They are usually sensible folk, the Dutch, and even, I am glad to say, beginning to be a touch more doubtful about the benefits of the EU they have helped bankroll for so long. Unfortunately, the fact that it’s now Holland’s turn to take up the EU presidency (it’s a six monthly rotating appointment, somewhat like being J-Lo’s significant other), has gone to those once stolid Dutch heads.

Their prime minister, Harry Potter, has decided to hold a conference dedicated to “European Values”. Yup, that’s right. This conference (scheduled for September 7th) is designed to “initiate a discussion about the underlying principles of the European union, about what values the European Union represents and about what these values mean to the citizens of the EU.”

Since those values mean absolutely nothing to the EU’s unfortunate ‘citizens’, you would think that this conference could be over in about five minutes.

Alas no.

”The conference on 7 September is the first of a series, meant to bridge the gap between those who are engaged in shaping Europe on a day-to-day basis and intellectuals who reflect, from a distance, on Europe as it develops. The series will culminate in an intellectual summit, called “A citizen of Europe” on the eve of the European Council in December, with the participation of prominent thinkers and politically and socially influential figures.”

Words fail me. The same, unfortunately, will not be true of the "prominent thinkers".

Via blogger Terrance Coyle

Look, I can certainly respect those who oppose the FMA. But when Kerry says "and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States," my blood boils a bit. Kerry comes from a branch of liberalism which believes in a "living, breathing," constitution -- in the words of countless liberals.

How is the notion of a Constitution which means whatever the latest and most effective petitioners want it to mean not a political misuse of that "precious document"? Can anyone imagine the most pro-gay marriage voices out there condemning a Supreme Court which found the right to marriage in the Constitution? It's like all these liberals who've discovered federalism for the first time in decades. They don't believe in federalism for discrimination rules, for abortion rights, for censorship but, suddenly, on gay marriage they love the laboratories of democracy.

When people say that the Constitution, as written, is an evolving document they are in effect saying it can mean anything -- and therefore nothing. What is really at stake is a conflict of visions. Conservatives believe that if the Constitution's meaning is permanent. If we want the Constitution to say something new, it should be amended not reinterpreted. Liberals believe that the Constitution is a malleable, metaphorical mirror of all good things. If the community decides that gay marriage is good, then the Constitution must support gay marriage. That to me is a far more offensive abuse of our most precious document than trying to amend it.

From today’s Guardian :

“Three men who spent up to 18 years in prison for crimes they did not commit must repay 25% of their compensation because they did not have to pay their living costs while in jail, the court of appeal ruled yesterday.”

But Powell, traveling in Kuwait yesterday, made it clear that the United States believes Iran is concealing its true intentions and suggested the European efforts were unlikely to succeed. "It is getting more and more likely that this matter is going to have to be referred to the Security Council," Powell said.

German surgeons have amputated the leg of Palestinian legislator Nabil Amr, who was shot by masked gunmen on the night of July 20th in his Ramallah home, family and colleagues of the former minister said on Thursday.

They said Amr's right leg was amputated from the knee down due to severe nerve and muscle damage from two bullets fired through a window of his Ramallah home minutes after his return from a television interview where he criticized Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Arafat has called off an investigation into the attack and has blamed Israel for shooting Amr.

And then there was the moment that someone from another media operation put his head round the door to ask the NR team a question about a quote “because you know Republican lore.”

This speech may end up doing good for Kerry, it's hard to say. But I think it's a terrible speech with a few good spots. It sounds like it was written by a committee. The funny irony is that Kerry is a committee of one. The speech reflects his own burning desire to be all things to all people and to say something "smart" about everything. Part wonkery, part Shrumian populism, several parts cliché, he says everything about everything because he thinks any choice is a false choice if the power of his intellect can be directed at it. You can be proud of serving in Vietnam and not contradict yourself by calling your extended band of brothers war criminals, you can vote for and against, you can be for spending less money and for "investing" much more money. Etc, etc.

As for his delivery, he sounded like an very idealistic Ivy League president to me. All the answers were obvious to those who already agree with him. Perhaps worse for Kerry than anything else: This man cannot tell a joke. Humor is perhaps the most important psychological tool for politicians, particularly for pols who have such a poor ability to communicate other emotional states. Jokes establish a rapport between the teller and the audience; "I see the world in the same way you do." For Edwards, humor is less vital because he can do the feel-your-pain stuff. But for Kerry, a few good jokes would have gone a long, long way to humanize him. They could have been written beforehand -- he certainly has the talent at his disposal. He could have practiced them. Instead he underscored once again that he's too serious to be someone you could ever want to have a beer with.

