since Wilson lied to Marshall himself, why isn't Marshall leading the charge for Wilson to clear the air?

UPDATE: My apologies to Tim. See his breakdown on media coverage of the Wilson Abduction here.

Obviously I do favor the Journal and Hatch "position" in that I favor an amendment that would give power over same-sex marriage, civil unions, and related issues to state legislatures. But let's not read into this a unified position on other matters. The Journal opposes the FMA and Hatch supports it. I've never suggested that there is something in principle wrong or illegitimate with amending the Constitution to include a policy on marriage.

What I have said is this: 1) The Hatch language is crafted narrowly to meet the danger that social conservatives correctly claim to exist and that inspired the calls to amend the Constitution in the first place--the danger, that is, that judges will impose same-sex marriage on the country. Going beyond a ban on judges imposing same-sex marriage is, whether wise or unwise, unnecessary. 2) There are reasons to think that the Hatch language would be easier to enact than the FMA. 3) The possibility of amending the Constitution in a Hatch-like way suggests that the common conservative talking point that it is inevitable that we will have a national definition of marriage--either judge-imposed same-sex marriage or the FMA--is wrong. That's the point that I made yesterday, objecting to the making of this point by you and by others.

You ask if I would object to a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I would not. (Indeed, I believe that existing constitutional language already points in this direction, but I'm going to leave that aside for this post.) But I would also be delighted if a constitutional amendment giving responsibility for the issue to state legislatures rather than the courts were to pass. Such an amendment would probably also be easier to pass than an amendment that banned abortion. (Which is not to say it would be easy to pass.) So under most circumstances I would suggest that pro-lifers would be wiser to take up the state-legislature amendment than to take up an abortion-ban amendment.

John - I agree with you. But winning the Vice-Presidency isn't that great either. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Vice Presidents don't often get to be president -- unless the boss dies or resigns. As I've written around here before, since 1804 — when veep and presidential candidates started running on the same ticket — only two sitting VPs have been elected president without the help of their boss dying first: Martin Van Buren and the first President Bush. Richard Nixon is the only former vice president to be elected president without the benefit of first being an unelected president, through the death or resignation of his boss. This explains why Teddy Roosevelt called the office a steppingstone to oblivion, and John Nance Garner said things about it not printable on a family website.

Gore would have been the third sitting VP to be elected (and liberal readers can spare me the emails about how Gore was elected. Old joke, doesn't get better with age). But his problems, I think, highlight a lot of the disadvantages of being a VP. You have another politician's baggage to explain and if you try to distance yourself too much from your old boss, you tick-off your base in the process. Plus, the Vice Presidency is inherently castrating which never helps when you're trying to run for alpha dog.

Editorial Assistant Opening
CRISIS Magazine
Washington, D.C.
Excellent entry-level opportunity at CRISIS, a national Catholic magazine of politics, culture, and the Church. Applicant must be loyal to the Magisterium and attentive to the role of the Church in the culture. Previous editorial experience, such as with a college newspaper or magazine, is preferred. Responsibilities are both editorial and administrative. Fully paid medical benefits. Email resume and writing sample to Margaret Cabaniss, managing editor, at cabaniss@crisismagazine.com or fax to her at 202-861-7788.

Not that it would matter to the constituency in question. But simply for the record: If you start prattling to me via email or in any other mode of communication about how Whoopi Goldberg's (no relation) firing from Slim Fast constitutes censorship or anything of the like I will assume you are simply trying to make yourself look silly. One can already hear this buzzing around the web and it's like a dye-marker for the ridiculous.

The obvious points:

Censorship is what governments do. Refusing to pay a spokeswoman who hurts your business is what businesses do. Slim-Fast is not only a private firm, its president is a die-hard Democrat who despises Bush. Whoopi can still say all of the same things she said to those Democrats that night, she just can't get paid to hawk weight-loss products by Slim-Fast at the same time. If she -- or anybody else -- was really concerned about Whoopi's free speech, they'd want the Democrats to stop "censoring" the videotape in question. I know for a fact that C-Span wants to run it, I heard them say so just the other day. Last, if your heart bleeds for Whoopi, it must also bleed for Anita Bryant, no?

Britain’s Labour government is contemplating the introduction of a law against inciting 'religious hatred', whatever that means. This is a bad idea: it’s easy to see how the threat of prosecution could be abused to, say, muzzle future Salman Rushdies.

David Green of the British think-tank Civitas is not impressed.

”[British Home Secretary] Mr Blunkett's particular intention is to give protection to Islam, but of all the major religions it is the one that should remain open to free criticism, for its own good. A great battle is currently going on between moderates and fundamentalists. For moderates, religious faith offers moral guidance for free and responsible individuals. For fundamentalists, the Koran contains absolute truths that must never be questioned. Both are concerned with right and wrong, but moderates speak the language of chiding, reproach, remorse and forgiveness; extremists think in terms of heresy, apostasy and punishment. The fatwah against Salman Rushdie, calling for him to be put to death for stepping out of line, should have been warning enough. And yet Mr Blunkett wants to protect extremists and their fatwahs from liberal criticism…

“For the sake of religion, democracy and the continuance of our tradition of tolerance, there should be no law against religious hatred. Priests, rabbis and imams should develop thick skins.”

Indeed they should. As Nick Cohen wrote in last Sunday’s Observer “a religion is a system of ideas like any other and must have its claims tested in the necessarily rough arguments of a free society. If people's sensibilities are offended, that's tough.”

It’s not only tough, it’s healthy.

Needless to say, such thinking runs entirely contrary to the sappy, and intellectually insulting, ecumenism that is this country’s official creed, but that’s a topic for another time.

The news that John Edwards has used fairly sophisticated techniques to keep his tax bill down, and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s continued, uh, reticence over her own contribution to Uncle Sam has made for entertaining reading, but it begs one, critical, question.

What will Arianna say?

As the woman who edged out Gary Coleman in California’s gubernatorial race, Arianna Huffington is clearly someone of national importance, and Mrs. Huffington does not, she says, like the idea of the rich gaming the system. Here’s what she wrote on July 7th:

“Edwards’ core theme of the two Americas — “one for the powerful insiders, and another for everyone else” — helps sharpen the differences between the two tickets, and underlines that, far from being a uniter, George Bush has been the ultimate divider. As Edwards evocatively paints it, Bush has created two school systems, two health care systems, two economic systems, two tax systems…”

Two tax systems, eh?

So, come on Arianna, tell us what you think about Edwards’ subchapter S. And tell us what you think about Teresa. Come on, we’re waiting.

Should you trust doctors in Pennsylvania?

It seems not.

Via Radley Balko.

Q: Other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, has an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate ever become a successful presidential candidate? -- Martin Hoerchner, London, England

A: Nope. FDR, who ran with Ohio Gov. James Cox on the unsuccessful 1920 Democratic ticket, won the presidency 12 years later.

