From a reader:

Jonah

Your reader is correct that government implementation of no-fault divorce the government is just a poor alternative to having government out of business of marriage.

Once you lessen the contract to the point that either party can break the contact without showing fault you have gone most of the way down the path to saying the contact is not binding. In that case, why have a contract?

No fault divorce for couples without children makes little sense but when children are added it makes none.

A government that aids in the destruction of the individual or the family is a government that no longer deserves to exist.

Another view:

Shame on you Jonah!

Of course the government can act to lower the divorce rate; the government
is a major reason the divorce rate is so high in the first place. When
no-fault divorce laws were passed in the 1960s and 70s, they had the effect
of nullifying validly entered contracts. That was when government destroyed
the institution of marriage.

Traditionally, a marriage was an agreement to share responsibilities for the
natural consequence of sex, children, since a woman is made economically
vulnerable by the necessity of raising a child. No-fault divorce freed men
from their side of the bargain. (And of course the propaganda around the
pill meant that sex was disassociated from reproduction.) Today, women are
too scared that they may end up divorced to leave their careers for their
children.

We might never be able to legislate morality in the sense of effectively
banning extramarital sex, but we can certainly establish that a deal's a
deal, and re-establish the legal binding of a marriage contract. It would
probably take a generation or two before women started relying on their
husbands again. And there would certainly be large numbers of Americans who
simply don't care to get married. But it would help.

Dan Marsh
Use it if you want.

From a reader re today's column:

Mr. Goldberg-

After I read the column, I couldn’t help think of an enraged McEnroe screaming, “You cannot be serious!"

The biggest problem I have with Dr. Horn’s response is the statement, “Unless we reverse the decline of marriage …”

Who are the “we” he is referring to? No one in their right mind could possibly think that the government could, by any means, find a way to curtail the rising divorce rate in this country.

I cannot speak to any other faith, but within the Christian community the divorce rate matches the national average, and in some regions it is higher. So, I better not hear of any faith based groups jumping on the band wagon of a similar, nonsensical initiative. All one needs to do is look at the success rate of church based counseling to have a clue as to what a government based service would look like. Remember, in a government based game, God will be nonexistent and therefore the ‘guilt card’ will not be in the deck.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows why the divorce rate continues to climb, and it doesn’t involve the level of ones devotion to the Almighty.

It involves the level of ones devotion to their spouse and their children. I’m sorry, but the high level of devotion required is obviously not priority in the majority of marriages, and who for one minute thinks the government has an answer for that.

My wife and I would love to have a little house out on the prairie, and have Charles, Caroline and the girls over for dinner. Wouldn’t that make things so much easier? Well, it ain’t happening. What can happen is that we continue to work diligently to honor each other and our marriage by honoring the commitment we made 15 years ago within the ever evolving framework of society, and devoting ourselves to the needs of our 4 children.

The bottom line: If you have no idea what it means to truly devote your life to someone, please stay as far away from the altar as possible.

We all know this could never, and should never, be communicated via Washington.

Thanks for your column, and I wish you and your family well on your upcoming travels.

I've gotten about thirty emails on the subject. I haven't read them all yet, but I think I've gotten all the tips I need. Thanks.

Okay, here’s my agenda. On Sunday I go to the Democratic Convention. By the time I get back the wife, baby and dog will be moved out of our house. Sounds like a country music song I know, but in reality we’re evacuating our house because it’s going to be renovated. The frustrating part is we don’t know where we’re going to live -- for up to a year. When I return from the convention, I will pick up the family and we all drive cross-country for the month of August and into September. Cosmo and I will stay in the pacific northwest – with another sister-in-law – while the Fair Jessica and Lucy go to Alaska for a while. I will remain behind to panic about finishing the book. Then at the end of August, I fly back to DC for a conference, then to NYC for the GOP convention, then back to the San Juan Islands. Collect dog, baby, wife and drive back to the East Coast where I will hide in an undisclosed location to finish book before deadline while Jessica looks for a place for us to stay. All the while, I will be trying to meet my quota of G-Files, syndicated columns, London Times columns, CNN appearances and so on.

Some requests and points:

1. Yes, we are aware of the craziness and stupidity involved in various and sundry aspects of all this, including the driving of baby and dog cross-country.
2. I am stunned and Jessica is scandalized by the anti-dog bigotry in the housing and apartment rental market in the greater DC area. More – much more – on that to come.
3. If anyone knows how to find wi-fi hotspots along the major interstates, let me know.
4. In the past I’ve asked for recommendations on food and sights to see before such trips. This year that is largely unnecessary because we really aren’t driving across country as tourists.
5. If anybody hears about house-rental/house-sitting gigs in the DC area starting in September, lemme know.
6. Expect my Corner posting to be odd, erratic and ill-timed.