1 For my colleagues: Any nominations for the memorable or great line of this speech?

2 When a challenger is introducing himself to a significant chunk of the American public, it's hard for him to screw it up too badly. He will seem thoughtful, he will say things that sound like common sense--because the substance has been poll-tested and the formulations carefully designed. At the same time, he only gets to do it once, and so it's easy to miss opportunities. The polls might show that Kerry "did well" in this speech, but it still seems to me that he is basically following a cautious strategy: hoping the public has soured on Bush and that he's an acceptable alternative. It may work.

We busted out of class had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school
Tonight I hear the neighborhood drummer sound
I can feel my heart begin to pound
You say you're tired and you just want to close your eyes and follow your dreams down


We made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend
No retreat no surrender

Now young faces grow sad and old and hearts of fire grow cold
We swore blood brothers against the wind
I'm ready to grow young again
And hear your sister's voice calling us home across the open yards
Well maybe we could cut someplace of our own
With these drums and these guitars

Blood brothers in the stormy night with a vow to defend
No retreat no surrender

Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim
The walls of my room are closing in
There's a war outside still raging
you say it ain't ours anymore to win
I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed
with a wide open country in my eyes
and these romantic dreams in my head

….in the musical interludes.

Elaine Benes comes to mind.

To accuse Ashcroft of not upholding the Constitution, without saying how, is just a smear. If he's talking about Patriot, he has a special responsibility to distinguish between the law he voted for and the alleged abuses Ashcroft has used it to commit.

I do not believe that 25 percent of the kids in Harlem have asthma "because of pollution." Pollution has been declining, and asthma rates rising: the simple causal link he's assuming does not exist.

If Kerry thinks that the Iraq war was wrong because it was a war of choice, not necessity, then wasn't it just as wrong for him to have voted to let Bush wage it? I know his dodge is that he wanted Bush to be able to bluff, not actually wage war, but that just isn't what he voted for.

You folks are doing a fantastic job! I had a very busy day today so I could not spend the usual amount of time not working but the short moments I had to check the Corner have kept me up to speed. Your coverage and particularly the counterpoints posted to refute the Dims claim by outrageous claim are invaluable. Thanks!

Yours is the pinnacle of blogs. Perhaps it should be called The Pinnacle?

If you mussed up the hair a bit, these five women onstage could be one of those late-'90s girl-power bands, Sleater-Kinney maybe, the kind that rock out and look hip and also hate Bush. Or maybe a theater production of "Sex and the City," each girl representing an exaggerated female type: There's Vanessa Kerry, the one with the luminous skin and regal nose who's clearly the leader. Her sister, Alexandra, the reserved artistic type who's trying to hide although she's the tallest. Young, raven-haired Cate Edwards just making her debut. And the Gore girls, Karenna and Kristin, the beautiful brainiacs who are now blissfully private citizens.

And while I'm at it, I cannot stand this talk about funding "first-responders" as a defense against terrorism. Obviously, there's good reason to have an adequate infrastructure and all that. But it's not a defense in the war on terrorism. To me it's like telling your kid to defend himself from bullies on the way to school by giving him extra bandaids to carry with him.

Look, I'm tired, bitter and cranky. So maybe it's just me. But I thought Jennifer Granholm was awful. She sounded like Reese Witherspoon from election to me. I half expected her to end her speech by declaring, "And if we all work together, we can make this the best yearbook ever!"

Oh, I don't always think of Freddy's Fashion Mart when Al Sharpton babbles about "getting organized".

Sometimes I think of the Crown Heights riot, and the young man who was stabbed to death as a result of some "organized" people.

A grateful reader in Michigan: "My sister [name] has been on a
several-year-long binge of listening exclusively to bagpipe bands, John
(stay with me, there is a point to this missive). She especially loves a
world-class group called the 78th Fraisers, travelling to Ottawa, North
Carolina, etc. to hear them perform and compete.

"Recently I got her hooked on Fire from the Sun
http://www.olimu.com/FireFromSun/FireFromSun.htm . Referring to you, John,
she e-mailed me today that 'He's got me listening to Callas again.'

"(!)

"When I told her she should express her gratitude to you for your writing,
she wrote that she 'doesn't want to have him suffer thru any stilted praise
I could come up with.

"Stilted or not, I thought you should know that you've performed a miracle."

Stilted praise is no problem at all, Sir. Obsequious flattery and fawning
adulation also OK. I draw the line at graven images, though.