John Tyler deserves a mention, however. Tyler was an unsuccessful Whig Party candidate for vice president in 1836. That year, the Whigs ran four different candidates for president (Tyler ran for VP on two of them), in the hope that a split vote would throw the election into the House. The strategy didn't work, as Democrat Martin Van Buren won. In 1840, Tyler was again running for vice president, and this time he was successful, as the Whig ticket led by William Henry Harrison was elected. One month later, Harrison was dead and Tyler was president. But he never succeeded in winning support from Whigs or Democrats, and in 1844 he failed in his bid to keep his job.

All this is from http://www.npr.org/features/columns/column.php?columnId=1930201 -- which for some reason I can't link to in the usual fashion.

Pretty dang funny. From the Onion:

X2 come out last year. Spider-Man 2 come out last month. Both great sequels to great movies about Hulk friends. Hulk love great action movies about friends! People buy tickets. Make money for theaters, make money for movie company. Movie company make more movies with money. Already, they working on X-Men 3. Hulk movie come out last year. It success. It big popcorn movie with heart. So why no one want make Hulk 2? It make Hulk mad!

Hulk know what people say. Original movie no good, people say. Hulk movie Hulk-sized bomb, people say. That not true! Hulk more successful than people think. Make $132 million in U.S. alone, only cost $120 million. That not small potatoes. Add international box-office receipts and DVD sales and it add up to big money. Big! Oh, and did Hulk forget merchandising tie-ins? First Hulk movie really forge Hulk brand identity. Make people aware of Hulk. Hulk now poised to build on success of first Hulk movie. Hulk 2 smash box-office records!

First Hulk movie flawed but underrated. Oscar-winner Jennifer Connelly give sublime performance as Hulk romantic interest Betty Ross. She pretty. Australian hunk Eric Bana good in breakthrough American role as puny human Bruce Banner. Film even give tip of hat to TV Hulk and Stan "The Man" Lee. Sure, conflict with father stray from original story, but it provide new twist on classic legend. Necessary to increase dramatic tension. Make Hulk seem more human so audience can identify with puny human Banner.

Why no one appreciate daring vision of Ang Lee? Aaargh! Ang Lee genius! [More...]

From a reader:

"Yost Sucked!

Not only was he not a Red Sox player, but he was really bad! And he only managed 1 game for the Washington Senators, never for the Red Sox.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/y/yosted01.shtml

First of all that original link is to an old column from 2000. That's the bad news. The good news is that Kerry did in fact think that Yost played for the BoSox. Here's an item from an earlier column by Gammons:

These people deserve a Camden Yards for putting up with narrow aisles, seats built for scrawny 10-year-olds, no room to buy concessions and the grunge of an outdated facility that last year wasn't properly cleaned, per choice of those who look down from the luxury suites. It's not going to happen, though, not with a trust owning the team or the local political delegation. There are no Tip O'Neills or Bill Welds, just city councilors who suggest using Braves Field (which hasn't existed for 30 years), and national representation summed up by a junior senator whose idea of the common man is someone who can only put $10,000 into his campaign funds, thinks low-cost housing is a $680,000 house on Nantucket, changed his middle name to be J.F.K., threw someone else's medals into the ocean in a Vietnam Veterans rally and out-Hillaried that lifelong Yankee fan by appearing on WEEI's Eddie Andelman's show and told listeners he's a lifelong Red Sox fan whose favorite Bosox player was Eddie Yost (too bad Yost never played for the Red Sox).

Note: Thanks to Ben Domenech of Red State for the help.

Senator John McCain of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was set to testify today, as was FEC chairman Bradley Smith. Before the hearing began, Smith went over to McCain to introduce himself.

McCain had his hand sort-of out, but then pulled it back. He said to Smith that while he would say "hello" to him, he would not shake his hand. He then called Smith a "bully," "corrupt" and someone "with no concern for the Constitution," or words to that effect. He then added that he didn't have to talk to Smith, wasn't going to talk to Smith, and that he wouldn't talk to him anymore.

I witnessed the exchange. I am assuming that anyone sitting a similar distance away, who chose to pay attention, would have also heard and seen the same thing.

From another reader:

Kerry never changed his middle initial, or his middle name for that
matter.

You should have called Gammon on that.

Just for the record, my point was a sincere one. Politicians have to go to picnics with firemen and cops and all sorts of union guys. Particularly Democrats and particularly in Massachusetts. Kerry was Lt. Governor of the state. You would just think that he'd have his lines memorized about his favorite Red Sox player. One reader tells me that Yost was a manager of the Sox in the 1950s, so maybe that explains the gaffe in the sense of his recollection. Here's one explanation from a reader that might work:

Jonah and gang,

As a veritable baseball addict, I find it entirely possible to have a favorite player who doesn't play for the home team. Growing up, my favorite team was the Minnesota Twins but my favorite player (as a boy) was Reggie Jackson. As I'm sure even you are aware, Reggie Jackson never played for Minnesota. Even more obviously, lots of kids not in Chicago or LA will still name Jordan or Bryant or Magic Johnson as their favorite players.

Yost was actually a Senator (the baseball kind) during Kerry's youth. So it's very possible that Kerry accurately remembered fond memories of Yost - just playing in the road uniform. I remember having similar feelings about Michael Jordan when the Bulls would play the Wolves.

This isn't to say Kerry doesn't fudge the truth or split hairs too much. But the passage Gammons writes does not say that Kerry believed Yost was a Sox (Sawx?) player. He writes only that Yost was Kerry's favorite, and that Kerry liked the Sox.

And this reader suggests that Gammons has it in for Kerry:

Jonah -

I regularly read Peter Gammons, and the guy sounds like a Dem. To my
knowledge, he's never stated so clearly, but I've complained to him a few
times about using his position for political and economic preaching. I'm
sure others could come up with more specific examples; I particularly recall
a really negative characterization about WalMart and its allegedly predatory
behavior toward 'mom-n-pop' businesses. I know he's made other comments as
well.

Just saying that for a guy like Kerry to run afoul of Gammons - sounds like
he must really not like him.

1. You may have noticed that the editors of the Wall Street Journal came out against it this morning. They don't think the Constitution should block same-sex marriage. But they came out for a constitutional amendment that would take the issue away from judges. Their position is very close to my own, and it entails their opposition to most of the specious arguments made against the FMA. Most of the editorial is taken up with refuting those arguments.

2. Proponents of the FMA, including several on this site, keep saying that we are going to have a national policy, and the only question is whether that policy includes or excludes same-sex marriage. Either there will be a national no same-sex-marriage policy through FMA, or the judges will impose same-sex marriage everywhere. But this set of alternatives assumes that we don't make a national decision not to have a national policy: by passing an amendment that leaves the decision to state legislatures. It is unlikely that we will pass such an amendment, of course, because it is unlikely that any amendment will pass--but that is obviously true of the FMA too. (It is, indeed, one of the strengths of the litigative campaign for same-sex marriage that it backed opponents into the position where their only hope of prevailing was to go the extremely difficult route of amending the Constitution.)