Update: Item six has prompted an avalanche of wise-ass remarks -- "what else is new?" etc. I will have you people know that my Corner posts are normally very well-timed.

This reader puts the story in a bit more perspective:

Jonah,

I apologize for the anonymity, but as I am a military doc I would prefer to lay a bit low. If you want, I can provide bona fides separately.

However, there are some points of contention regarding the fact impaired New Yorker-via-Reuters story you referenced. I don't have access to the New Yorker article, but have seen it summarized on line. From these, I would like add some facts that make the story pretty dang benign and hardly the shocking waste of taxpayer dollars the spin of the article seems to be. The tenor that Sergeant Baggadonuts and/or Mrs. Major Zotz can just waltz over to the nearest military hospital and get nipped, tucked, vacuumed, or pumped up, is both bogus and irksome. I am a little weary of lies and misdirection regarding the military.

1. The Army, Navy, and Air Force have teaching hospitals.

2. These hospitals have plastic surgery programs.

3. For these programs to be accredited, the residents must perform the same procedures their civilian counterparts perform.

4. To become board certified and maintain currency, military plastic surgeons must perform the same procedures as their civilian counterparts.

4. The article mentions that between 2000 and 2003, there were 496 breast enlargements and 1361 lipos done on "soldiers" (only Army personnel are Soldiers) and their dependents. Assuming they were done at a constant rate, that is a whopping 165 breast enlargements and 457 lipos per year.

5. There are about 1,400,000 active duty military, and about an average of 3 dependents/servicemember. Completely disregarding eligible reserve component personnel and their dependents, as well as eligible retirees, that makes an eligible population of over 4, 200,000.

Do the math, and as you can see, this falls damn short of a cosmetic surgery stampede. Show me any U.S. city of 4.2 million in which the plastic surgeons only do 165 breast enlargements and 457 lipos a year, and I'll show you a town with starving plastic surgeons, or with only one moderately busy. Show me a town of 4.2 million with only one plastic surgeon, and I'll show you a town outside of the U.S. I won't bore you with the hoops and wickets one has to go through to get someone one a rare referral for these or other "elective cosmetic" procedures - trust me, it isn't the same pulling out the Yellow Pages, turning to the physicians pages, picking an ad, and calling up old Dr. Young for an appointment - there has to be some kind of justification other then "I want it".

In addition, as odd as it may seem, military and their dependents do get sick and injured - if a spouse or a soldier needed, for example, a breast reconstruction after mastectomy, I think most sentient persons (I know that whittles the pool down a fair bit) would agree that docs who have actually performed a few cases, even if those were strictly cosmetic, would be preferred over those doing OJT. Same thing goes for nose jobs or any other "elective cosmetic" procedure - the bottom line is that skills maintained by doing these procedures are helping heal servicemembers injured in combat, past and present.

End of rant - your military medicine guy (haven't seen one of those).

I understand the impulse to refer to them as "gobbledygook," as Geraghty does, but I think that's not quite right. If I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that from conception until some future stage of development that he does not specify, there is a human being there who does not count as a person. If you accept a distinction between "human beings" and "persons," which I find monstrous but many people apparently do not, that could make a kind of sense. (I think the distinction would also generate logical consequences Kerry does not wish to embrace.)

I'm also not sure how to square the comment with his earlier statements that he opposes abortion "personally"--why does he oppose it, if it's not personicide?--and that he shares the "Catholic belief" about abortion. Those statements, made earlier this month, were already incoherent: The "Catholic belief" about abortion is that it is unjust, as is its legality, and so he clearly does not share it. I'm left unsure what exactly he thinks is the specifically Catholic view that the law cannot impose: that it's wrong to kill human beings even when others don't consider them to be persons? that they're human beings in the first place? So I'll give Geraghty a verdict of gobbledygook for the candidate's comments as a whole.

There are certainly a lot of follow-up questions worth asking: for example, when does Kerry think personhood emerges?

Kathryn: I'm for the general proposition that our political culture should legitimize the idea that statutes passed by Congress and signed by the president can restrict the courts' jurisdiction. (I've argued this at length in NR over the years.)

I would not have picked this particular issue to begin that legitimation. It doesn't stop the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage in any important respect: State courts can still impose it as in Massachusetts, and federal courts can still use the Fourteenth Amendment in various ways to impose it nationally. Also, I have always thought that it would be much better to begin to make court-stripping less controversial by attaching it to an issue with overwhelming popularity--like the Pledge of Allegiance.

I know House Republicans want to take up court-stripping with regard to the Pledge, too. But giving people the idea that court-stripping is going to be used routinely also doesn't strike me as a smart way to start the campaign for the idea either.

That said, I suppose that if the House were going to take up the issue, I'm glad that it passed, because it may add some momentum to the general cause of court-stripping.

Rolling Stone: Have you seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

Clinton: I have. Rolling Stone: What did you think?