The proceedings brought to mind a little Irish ditty ("O'Rourke's Feast"), actually Jonathan Swift's translation of an earlier piece recounting 16th century Christmas festivities hosted by Brian na Murtha at Dromahair Castle:

O'Beirne's noble fare will ne'er be forgot
By those who were there or those who were not.
His revels to keep, we sup and we dine
On seven score sheep, fat bullocks and swine.

Usquebaugh to our feast in pails was brought up,
A hundred at least, and a madder our cup...
Come harper, strike up: but first, by your favour
Boy, give us a cup: Ah! this hath some savour!"

Ron Reagan: I'm not a Christian so I don't have a right to talk about Christianity but I understand Christianity to be a religion of compassion and I assume that's the way George Bush understands it too. I think we might want to consider at least when we're thinking about George Bush and his religiosity, that for instance, in the war in Iraq, that some ten thousand or so--there's no actual hard number but the estimates seem to be around ten thousand or so--innocent Iraqi men, women, children, old people, babies, have died as a result of this war. … If he's really a religious man, he ought to be crawling over those people's graves, begging their forgiveness and explaining to them why they had to give up their lives…

John Podhoretz: How about the fact…

Peter Robinson: Humanitarian agencies

Ron Reagan: Wait a minute.

Peter Robinson: …has estimated that four thousand kids a month were dying in Iraq…

Ron Reagan: Because of the embargo that we put on them.

John Podhoretz: Yes. We didn't put the embargo on it. The U.N. put the embargo on it...

Ron Reagan: So kids are dying anyway, what's a few more thousand? We can kill…

John Podhoretz: No, no, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands less…

Ron Reagan: But we didn't kill them. George W. Bush's war killed these ten thousand people. And if I'm a religious person, now I've just done something that results in the deaths of ten thousand innocent people, I'm going to be real apologetic about that.

John Podhoretz: Lincoln was a religious man and I'm unaware--I am unaware of, unless you are equating Christianity with…

Ron Reagan: We're not talking about Abraham Lincoln.

John Podhoretz: No, unless you are equating Christianity with pacifism, which you obviously are, then… …no Christian leader is permitted ever to go to war.

From a "reader," all-caps in original (in a font called Comic Sans MS, which adds some flavor):

IT IS VERY OBVIOUS FROM YOUR PRESENT ARTICLE "FLEETING NONSENSE", THAT YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, THROUGH AND THROUGH, YOU CANT EVEN DISGUISE THIS FACT, WHEN YOU ARE ON NATIONAL TV. I WILL WORK THIS WHOLE YEAR TO GET YOU FIRED, AND REPLACED WITH A DECENT HONEST MORAL PERSON, WHO IS ABLE TO WRITE IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER, ]NOT IN A BIASED FASCHIST MOOD YOU RELATE, I WILL WRITE EVERYDAY, UNTIL YOU ARE GONE, HAVE A HAPPY DAY?????????????????????

A couple of nice pieces up on Reagan's speech this morning--especially Robby George's. But it seems to me you guys haven't pointed out one very relevant point: by pulling his bait and switch and arguing for federal funding of cloning for research rather than of stem cell research with "left over" IVF embryos, Ron Reagan was actually disagreeing not only with George W. Bush but also with John Kerry and the Democratic party.

The main Democratic alternative to the Bush policy (the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2004" introduced on June 24th as HR 4682) says funding should be permitted only if "The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment." This means it would not permit funding for the process Ron Reagan described: cloning a human embryo and then destroying it to extract its stem cells.

The other Democratic alternative (the appallingly named "Ronald Reagan Memorial Stem Cell Research Act of 2004" introduced June 9th as HR 4531) says funding should be allocated in accordance with NIH guidelines proposed in 2000, and these guidelines (65 Fed. Reg. 51,975) say clearly that "Areas of research ineligible for NIH funding" include "Research utilizing human pluripotent stem cells that were derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer, i.e., the transfer of a human somatic cell nucleus into a human or animal egg." (You can read those proposed guidelines here)

This again means that what Reagan advocated would not be permitted. So he was not supporting the Democratic position, but rather advocating something they have opposed. He ended his speech by calling on people to vote for what he described on November 2nd, but no one running supports what he described, and neither does the public. Seems to me he made a bit of a misstep here, and the Dems should be forced to say whether, like him, they advocate taxpayer funded cloning.

Based on an actual conversation!

Passenger: "Fleet Center, please."

Boston cab driver (an immigrant): "You like John Kerry, eh?"