3. How bad has Senator Frist's choreography of this debate been? In Roll Call, Mark Preston reported that Democrats were willing to allow an up-or-down vote on FMA, blocking both amendments and filibusters. Republicans decided to reject the offer, and so what we had was a vote on whether to vote on the FMA. From what I can gather, Republicans had three reasons for this: (1) They thought that it would be easier to prevail on future FMA votes if senators didn't compile a record of voting against it. But that means that they have to get senators who thought that the FMA was not even worth voting on to vote for it. It's not obvious that this will be easier than switching a vote. (2) They thought they could make the Democrats look obstructionist, since they were voting against a vote. But that assumed that the media would not tell the full story of the rejected offer. That strategy has thus already failed. (3) They thought a defeat on the FMA would be more demoralizing to social conservatives than a procedural defeat. How does that make sense? Is it better for social conservatives to see that most senators don't think their priorities are even worth a vote? When Republicans try to be clever, the results are rarely what they would wish.

Here's a fun item from Peter Gammons at ESPN:

We have been led to cynically believe that many politicians are disingenuous and generally phony, but few will ever beat Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. This man, who changed his middle initial to be JFK and at an anti-Vietnam rally threw someone else's medals into the water, made a self-promotion appearance with Boston talk-show maven Eddie Andelman and claimed he was a big Red Sox fan from his days growing up in Groton, Mass. And at the promotion he said Eddie Yost was his favorite player.

The problem with that is just the simple fact that Eddie Yost never played for the Red Sox.

Me: I am no baseball junky, as everyone here knows. But I do like politics. And while I can understand why I wouldn't know that Eddie Yost never played for the Red Sox, I am baffled how a politician from Mass. could make a mistake like that.

Lots of email like this:

Jonah- Nice try, but in spite of all the obvious dangers lurking out there in Osamaland, I've felt safer just knowing that Bush is actually DOING something about terrorism beside talking to our eurofriends and blowing up aspirin factories. The only thing that could make me feel LESS safe would be a Congressional investigation into how to make us safer, or, for that feeling of TOTAL vulnerability, a Kerry victory in November.

Interesting email from a reader (I corrected one typo):

When the Starr report was made public, independents (like me) who usually lean to the right began to support the president. All the caustic criticism and the self righteous condemnation really turned me off.

These days I'm swinging in the opposite direction but for similar reasons. Michael Moore, the 911 Commission, the Intelligence Committee report - these things are making my blood boil.

I'll vote for the president, not because I think he's doing a great job, but because those [standing] against him disgust me.

I'm sure I'm not alone. maybe something to think about.

No wonder Joe Wilson won't give TV interviews. You can download it here . And here's a summary

Here are two snippets worth highlighting:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government's dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's state of the union address of 2003 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well founded.

And...

Even now it would be premature to reach conclusions about Iraq's prohibited weapons. Much potential evidence may have been destroyed in the looting and disorder that followed the cessation of hostilities. Other material may be hidden in the sand, including stocks of agent or weapons. We believe that it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological or chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found. But as a result of our review, and taking into account the evidence which has been found by the ISG and debriefing of Iraqi personnel, we have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:

a) Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when UN inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b) In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.

c) Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations security council resolutions, but did not have significant - if any - stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them.

Q. Have you done any farming yourself?

A. No I shouldn't say never: When I was a young kid, we'd go sometimes to pull tobacco and stuff. But I've never done any serious farming.

Q. Would you call yourself a NASCAR fan?

A. I would call myself somebody who's interested in NASCAR, yeah.

Q. You don't follow the weekly races?

A. No, but I don't follow anything except politicking.

Q. Do you hunt?

A. I used to hunt a lot. Haven't hunted in years.

Q. Fish?

A. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I haven't fished in years either. Just (whispers) no time.

Q. Do you own a gun?

A. Not today. I have in the past.

Q. Are you a country music fan?

A. (Laughs) I have in the past been a country music fan.

Q. You said you had a gun in the past. How long ago was that?

A. When I was growing up. I haven't had a gun in - you mean personally? - in years. I'd have to figure out when.

Q. What kind of gun was it?

A. Get out of here (laughs).

Q. People want to know these things.

A. Yeah, I know. You want to know these things. (Laughter from his staff as Edwards departs to return to the Senate)."

I know, I know I've dropped the ball on the traditional Bastille Day anti-French tirade (Though there is a swipe in today's G-File which will be up soon). I really don't have a good excuse, I've just been so busy lately I let the day sneak up on me. I promise I'll get back to it some day. In the meantime, this guy has compiled some highlights from previous Bastille Day columns.

UPDATE Woops. I guess K-Lo and I got the same email.

Maybe this has been addressed somewhere. But shouldn't Weapons of Mass Destruction be abbreviated to WsMD?

"WMDs" would be Weapon of Mass Destructions (which maybe technically could describe a MIRV?)

The threat of litigation can be an important disincentive to many predatory behaviors that could take advantage of vulnerable patients, and it can help our efforts to enforce the law against such activities. But as the New York Times described it, the lawyers are doing what we want patients and doctors to do: they’re reading the warnings that we put on products, and they’re taking action when we add a warning or withdraw a product from the market based on our analysis of new information. Using the information they get from us, they file a few suits with very sick plaintiffs in states and counties considered favorable to plaintiffs, while building big “inventories” of less seriously ill patients, or even people who have used the drug but are not sick. The point of our warnings and the other science-based information on a medical product labeling is to provide doctors and patients with the up to date scientific information about risks and benefits, so that they can maximize benefits and minimize risks. And we need to learn more about products on the market – even, as with hormone therapies, products that have been on the market for decades.

So instead of pursuing real wrongdoing, our legal system is piling on to our legitimate warnings about the risks of medical products. This is a problem, because all medical products carry risks as well as benefits. This is especially true of the most risky products, like medications for pregnant women or women of childbearing age, or medicines that are given to prevent illness in healthy people, such as vaccines. Because of legal risks, product developers are getting out of these businesses, yet these are precisely the kinds of areas where there is often the greatest medical need. Because of legal risks, providers and manufacturers may be reluctant to develop data on existing patient risks and how they may be prevented. This is a serious public health problem. High quality medical care involves managing risks – including balancing the risks of treatments with the often more serious risks of illnesses. To the extent that our legal system encourages managing litigation risks instead of patient risks, reforms may be needed.

Washington, DC- The Kerry-Edwards campaign announced today that Barack Obama, Illinois state senator and the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, will deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, July 27.