Clinton: I think every American ought to see it. As far as I know, there are no factual errors in it, but it may connect the dots a little too close -- about the Saudis and the Bushes, and the terror and all. I'd like to see it again before making a judgment about whether I think it's totally fair.

Bigger Breasts for Free: Join the Army

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has long lured recruits with the slogan "Be All You Can Be," but now soldiers and their families can receive plastic surgery, including breast enlargements, on the taxpayers' dime.

The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills.

"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio told the magazine, which said soldiers needed the approval of their commanding officers to get the time off....

The Western press has been unjust towards Iraq. It has focused only on the dark side, on terrorism, killings, car bombs, the cruel images of decapitation. Some went as far as saying violence was justified because it was aimed at the occupiers. Unfortunately, ordinary people are the ones who paid a high price, Muslims and Christians working for the Americans or finding themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time when some car explodes. The so-called “resistance” hardly ever kills Americans. No! Opposition should mean defending the rights of the people, not killing them. If you strike and kill fellow countrymen and women, you are not a resistance fighter, you are but a destroyer, a bearer of death.

The press has been backward-looking focusing on the negative side of the situation, never talking about the positive things the former provisional council did and the present interim government is doing. No one showed that, despite the political upheaval, the uncertainties and lack of security, schools reopened. Whether primary, high and secondary schools, or universities, the normal academic year ended as one would expect.

Under Saddam there was only poverty. Now the economy is slowly reviving thanks to what the government and the Americans are doing. New building sites are opening, new construction is going on. All this in spite of terrorist attacks. How many people paid in blood their commitment to rebuild Iraq? Italians, Japanese, French, Americans, Koreans . . . No one talks about power plants restarting, oil wells reopening, agricultural programmes being launched, roads being rebuilt. . . that were once filled with potholes.

What can one say about the press and freedom of the press? There are at least 150 daily newspapers in the country. And what about demonstrations? Under Saddam, they were banned . . .

I'm going to read the Opinion Duel this afternoon. But there's one thing Chait's TNR piece (you can get the link through Opinion Duel) that I thought was inadvertantly hilarious was this:

Unlike Nixon, FDR enjoyed unified control of Congress, yet his fellow Democrats were fractious enough to stop him from bullying the Supreme Court. Had those presidents, like Bush, enjoyed the benefits of a subservient Congress and a staff that never spoke out against their excesses, they might have done a lot of damage.

Now Chait's as close we get to a New Deal liberal these days so I'm sure he's being sincere -- even bipartisan. But I love the cavalier implication that Nixon and FDR were prevented from doing a "lot of damage" because their "excesses" were criticized and therefore curtailed. I mean, some of us think that FDR and Nixon did do a lot of damage that we're still dealing with today.

I am shocked and appalled at the silence in the Corner about Opinion Duel. Tell people to go read it!

Andrew McCarthy is absolutely dismantling Jonathan Chait, in the most genial and polite tone. I visualize David Niven standing over a cowering Chait, with a gentlemanly air, pimp-slapping him, over...and over...and over.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

I now regret volunteering for a business trip the week of the DNC. Doyle's
is MY BAR. Not as in I own it, but as in I have covered several of the
bar's mortgage payments over the years. It's a great place, and you will
all have a great time, even if it's a Dem bar.

I'm sure many of my homies will be there, and I am going to have one of
them buy you a Jameson on me, in thanks for all of the G-Files and Corner
postings over the years that have helped me avoid doing work.

Also, it would be VERY COOL if at some point in the evening you can give a
shout out to the M.J.'s crew. We're known there.

Slainte!

Longtime Military Guy, The Donovan, writes:

Trivializing the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Bad taste, dude. This coming from a 3-dog family.

But not as bad as what the Senatorial Republicans are doing. (Man, send
someone a little money and they will NOT leave you alone - except NR, of
course). I recieved in the mail the "Senatorial Medal of Freedom" for my
support. Cheesy little thing. All they accomplished was offending me - and
a lot worse than your Cosmo remark did.

It might be all the Purple Hearts in the three generations of soldiery
around here... but aping the Presidential Medal of Freedom like that is just
asinine. Maybe I'm missing something here - but getting a 'medal' for
sending someone a check... well, feh! Oh, they still (even though I told
them) haven't figured out my name isn't really, "The Donovan," that's my
VRWC name assigned by the NRODT subscription department...

Cheers,

The Donovan.

Me: Lighten-up Dono. It was a joke.
Cosmo: Well, it shouldn't have been. If my exploits are ever declassified this Donovan guy will eat his words. Unless, of course, those words are made of ham, or pork, or bacon....

If you haven't seen it yet, Wade Horn of HHS responds on the site today to a Corner post from a little while ago. I'm going to try to pen a response for tomorrow. No matter who you agree with, you've got admit it's nice to know that the administration pays attention to the Corner -- and blogs generally.