Passenger: "Well, I'm a Democrat but I don't really like Kerry that much."

Cab driver: "I hear that all day. All day. 'I don't like Kerry.' Why you pick him if you don't like him?"

I'm sure by now you're received dozens of e-mails from Cornerites who were at NR's Doyle's shindig last night, but I wanted to publicly express my thanks. I've always loved NRO because of its tone - a chatty, friendly magazine that never makes you feel ostracized and welcomes you as part of one big family - and that was the same feeling I had last night. Jonah, Kate, Ramesh and Jay (to name a few) were unfailingly gracious and charming to everyone, considering the distance they traveled and with their ears still ringing from the nonsense at the convention.

Teresa, Barack, whatever. It’s time to get back to what matters. Shotgate. That earlier post on Kerry’s deer hunting ‘experience’ (crawling, apparently, around on his stomach with his “trusty 12-gauge double-barrel”) set off a, um, firestorm in my e-mail in-tray. Shotguns, it turns out, are not for deer.

Now, beyond the dinner plate, my relations with the animal kingdom have almost always been peaceful, so I’m no expert on this topic, but many, many people wrote in to explain that, when it comes to slaughtering Bambi's mom, a rifle is the weapon of first choice, followed, good grief, by a handgun or, for the Hoods and Tells among us, a bow.

Shotguns, by contrast, are used on “vermin”, our feathered friends and “tiny innocent pieces of clay pottery.” Why’s this? Well, hunting deer with a shotgun would be like, pick your insulting analogy, either (1) “painting a wall by throwing the paint with your bare hands” or, (2) trying to kill the deer ”by throwing rocks at it.”

The Nugent crowd, meanwhile, griped that shotgun pellets would spoil the meat, while sensitive sorts (what were they doing in the Corner?) worried that using a shotgun would be unnecessarily cruel.

The only dissenting voice came from a reader from (rifle-wielding) South Dakota, but what he had to say was, in the context of this growing stain on the Kerry candidacy, sort of important. A friend had told this reader that, “in flat, cold and frozen areas (such as New England) you are not allowed to use anything other than a shotgun with slugs. Shooting a high-powered rifle on flat frozen terrain can carry for miles (i.e. through farm yards), whereas a shotgun slug only has a range of about 100 yards, and is very effective in that range.” If this rather surprising revelation is actually, ahem, true it could, so to speak, blow a hole through the criticism listed above, but as my knowledge of Massachusetts hunting regulations is even less than my knowledge of Massachusetts geography, I couldn’t possibly comment. Can anyone solve this mystery? And, while I’m blegging, there’s one other thing. New England is “flat, cold and frozen” and South Dakota is not? Please advise.

A trivial topic? Of course. About the same as the spelling of potato, I would think.

K-Lo: Just checking out CNN.com. Interesting that all the good news from Boston knocked the good news about the market out of its usual spot on CNN.com. There's usually a little box showing how the market did today. The one with the red arrow showing the Dow hitting a near-year-record low a few days ago was up until today, when the market rallied.

No good news is news these days...

I think the politics of the issue favor the Democrats, in the sense that more people will vote for them on the issue than will vote against them on it. The people who will vote against them are already voting against them on abortion, while people who believe that taxpayer funding for the research will cure them or their relatives are a new constituency for the Democrats. That doesn’t mean that Republicans would gain votes by switching positions on the issue—they would probably lose more pro-life voters than they would gain pro-funding voters. But it makes it understandable that they want the issue to get less attention, and wish it had never arisen in the first place.

How big a political impact the issue will have is hard to say; I tend to think it will be small. As an opponent of the research, I am heartened by the fact that the people who keep saying that it will have a large, anti-Republican impact are having to rely on bogus polls.

Take Jim Pinkerton's Newsday column. He uses an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that claims that 71 percent of people support embryonic stem-cell research and only 22 percent oppose it. The poll does not distinguish between allowing the research, and funding it. (Neither does Pinkerton, who uses the deeply misleading formulation that Bush "opposes most stem-cell research.") The poll doesn't mention that the research destroys human embryos. Respondents are informed only that some people oppose the research because it "uses cells" from embryos. Pinkerton also repeats advocates' claims that the research can help Alzheimer's patients, etc.--up to 100 million people and their families--without mentioning that plenty of authorities, including people who favor the research themselves, say that's just not true.

Pinkerton's column is the work of an advocate, which is fine, but not also that of a sober analyst.