You may not recall, but it's my contention that whenever the economy goes well, Paul Krugman kicks his cat (Yeah I know most of you remember this but sometimes you gotta bring the newbies up to speed):

Anyway, here are some items (distributed by the Bush campaign) which might have that poor tabby soaring:

Wednesday, July 14, 2004: Record Exports, Growing Manufacturing

U.S. Trade Deficit Falls As Exports Hit Record High. "America's trade deficit narrowed to $46 billion during May, an improvement brought about as U.S. exports posted their best month on record." (Jeannine Aversa, "U.S. Trade Deficit Falls As Exports Hit Record," The Associated Press, 7/13/04)

Sales Of American-Made Cars, Engines And Parts Reach Record Level. "Sales of American-made automobiles, engines and parts rose by 1.3 percent, to $7.2 billion, a record high. Industrial supplies, including chemicals and plastic materials, also hit an all-time monthly high of $17.3 billion in May, up from $16.3 billion the month before. Exports of capital goods, such as airplanes and industrial engines, climbed to $28.8 billion." (Jeannine Aversa, "U.S. Trade Deficit Falls As Exports Hit Record," The Associated Press, 7/13/04)

Factory Index Logs Broad Gains. "The Chicago Federal Reserve's gauge of factory activity in the Midwest rose 2.2% in May to a seasonally adjusted 119.3. All four of the index's sectors--autos, steel, machinery and resources--registered increases in activity." ("Factory Index Logs Broad Gains," Investor's Business Daily, 7/13/04)

Optimism On Economy At Six Month High. "Americans are finally seeing a burst of optimism over the economy after another month of job growth, lower gas prices and relative calm in Iraq. The IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index jumped 4.5 points, or 8.5%, to 57.3 in July, a six-month high." (Brian Mitchell, "U.S. Optimism On Economy At 6-Mo. High," Investor's Business Daily, 7/14/04)

Consumer Comfort Hits Five Month High. "The ABC News/Money Magazine consumer comfort index rose for the fourth consecutive week, although the latest week's gain was just a single point. The index is currently at a five-month high." ("ABC News/Money Magazine Consumer Comfort Index For United States," Economy.com, 7/14/04)

You may not have heard of him, though he's been a contributor to National Review for years. He is currently the Chief Counsel of the FDA. He also happens to be a very old friend of mine going back to my first days in Washington. Also, my brother-in-law happens to work with him at the FDA.

Anyway, I haven't talked to Dan about any of this -- apparently he's not commenting to the press -- but it sounds like the trial lawyers are trying to screw him through their representatives in Congress. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has launched a broadside against Dan for his efforts to keep the trial lawyers from writing the prescription drug laws. According to Federal law, the FDA is supposed to have final jurisdiction over prescription drug labelling. But the trial lawyers want it to be an issue for state courts so that they can bring suits at the state level. So, as Chief Counsel Dan has filed amicus briefs to these courts arguing that this is a federal issue. This is precisely the position the Clinton administration took, by the way. But Hinchey and his friends are trying to demonize Dan, particularly in an election year. In a news conference yesterday Hinchey brought out the families of some people who are suing Zoloft. They sound like terrible cases and you can't blame the families for being upset. One father declared, "Having Daniel Troy as chief legal counsel of the FDA," he said, "is like placing John Gotti in charge of the Justice Department." The thin reed they're standing on is that Dan's old law firm represented Pfizer before Dan went to the FDA while Dan did little direct work for them. Indeed, as I understand it, Dan overreported the amount of money he made from that work, just to be on the safe side. Of course, Dan obeyed all the ethics rules and completely recused himself from all issues pertaining to Pfizer for the first year of his tenure at the FDA. Which gets me to my point.

I wouldn't normally write about stuff like this -- ain't exactly my beat. But I've known Dan for a very long time. I know his family and one of his brothers is a very close friend of mine. Dan is without a doubt one of the most ethical and intellectually honest people I've ever met in my life. He's the sort of straight arrow it's fun to make fun of precisely because he's such a straight arrow. He is one of the only people I know who would have become a lawyer if lawyers didn't make much money. As a successful lawyer and Chief Counsel for the FDA, Dan's going to do just fine no matter what. The idea that he's doing anything not based on the law and on principle is absurd.

I don't know if this will be a big deal or not, but when you see a friend in the crosshairs of the trial lawyers in an election year, you get nervous.

An email: "ENDER'S GAME is absolutely not in production right now, nor is it anywhere close to pre-production. It is still trapped in what we lovingly refer to as 'development hell.' A few years ago, it looked like it might get the long-sought greenlight with Jake Lloyd (frickin' Jake Lloyd!) attached to play Ender.

"Thank God, the Jake Lloyd travesty did not occur. But when the picture fell
apart, no one exactly rushed to put it back together again.

"Wolfgang Petersen is now ostensibly attached to direct, but Wolfgang
Petersen is attached to direct many, many things ranging from BATMAN VS.
SUPERMAN to the traffic at the intersection of Sunset and Highland when
school lets out in the afternoon.

"Not to be the bearer of sad tidings for poor Ramesh, but if I were him I
wouldn't hold my breath."

1. There's a press conference at Navy Pier in Chicago at 6:30 today...The Illinois House Minority Leader, who is apparently behind this movement, will be conducting the press conference.

2. Jack Ryan was spotted eating at Ditka's restaurant Monday. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

3. Local pundit Jeff Berkowitz jeffberkowitz.blogspot.com contends that George Allen told Jack Ryan not to take his name off the ballot until he saw who the replacement is. He (and others) believe Jack Ryan could very well stay in the race yet. To be honest, I volunteered for Jack, and when he dropped out, I told the volunteer coordinator that I'd be happy to help close things out (clean out the office, etc.). She said she'd call me/e-mail me when needed. Hasn't happened yet.

I personally believe Ditka's going to run, and I'll support him. But I've been trying to tell you for the last week that Ditka was serious...

Ditka is very close to having all the votes on the Illinois GOP State Central Committee.

Also, Archpundit (a liberal blog, but he does report a little bit) has been doing "Cattle Calls" during the primary for the Repubs and Dems. He resurrected it after Ryan withdrew. Here's the latest.

Welcome to the screwed-up world of Illinois politics.

Bear Down!

Mike Ditka said yesterday on a local sports talk radio that his wife's comments were just a joke. She was kidding about the divorce comment. She even said today she thought Ditka would do an excellent job if he did decide to run for the Senate. He and his wife are very close and there's no way she would divorce him. Ditka said his wife would support him which ever way he chooses. It's just the media taking a joking remark and turning it into something that it's not. However, his family might be the last hurdle. I think he really wants to run but he has to check with family and the Republican committee first.

The local radio talk shows here in Chicago were abuzz with Ditka talk today. I'd say there's about a 60% chance he'll run as I'm following this story very closely myself. He said he'll make the decision by the end of the week.

Some Ditka polls.

Could Mike Ditka beat Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate seat? Yes 63%
No 18%
...