Unfortunately, it doesn't pay enough attention. If it did, Cosmo would have received his Presidential Medal of Freedom by now.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich plans to endorse John Kerry for president today, ending his long-shot bid for the nation's highest office only days before the start of the Democratic National Convention.

Kucinich is expected to fly to Michigan for a joint appearance with Kerry, who is scheduled to deliver a speech at a Na tional Urban League conference in Detroit.The announce ment is the culmi nation of nearly a week of talks be tween the Kerry and Kucinich camps that began with a phone conversation between the two candidates late last week.

According to a draft of his remarks obtained by The Plain Dealer, Kucinich will pledge to “do everything possible” to elect Kerry.

Youth conservative movement good says he.

This is what drives me nuts:

It would be unfair, though, to pick on the women who are in denial about aborting "defective" fetuses. At least 30 million American women have had abortions since the procedure was legalized, mostly for the kind of reasons that anti-abortion people dismiss as "convenience" - a number that amounts to about 40 percent of American women. Yet in a 2003 survey conducted by a pro-choice group, only 30 percent of women were unambivalently pro-choice, suggesting that there may be an appalling number of women who are willing to deny others the right that they once freely exercised themselves.

As readers around here know, this is an old theme of mine. Still, what Ehrenreich is saying is that women who've had abortions have no right to regret their abortions. Or, rather, they have no right to translate that regret into public policy into "ambiguous" policy preferences. In other words, once you've had an abortion you must remain "consistent" or un-hypocritical by endorsing abortion for others even if you think it was a mistake on your part.

This is monumentally dishonest and more than a bit daft. Where else does Ehrenreich enforce this standard? Should racists stay racist? White people used to have the right to shout the n-word in the faces of black people. Does Ehrenreich -- who I assume supports hate crimes laws -- denounce former racists who would "deny others the right that they once freely exercised themselves"? Does a sexual harasser need to oppose sexual harassment laws lest he be counted as appalling in Ehrenreich's eyes? Since OJ Simpson got away with two free murders, should he believe that everyone should?

Ehrenreich's position is less of an argument than it is an attempt to bully women she deems disloyal.

But what makes it morally more congenial to kill a particular "defective" fetus than to kill whatever fetus happens to come along, on an equal opportunity basis? Medically informed "terminations" are already catching heat from disability rights groups, and, indeed, some of the conditions for which people are currently choosing abortion, like deafness or dwarfism, seem a little sketchy to me. I'll still defend the right to choose abortion in these cases, even if it isn't the choice I'd make for myself.

It would be unfair, though, to pick on the women who are in denial about aborting "defective" fetuses. At least 30 million American women have had abortions since the procedure was legalized, mostly for the kind of reasons that anti-abortion people dismiss as "convenience" - a number that amounts to about 40 percent of American women. Yet in a 2003 survey conducted by a pro-choice group, only 30 percent of women were unambivalently pro-choice, suggesting that there may be an appalling number of women who are willing to deny others the right that they once freely exercised themselves.

Honesty begins at home, so I should acknowledge that I had two abortions during my all-too-fertile years. You can call me a bad woman, but not a bad mother. I was a dollar-a-word freelancer and my husband a warehouse worker, so it was all we could do to support the existing children at a grubby lower-middle-class level. And when it comes to my children - the actual extrauterine ones, that is - I was, and remain, a lioness.

Choice can be easy, as it was in my case, or truly agonizing. But assuming the fetal position is not an appropriate response. Sartre called this "bad faith," meaning something worse than duplicity: a fundamental denial of freedom and the responsibility that it entails. Time to take your thumbs out of your mouths, ladies, and speak up for your rights. The freedoms that we exercise but do not acknowledge are easily taken away.

Mind you, I have no idea which article he's referring to:

Jonah -

Flugelbeast! I've been reading your generally great, somewhat acceptable,
occassionally whacked, articles for 3 years. This recent one has made me
determine you are a valuable resource. I disagree with it most ultimately
(Bill and Ted).

Thank you, I think,

Dick

Sandals, Peter, sandals?

Washington, DC - House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) announced today that the Committee intends to investigate allegations that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, in preparation for 9-11 Commission hearings, took highly sensitive terrorism documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives.

The Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the National Archives, is the primary investigative committee in the House of Representatives.

"These allegations are deeply troubling, and it's our constitutional responsibility to find out what happened and why," Davis said. "It boggles the mind to imagine how a former national security advisor walked off with this kind of material in his pants, or wherever on his body he carried it. At best, we're looking at tremendously irresponsible handling of highly classified information - some of which, I understand, has not yet been located.

"At worst, his actions suggest an intentional effort to keep critical information away from the Commission and the American public. We are now left wondering wh