First, I think Dean's speech blew -- to use a technical term from political science. He was restrained without being serious. He repeated his platitudes and bumper stickers -- "you have the power," yawn, "you have the power."

Second, how Dean can say he cares about unity and at the same time continually say that he wants to "take this country back for Americans" baffles me. In effect, he's saying that the half of the country which likes the current administration aren't authentic Americans. Considering his status as the country club liberal's favorite Democrat, he really should find a better stump line.

Ellen writes, "The only reason that THK's" -- that would be Teresa Heinz Kerry -- "relatively innocuous statement has made it to the forefront of the press is because you guys decided to focus on it. Tattoo this on your foreheads: Democratic wives speak their minds, Republican wives don't have any."

Jack Cafferty added: "Cruel."

So let's see how multilateral pressure works.

Rather than answer individual email I figured I'd better just say this once. I think the notes I'm getting from some -- not all -- Ann Coulter fans are silly. I didn't get Ann dropped from USA Today, I didn't even hear from them until afterwards. The notion that I should have taught USA Today a "lesson" by forming some sort of "conservative solidarity" is an interesting idea which seems popular among some folks. It strikes me as sophomoric -- judging from the emails I've received. But, while I'm sorry that Ann got dropped (though it's hardly clear to me that she's sorry about it at all), I don't have a dog in that fight. Ann does her thing, I do mine. She didn't want to work with the editors of USA Today for what she feels were good reasons -- a similar policy she had with National Review Online, if you recall. That's cool, and as Ted Kennedy says, water under the bridge. If USA Today tries to make me say something I don't want to say or don't believe, I'll drop them like bag of dirt. So far they've been perfectly professional with me. Anyway, I wish Ann the best and if her fans want to denounce USA Today or send me angry emails, that's fine. I just don't care.

What does bother me, however, is the suggestion that I'm the right's answer to Michael Moore. He's a hateful, crapulent, lying windbag. But that's just my opinion.

Despite unprecedented levels of security at this convention, there is one detail that strikes me as a weakness. The passes to the Fleet Center are not personalized with a name or a picture. This means that if any of the thousands of delegates or reporters loses his, gets mugged and has it taken, or just gives it to somebody else, then who knows whose hands these passes can get into? In fact, just outside of the arena tonight, a colleague was approached and asked by someone on the streets of Boston: "Hey, are you leaving? Are you done with your pass? Can I have it?"

BOSTON -- Despite photos to the contrary, Alexandra Kerry contends the transparent dress she wore to the Cannes Film Festival was actually quite conservative.

Paragraph #617 (on page 128) The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets. SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks 1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

The bit about the "international court on war criminals" and Kyoto was dishonest, given that his administration was not much more interested in American participation in either. Ditto the bit about the Bush administration's "withholding promised funding" for education, which is a very common Democratic talking point with almost no basis in fact.

Does anyone know whether the drop in crime stopped after Clinton left office, as he implied, or whether gang violence is increasing, as he said?

Planned Parenthood's latest T-Shirt. "I had an abortion." (Via Drudge)
Woops: K-Lo already posted this. sorry.

I'll be on Inside Politics (or I'm scheduled to be) around 4:15ish.

Mr. Guillory [Ferrel Guillory, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill] said that because the context of Mr. Gore's candidacy was so different from Mr. Kerry's, the party had moved on, leaving Mr. Gore a "paradoxical figure."

"Gore doesn't return as a beloved figure," Mr. Guillory said. "There is some admiration for his enunciating in the strongest possible terms what Democrats are thinking about Bush, but it's poignant now how little real embrace of Gore that there is."

He added: "The party has moved on with different personalities and a different idiom. And as the party looks back to a model, it looks to Bill Clinton's ability to build a coalition and enunciate a vision."

When he formed his government on 10 May 1940, Churchill was confronted by near outrage among some of his closest friends and allies for giving high position to former adversaries, including those who had kept him out of office and had belittled his policies on the eve of war. Churchill was emphatic in his reply. “As for me,” he wrote to one pre-war adversary who had apologized for his role in trying to remove Churchill from Parliament, “the past is dead.” Two days before he became Prime Minister, during the debate in the House of Commons when Chamberlain’s leadership and Churchill’s conduct of the Norwegian Campaign were both under attack, Churchill appealed to his fellow parliamentarians in these words: “I say, let pre-war feuds die; let personal quarrels be forgotten, and let us keep our hatreds for the common enemy. Let Party interests be ignored, let all our energies be harnessed, let the whole ability and forces of the nation be hurled into the struggle, and let the strong horses be pulling on the collar.