Source WLS radio website



If the election were today, who would elect to the US Senate? Mike Ditka (75%)
Barack Obama (24%)

source: www.670thescore.com (sports talk radio in chicago)

The local DJ's were already speculating about the Ditka legislative agenda (repeal of in-door smoking laws, Illinois highway lines to be orange and navy, free hip-replacements for all, etc.). Can't imagine a more ludicrous candidate, but I'll guarantee you if he decides to run, it'll be incredibly entertaining, and will make Obama actually have to work for the job (which he hasn't as yet).

Customers interested in this title may also be interested in:
Sponsored Links ( What's this? ) Feedback

Luxury Nude Vacation
Hidden Beach Resort Luxurious Nude Resort in Mexico

Most of the feedback to my Cosby column was very favorable. But I love this one:

in most of your columns i finish reading (very few) you come off as pompous and, oh so, self-righteous, but your recent "bill cosby" item proves you can also be a patronizing, condescending prick to boot. how would you teach a 2 year old to swim - throw him into the pool and go back indoors?

That's right. I'm the one who thinks blacks can make do on their own and he thinks they're like a two-year old child left to drown in a pool without the tutelage of the feds -- but, hey, I'm condescending.

Marriage Protection - Just Discrimination Against Homosexuals? ***Gays and lesbians have the right to live how they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the entire nation.

***It is horribly offensive to accuse the vast majority of Americans of bigotry for wanting to defend and preserve traditional marriage. It defies common sense.

***Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996 by votes of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. DOMA defines marriage as man-woman for purposes of federal statutes. Bigots?

***Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Bigot?

***60% of California voters approved a state Defense of Marriage Act in 2000 that defined marriage as man-woman. Bigots?

***More than 3/4 of states have laws on the books attempting to protect traditional marriage. Bigots?

***Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage by a 2-1 margin. Bigots? ***The government licenses and encourages marriage not to discriminate but to promote the ideal environment for the raising of children.

***Consider the Judiciary Committee testimony of one of Boston's most respected African American leaders, Rev. Richard Richardson of St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, and Children's Services of Roxbury, Inc:

"I want to state something very clearly, without equivocation, hesitation, or doubt. The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about discrimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination."

"The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery. From what I can tell, every U.S. Senator - both Democrat and Republican - who has talked about marriage has said that they support traditional marriage laws and oppose what the Massachusetts court did. Are they all guilty of discrimination?"

***Nor is the defense of marriage about equal access to government benefits - no matter how many times you hear the pro-same-sex marriage forces say that it is. Nothing in the Marriage Amendment prevents the state or federal governments from granting any benefits they choose to homosexuals or same-sex couples.

"Andrew, I have your friend beat. Amazon's introduced this feature that turns your Amazon homepage into a list of recommendations. This was one of my latest."My Life was released today: We thought you'd be interested because you boughtMaking Saints: How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn't, and Why ."

And then there's this.

Via Baltic Blog

"Livingstone's unrepentant welcome to Yusuf al-Qaradawi shows him to be a keen fellow traveller of a man who could be described with some precision as evil, given the succour, not to say support, which he gives to murderers. al-Qaradawi is man deserving not of a welcoming handshake but a deportation order, and any politician who voices support for him is as contemptible. There are more important things than road pricing, and my failure to recognise what others were telling me day after day - that Livingstone had not changed his spots - is pretty inexcusable."

Good for Stephen for saying this. Will the Economist now have the guts to follow his example?

If ever there was an example of a man not needing the state to teach a lesson he's already learned, it must be this:

LONDON (Reuters) - A British man who accidentally shot himself in the testicles after drinking 15 pints of beer was jailed for five years on Tuesday for possessing an illegal firearm, a court spokesman said.

David Walker, 28, was arguing with a friend at a pub in South Yorkshire, northern England, when he went home to get his sawed-off shotgun, which he jammed into his trousers.

But as he walked back to the pub, the gun went off, blasting pellets into his testicles. Doctors later removed what remained of his testicles during emergency surgery.

Walker admitted possessing a prohibited weapon at a hearing in June at the court in Sheffield.

By the same guy who sent me that email last week about Doe v. Bolton, as it happens:

Chesterton's remark that America is "a nation with the soul of a church" is in his book What I Saw in America. I'm not sure what year it was published, but from remarks he makes it was certainly after World War I. I have excerpts from it in an old paperback titled The Man Who Was Chesterton, edited by Raymond T. Bond and originally published in hardcover in 1937.

The phrase comes after several pages in which GKC muses on being asked on a form at the U.S. consulate, prior to his coming over, whether he is an anarchist. This leads him to thoughts like these (the quotes are widely separated):

"America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature."

"Now a creed is at once the broadest and the narrowest thing in the world. In its nature it is as broad as its scheme for a brotherhood of all men. In its nature it is limited by its definition of the nature of all men. This was true of the Christian Church, which was truly said to exclude neither Jew nor Greek, but which did definitely substitute something else for Jewish religion or Greek philosophy."

"America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. Only, so far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial."

And following the "soul of a church" comment:

"When we realise the democratic design of such a cosmopolitan commonwealth, and compare it with our [English] insular reliance or instincts, we see at once why such a thing has to be not only democratic but dogmatic. We see why in some points it tends to be inquisitive or intolerant."

My response: Thanks for the information. This certainly seems to suggest that the common assumption that the quote refers to high American rates of religiosity--as in a book that I am now reading for review, which appears to have picked it up from another book--is incorrect.

John - I agree with you to a certain extent about Kemp He certainly was much more of a polician of ideas rather than feelings. The Party of Clinton is still largely about feelings and so Edwards makes a lot of sense.

But I think Kemp's appeal to young conservatives -- and I was most certainly one of those who revered Kemp -- reflected the immaturity of young conservatives more than it did the merits of Kemp.

THAT Teresa Heinz Kerry surprised and worried some of the 1,000 guests at Friday morning's Women for Kerry breakfast when she looked out at the crowd and said, "We had better get you women some birth control, there are so many of you here!" Yikes.

From a long piece at MSNBC which tries too hard to be very clever about actors who get type-cast or "Zieringed" (after Ian Ziering from Beverly Hills 90210):

"And maybe everybody loves Raymond, but after the show goes off the air, we have to wonder who's going to love Patricia Heaton. Heaton plays Raymond's shrewish wife Debra with exactly one note, and spends her time off authoring obnoxious books about motherhood, supporting anti-choice organizations, and stomping out of awards shows hosted by the Osbournes."

I know this is a small example of media bias, but can imagine a mainstream outfit calling pro-abortion activists "anti-life"?

So this cat hides inside body armor and "earned his rank after nabbing five mice." Talk about the soft-bigotry of low expectations!

Meanwhile the dogs are out there mixing it up with the Mahdi Army, sniffing out bombs, interrogating prisoners. Puh-leeze, there's a difference between a mascot and an ally!

K-Lo, Actually, I've been making the comparison for the last week (including on an NPR show). I think it is very apt (which is why I keep making it). First, lots of Democrats and pundits compared Kerry to Dole well before Kerry picked Edwards. And Edwards is very much a Kempian figure for the Democrats (though without Kemp's political experience). Liberal journalists were lavish in their praise of Kemp. And so were conservatives. He "united" the party, brought in the (Reaganite) party activists, brought optimism, good looks and enthusiasm to the ticket. Kemp wouldn't take cheap shots and was loved by the press for his civility, etc etc.

None of it mattered.

Now, I think Edwards is a much better politician than Kemp was or is. And I think Edwards won't have the reluctance Kemp had in the debates to go for the jugular. But, at the end of the day, Kerry is still in my mind the Democrats' Bob Dole -- except lots of Republicans liked Bob Dole personally, even if they didn't want him to be president. Democrats want Kerry to be president but don't like him personally.

July 12, 2004

Mary Beth Cahill
Campaign Manager
John Kerry for President
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043

Dear Ms. Cahill:

On Thursday your campaign hosted a fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall at which Sen. Kerry said, "Every performer tonight in their own way either verbally through their music through their lyrics have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

I called on your campaign to release the performance that Sen. Kerry said represented the "heart and soul" of America so that all Americans could see for themselves what John Kerry thinks represents the "heart and soul" of our country.

Do most Americans in their hearts, think that calling the President a "thug" and a "killer" represents the "heart and soul" of our nation? We don't think so, but we think voters should decide for themselves by watching the celebrities John Kerry said captured the "heart and soul" of America.

Your Senior Advisor Tad Devine said that you believed that releasing musical performances "might violate copyrights and licensing agreements for the entertainers who performed and allow the Bush campaign to use the tape in commercials against Kerry and Edwards"

I have been assured that "fair use" rules of copyright would allow you to release the tapes of these musical performances to the news media under 2 U.S.C. § 107. To allay the other concern you relayed to the news media, Bush-Cheney '04 pledges to refrain from using audio, video or transcripts of the event for any television, cable, satellite or radio advertising. We look forward to seeing this spirited display.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever. America must remember the lessons of September the 11th. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. In fact, according to former weapons inspector David Kay, Iraq's weapons programs were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.) Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take. Today, the dictator who caused decades of death and turmoil, who twice invaded his neighbors, who harbored terrorist leaders, who used chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children, is finally before the bar of justice. (Applause.) Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region. And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world. Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer. (Applause.) Three years ago, the nation of Libya, a longtime supporter of terror, was spending millions to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. Today, thousands of Libya's chemical munitions have been destroyed. And nuclear processing equipment that could ultimately have threatened the lives of hundreds of thousands is stored away right here in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Today, because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer. (Applause.) Three years ago, a private weapons proliferation network was doing business around the world. This network, operated by the Pakistani nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan, was selling nuclear plans and equipment to the highest bidder, and found willing buyers in places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Today, the A. Q. Khan network is out of business. We have ended one of the most dangerous sources of proliferation in the world, and the American people are safer. (Applause.) Breaking this proliferation network was possible because of the outstanding work done by the CIA. Dedicated intelligence officers were tireless in obtaining vital information, sometimes at great personal risk. Our intelligence services do an essential job for America. I thank them for their dedication and hard work. (Applause.) The Senate Intelligence Committee has identified some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities; the Committee's report will help us in the work of reform. Our nation needs more intelligence agents -- what is called human intelligence -- to cover the globe. We must have the best, cutting-edge technology to listen and look for dangers. We must have better coordination among intelligence services. I need, and the Congress needs, the best possible intelligence in order to protect the American people. We're determined to make sure we get it.

Three years ago, the world was very different. Terrorists planned attacks, with little fear of discovery or reckoning. Outlaw regimes supported terrorists and defied the civilized world, without shame and with few consequences. Weapons proliferators sent their deadly shipments and grew wealthy, encountering few obstacles to their trade.

The world changed on September the 11th, and since that day, we have changed the world. (Applause.) We are leading a steady, confident, systematic campaign against the dangers of our time. There are still terrorists who plot against us, but the ranks of their leaders are thinning, and they know what fate awaits them. There are still regimes actively supporting the terrorists, but fewer than there used to be. There are still outlaw regimes pursuing weapons of mass destruction, but the world no longer looks the other way. Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer. (Applause.)

All this progress has been achieved with the help of other responsible nations. The case of Libya's nuclear disarmament is a good example. In the fall of 2003, American and British intelligence were tracking a large shipment of nuclear equipment bound for Tripoli aboard a German-registered cargo ship. We alerted German and Italian authorities, who diverted the ship to an Italian port where the cargo was confiscated. We worked together. These events helped encourage Libya to reconsider its nuclear ambitions. That was a dramatic breakthrough, achieved by allies working together. And the cooperation of America's allies in the war on terror is very, very strong.

We're grateful to the more than 60 nations that are supporting the Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept illegal weapons and equipment by sea, land, and air. We're grateful to the more than 30 nations with forces serving in Iraq, and the nearly 40 nations with forces in Afghanistan. In the fight against terror, we've asked our allies to do hard things. They've risen to their responsibilities. We're proud to call them friends. (Applause.)

We have duties and there will be difficulties ahead. We're working with responsible governments and international institutions to convince the leaders of North Korea and Iran that their nuclear weapons ambitions are deeply contrary to their own interests. We're helping governments fight poverty and disease, so they do not become failed states and future havens for terror. We've launched our Broader Middle East Initiative, to encourage reform and democracy throughout the region, a project that will shape the history of our times for the better. We're working to build a free and democratic Palestinian state, which lives in peace with Israel and adds to the peace of the region. We're keeping our commitments to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, who are building the world's newest democracies. They're counting on us to help. We will not abandon them. (Applause.) Delivering these nations from tyranny has required sacrifice and loss. We will honor that sacrifice by finishing the great work we have begun. (Applause.)

In this challenging period of our history, Americans fully understand the dangers to our country. We remain a nation at risk, directly threatened by an enemy that plots in secret to cause terrible harm and grief. We remain a nation at war, fighting for our security, our freedom, and our way of life. We also see our advantages clearly. Americans have a history of rising to every test; our generation is no exception. We've not forgotten September the 11th, 2001. We will not allow our enemies to forget it, either. (Applause.)

We have strong allies, including millions of people in the Middle East who want to live in freedom. And the ideals we stand for have a power of their own. The appeal of justice and liberty, in the end, is greater than the appeal of hatred and tyranny in any form. The war on terror will not end in a draw, it will end in a victory, and you and I will see that victory of human freedom. (Applause.)