I am not reciting these facts for the purpose of recrimination. That, I judge, to be utterly futile and even harmful. We cannot afford it. I recite them in order to explain why it was that we did not have, as we could have had, between twelve and fourteen British divisions fighting in the line in this great battle instead of only three. Now I put all this aside. I put it on the shelf, from which the historians, if they have time, will select their documents and tell their stories. We have to think of the future and not of the past. This applies in a small way to our own affairs at home. There are too many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments – and of Parliaments, for they are in it too – during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This would also be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine.

Here’s an interesting article from Saturday’s (yes, yes, I’m catching up) New York Times on a Christian ‘rival’ to Harry Potter written by a vicar from the UK. Well, why not? In the books of Philip Pullman, there’s an explicitly atheist contender, so this latest effort can only add to, dread word, the diversity of what’s on offer, so good for the vicar.

The only oddity about this story comes from what it reveals about some of the Potterphobes out there. There’s the lady from Houston who had not allowed her children to read Harry Potter when they were young, and hadn't read the series herself. "I don't desire to have it in my hands because of the witchcraft," she told the Times. Well, that’s her right, of course, but I wonder if she’s not forgetting something. Harry Potter is fiction.

And so, I would add, are the powers of the occult.

Here’s what David Brooks had to say in the New York Times on Saturday:

”The commissioners don't say it, but the implication is clear. We've had an investigation into our intelligence failures; we now need a commission to analyze our intellectual failures. Simply put, the unapologetic defenders of America often lack the expertise they need. And scholars who really know the Islamic world are often blind to its pathologies. They are so obsessed with the sins of the West, they are incapable of grappling with threats to the West.

”We also need to mount our own ideological counteroffensive. The commissioners recommend that the U.S. should be much more critical of autocratic regimes, even friendly ones, simply to demonstrate our principles. They suggest we set up a fund to build secondary schools across Muslim states, and admit many more students into our own. If you are a philanthropist, here is how you can contribute: We need to set up the sort of intellectual mobilization we had during the cold war, with modern equivalents of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to give an international platform to modernist Muslims and to introduce them to Western intellectuals.”

And here’s what the Daily Telegraph is reporting today:

“A distinguished writer and academic has accused leading publishers of turning down his latest book because it is too critical of Islam.”

We have, it seems, a way to go with the ideological counter-offensive.

The British magazine, Prospect (no, not the American lot) recently organized a poll to identify the top five ‘public intellectuals’ in Britain. In fourth place was Eric Hobsbawm, the historian who has, for years, defended the delusions, and minimized the crimes, of communism. The poll was supposed to be based on the recent efforts of these learned folk, however, and the elderly Professor Hobsbawm has outlived the system he praised for so long.

So what has this ancient ogre (who has been discussed before both on the Corner and NR ) been up to recently? Blogger Oliver Kamm reminds us:

“According to the historian Robert Conquest, Hobsbawm was asked by Michael Ignatieff in a BBC interview in 1994: “What (your view) comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of 15, 20 million people might have been justified?” He replied: “Yes.”

[snip]

”Moving to more recent panegyric, Hobsbawm remarks in On History (1997): “Fragile as the communist systems turned out to be, only a limited, even nominal, use of armed coercion was necessary to maintain them from 1957 until 1989.” He means the 27 Soviet divisions, 6,300 tanks and 400,000 troops sent into Czechoslovakia in 1968 to snuff out political reform.”

Now the readers of Prospect are entitled to vote for whom they want, and there’s no denying that the revolting Hobsbawm is, unaccountably, prominent in British intellectual circles, but there’s something else…

Kamm notes that “Prospect’s “five intellectuals” are to be accorded dinner with a Cabinet minister and a newspaper editor, with the conversation recorded for the magazine,” and then adds this:

” If Hobsbawm’s interlocutors have any gumption, they will refuse to sit with him.”

Kamm's right.

To many in Western Europe, Michael Moore has become a hero, but, according to the BBC (!), some Poles are not so sure. Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened in Poland, a country where people know a thing or two about being lied to, and some film critics are comparing it to totalitarian propaganda.

“Gazeta Wyborcza reviewer Jacek Szczerba called the film a "foul pamphlet". He said it was too biased to be called a documentary and was similar to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl.”

From the Guardian:

“President George Bush, who had already promised a more aggressive campaign against substance abuse, has ordered that resources be allocated to fighting so-called 'soft' drugs instead of concentrating on harder forms, such as heroin and cocaine.”

Does he never learn?