Has anyone compared Kerry-Edwards to Dole-Kemp? Senate stalwart who's tight with his party but can't excite anyone and has no vision reaches out to a guy who has a clear vision. Kemp had a history of getting elected, yes, but his and Edwards' reputations and functions are similar -- they are supposed to get the base excited with their core principles talks (for Kemp, supply-side economics, for Edwards, Two Americas redistribution). Kerry vs. Bush looks like Dole vs. Clinton -- popular incumbent looks weak because of intense scrutiny (on scandals for Clinton, on Iraq for Bush) but the Senator challenging him is uninspiring. The only difference is the media sides with the challenger this time.

A bunch of folks have sent me this. Some of the better lines:

"Some people have said I was courageous to speak truth to the power of the Bush White House. But let me tell you, what I have done doesn't hold a candle to the courage that John Kerry showed as a young man and throughout his political career. I am supporting him for President because he has been willing to tell the truth no matter what the pressure."

....

To speak out against bad policies after a career of accomplishments, as I recently did, is a civic duty.

....

George Bush's Administration has betrayed our trust - I know that personally. I am honored to endorse John Kerry and to commit myself to his campaign to wrest our democracy back from those who have so squandered the public trust.

Here's the official press release from the Kerry campaign:

Ron Reagan to Speak at Democratic National Convention

Kerry-Edwards Vision Appealing to Independents

Washington, D.C. - The Kerry-Edwards campaign announced today that Ron Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan, has accepted an invitation to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. An Independent, Reagan’s participation is the latest example of the campaign’s commitment to reaching out to individuals from all parts of the political spectrum.

“Like the American people, Ron Reagan knows that our country can do better than it has under George W. Bush – that if we have responsible leaders who stand up for our values, we can build an America that is stronger at home and respected abroad,” said Kerry-Edwards Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill. “His appearance at the Democratic convention also demonstrates the strong appeal of the optimistic Kerry-Edwards vision, and we will continue to reach out to individuals from all political backgrounds as this campaign to build a stronger America continues.”

Underscoring the Kerry-Edwards commitment to never put ideology ahead of sound science, Reagan will speak to the need to make stem cell research a national priority. Today, more than 100 million Americans have illnesses that could one day be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy, and Ron Reagan understands more than anyone that we must lift the barriers that stand in the way of science.

-30-

But everyone keeps talking about how likable John Edwards is and how unlikable Dick Cheney is. But truth be told, I would much rather have a drink and a meal with Dick Cheney than with John Edwards. I don't think this has much to do with partisanship. I honestly believe that Cheney's the more interesting and entertaining guy. Yes, I can see the appeal of Edwards and he seems like a perfectly nice guy. But in terms of the classic test -- who would you rather have a beer with? -- the winner is Cheney far and away. I could go on explaining why, but I think is the sort of thing you either agree with or don't.

Without getting into the merits of FMA, I don't understand why people get so upset about the Senate holding votes for legislation that won't pass. Should only legislation that is guaranteed passage be brought to the floor? Whether you are for against the Federal Marriage Amendment, is it so terrible that the public know where politicians stand during an election year? I just don't get it.

Correction Woops, I meant Federal Marriage Amendment, not DOMA. The text has been changed to reflect that.

From a reader:

Jonah - NRO seems to have taken on a defeatist attitude toward the presidential election. Too much beltway influence! Go to a map and begin doing the electoral math. Don't let beltway editorial sources or polls tell you what the battleground states are, go by how statewide elections have gone over the last 10 years or so. Sounds like a lot of work? Maybe, but viewing objective data like past election results is one way to escape the beltway news filter. Have an intern do the legwork!

Al Gore was at least as good of a candidate as Kerry is, and Lieberman was
at least as good of a VP choice as Edwards. If Gore/Lieberman couldn't win
an open election in a time of peace and prosperity, why is it that
Kerry/Edwards running against a sitting president is so feared now?
Remember how the Democrats couldn't wait to take their revenge from the 2000
election out on Jeb Bush in 2002? Jeb won by almost 20%. The liberal elite
will underestimate W's appeal with middle america, just as it did with
Reagan when he was in office. While Reagan was indeed the "great
communicator," it wasn't just his delivery or style that carried the day -
it was the content of the message as well. W has the message. I believe he
will also have the electoral votes - and that it will confound the beltway
pundits makes it even better!

Now that it's becoming increasingly clear that Joe Wilson lied and distorted the facts in order to preen in front of the cameras and attack the Bush campaign, shouldn't John Kerry disavow the guy? After all, Wilson was more than a mere Kerry supporter, Wilson was a designated campaign surrogate and foreign policy advisor. If you troll through Nexis you'll find numerous articles about Wilson's role as a de facto campaign spokesman. An NPR story from last February singled out Wilson as a particularly effective spokesman for the Kerry campaign:

In ways that John Kerry never could, on the trail Wilson serves as the embodiment of a man both personally and professionally wronged by the Bush administration. Through Wilson, the Kerry campaign can advance issues and attack figures on the right without Kerry himself becoming personally involved.

I searched the Kerry website for any mention of Wilson and couldn't find any. Though there was much celebration at the official Kerry blog when Wilson announced his endorsement. And if you Google his site, you can find piles of cached pages where the Kerry campaign boasted, promoted and otherwise celebrated its association with Wilson, including here on their endorsements page.

The Best of the Web says Marshall's wrong on the law about the outing of Plame. If he's wrong on the law and he's wrong on the politics, what's left to be right about?

From Taranto:

....What's more, the Post is correct about the law, and Marshall is either mistaken or disingenuous. As we explained in October:

In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that [Plame] was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures," which would put the leakers in the clear legally if not politically.

In addition, the Novak column did not describe Plame as covert, only as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

If indeed Plame was a covert agent, why wouldn't the CIA take "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity? The answer may turn on the legal definition of covert. As we also noted in October, an employee is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute if and only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

Little has been revealed publicly about the details of Plame's CIA career. But we do know that she gave birth to twins in 1999 or 2000, and it's unlikely that the CIA would send a new or expectant mother overseas on a dangerous assignment. Thus one may surmise that if indeed Plame was legally a covert agent, it was because she worked overseas during the early part of the five-year period preceding July 2003, when Novak's column appeared--that is, between mid-1998 and mid-1999. If she had been at a desk job at Langley for four years by last July, then concealing her identity, even if it was still classified, might not have been such a high priority for the agency.

A special prosecutor is investigating the Plame leak, so if we're wrong, it'll become clear soon enough. But at this point we'd be surprised anyone gets charged, or indeed if any crime turns out to have been committed. And since Wilson appears to have lied about his wife's role in getting him the Niger gig, why should we lend any credibility at all to his claims about the leakers' motives?

Shriver's pro-life position is extremely important, because he was the last pro-life Catholic on a Democratic ticket (with McGovern in 1972). True, this was before Roe, but it is amazing that today such a person could not only NOT be nominated as a Dem running mate, but can't even speak at their convention. (Recall, too, that Shriver was McGovern's second pro-life running mate, since Eagleton was also a strong pro-lifer. It gives the lie, a little bit, that McGovern was the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." The first two were right, but not the last one.) As late as 1984, there were a handful of pro-life delegates at the Democratic convention (I went as a reporter) who cast their nominating ballots for Eagleton as a protest against the feminist drift of the party. I am sure this tiny remnant is long extinct today.

The rhetoric of abortion advocacy contains a truth that abortion advocates often fail to perceive. Abortion is a question of choice. The "choice," though, is not one faced by isolated women exercising private rights. It is a choice faced by all the citizens of this free society. And the choice we make, deliberatively and democratically, will do much to answer two questions: What kind of a people are we? What kind of a people will we be?

If we abandon the principle of respect for human life by making the value of a life depend on whether someone else thinks that life is worthy or wanted, we will become one sort of people.

But there is a better way.

We can choose to reaffirm our respect for human life. We can choose to extend once again the mantle of protection to all members of the human family, including the unborn. We can choose to provide effective care of mothers and children.

And if we make those choices, America will experience a new birth of freedom, bringing with it a renewed spirit of community, compassion, and caring.

I'm not sure the Dems would have the cajones to attack Nancy Reagan, but this reader does have a good point:

If Ron Reagan's, Jr.'s speech is meant to be embarrassing to Republicans (though I agree with you it won't be), aren't the Democrats doing exactly what they preemptively criticized the Republicans for doing -- that is, exploiting Reagan's death for political purposes? Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Democratic side if Nancy Reagan were scheduled to speak at the Republican conventions?

Gregory Djerejian takes a scalpal to Josh Marshall and
Cliff May takes one to Joe Wilson. Djerejian isn't done operating yet, but he's already cut pretty deep and there are entrails galore in the slop bucket.

Djerejian and May's pieces combine into what "Happy Days" fans would call the "Malachi Crunch" -- a reference you don't have to get to enjoy either piece.

Year after year, the bureaucrats behind the Olympic Games never fail to come up with new reasons to dislike this reliably repellent event. Here's the latest example, this time from the Guardian :

"Spectators attending the Athens Olympics could be forcibly removed from stadiums if they wear clothing bearing "obvious logos of competitive companies to sponsors," according to rules released by games organisers... An Olympics official said: "These rules have been written in a draconian way so that they leave no room for doubt. "What is our over-arching concern and desire is to keep the games free of advertising or any commerce inside stadiums."

Except, presumably, in the case of "sponsors".

According to Time magazine's glowing profile , John Edwards' father was a true believer in the policy of preemption:

Growing up chiefly in Robbins, N.C., Edwards played hoops in his backyard and contended with neighborhood bullies by following his dad's advice: Don't wait for trouble; punch the other guy hard in the nose first.

A (former) Mrs. Yeslam bin Laden discusses her family in the Guardian:

On the revolting Osama, a man quite obviously as boorish as he is neurotic:

"Things were looking up. And then she met Osama. He was a student at the King Abdel Aziz University in Jeddah and when she opened the door to him, he freaked out. Her face was uncovered. Osama started flapping his hands and wouldn't come in until she had made herself scarce. "

On the bin Laden clan:

"...she is unconvinced that they have cut off all ties with Osama. "They have never condemned Osama. They have condemned the terrorist act. But they have never admitted any involvement of their brother in those acts. He has sons in Saudi Arabia who work at the organisation..."

From a reader in the Windy City:

Dear Jonah:

Just wanted to pass on a tip from the Land of Lincoln;
what started out as a joke and some wishful thinking
has resulted in what might possibly continue to be one
of the most surreal and entertaining races for the
U.S. Senate - Mike Ditka may soon be the GOP nominee
for the soon to be vacant U.S. Senate seat here in
Illinois. He was on a number of morning radio shows
describing himself as "ultraconservative," pro-life,
and that this is a nation "under God." He has donated
a bunch of money to GOP candidates in years past and
helped out the cause here. A website put up in recent
weeks - draftditka.com - has already gotten
approximately 12,000 signatures, and the LA Times ran
with a story recently about it.

From a reader:

No offense, but re Mike Ditka you are waxing incoherent: "Generally, I'm opposed to celebrity candidacies", you say. And then: "And I have no idea if Ditka would make a good Senator." If you have no idea whether Ditka would make a good Senator, but you're going to qualify your "general" opposition to celebrity candidacies to make him a exception, then your view actually is: "Generally I'm opposed to celebrity candidacies of Democrats." Because otherwise, you would be opposed to Ditka being a candidate until you were convinced that he was qualified.

If your goal is to have an "R" after the name of the future junior Senator from Illinois and All Else be Damned, then fine. But please don't insult your readers by putting forth a principle that you don't believe in.

From another reader:

Jonah- Not to be a negative Nancy here, but legally speaking (and contra your correspondent), the mens rea term of "intent" speaks to the actus reus element of the agent's cover being blown and nothing else. So as long as you intended for that result to happen (and you satisfy the other elements of the crime, namely knowing that Plame was covert), it doesn't matter if it was because you really hated them and wanted them dead, or because you wanted to demonstrate that their husband was a clown, or because you think they're just a fantastic government agent and you want them to get accolades for their accomplished service. The intent element is still satisfied. And while your correspondent makes the point that the "screw her husband" intent is more morally culpable than the "you can't take this clown seriously" intent, the fact that the latter intent isn't as bad as the former isn't a defense to the charge that the latter intent is still a crime. You can't defend a manslaughter charge by arguing that it wasn't murder. (You could, but it wouldn't have much traction in front of a judge). Of course, the reason Marshall suddenly cares so much about statutory construction is that his political argument just fell apart. So he's still full of it, but he's right legally. Your reader, [Name withheld]

Pretty much my point exactly, from a reader:

Jonah,

The fact that Wilson lied about his wife's involvement is practically all
you need to know that you're right and Josh Marshall is wrong (at least from
a practical standpoint, and possibly a legal one as well). Wilson lied
about it because he knew that it made a much more damning story if his
wife's occupation had nothing to do with his poolside tea-sipping
assignment.

Josh may be technically correct to state that the law gets broken when
someone intentionally discloses the identity of a classified agent,
regardless of that someone's motivation. But if you do it because you're
trying to screw her husband (so to speak), that puts the "intent" into
"intentional" pretty nicely; if you're doing it to say "Wait a minute; you
can't take this clown seriously," your "intent" is (at least arguably) not
to blow an agent's cover, but rather to demonstrate that the clown is
unqualfiied (i.e., he is a clown). And a clown he is.

Kerry, who recently said he agrees with the Roman Catholic Church that life begins at conception, said he disagrees with his church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Edwards twice did not respond when asked if he, too, believes life begins at conception.