From the Miami Herald:

“John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:

“What will you do about Cuba?

”As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.

'I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning. Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

”It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

”There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.”

Don’t worry, don’t worry, he has an explanation:

”Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.”

There’s a bit of a pattern here, I think.

This doesn’t look good:

”Judges are to be given tough powers to protect Britain from pollution and over-development under proposals for a new environmental court.”

The law’s the law, and regular courts should be left to enforce it. Obviously, traditional impartiality is not enough for the UK’s Green enforcers. Still, this won’t worry the Independent. Its coverage of this story includes this gem:

“The move follows concern that the legal system has failed to meet the growing threat posed by industry and multi-national companies.”

The growing threat posed by industry? Yup. Jobs, prosperity, progress, threats like that, threats that have made the UK rich enough to clean up its environment to a degree unimaginable thirty or forty years ago.

Ridiculous.

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.

So my girlfriend is over who is most apolitical and not crazy about Bush. She sometimes accuses me of reading too much on the Corner. I pull up your link to Web of Connections just as she walks over. She’s looking at it and she says, “I don’t get it. That’s supposed to be funny?” I said I didn’t know what she means. “What,” she says, “this is supposed to be some NRO spoof on the Kerry Campaign?” Doh!

A brief history: 1) I'm against it, and you should vote for me over John McCain on this basis. 2) Some campaign-finance reforms amount to a restriction on free speech, and I'll veto them on that basis. 3) I'll sign the bill, let the judges sort it out. 4) The bill I just signed bans all those George Soros ads. 5) I'm going to sue to get those ads all banned. 6) I'm going to support legislation to ban those ads that I already banned, even though they used to be free speech. I think (5) and (6) are new this week.

Here's a better idea: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act.

David Frum had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal the other day arguing that pro-lifers should be willing to entertain the idea of supporting Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008 if he does a few things. Let me mention two things Frum urges Giuliani to do, and note one he doesn't.

First, the one he doesn't. Giuliani has not just been pro-choice: He's been against a ban on partial-birth abortion. It is very hard for me to imagine someone with that position winning a Republican presidential nomination, or getting significant pro-life support.

Frum suggests that Giuliani should agree to appoint judges who oppose Roe v. Wade (or whose originalism would make it likely they oppose it). Frum also says that Giuliani should say, "Today our challenge is to use the achievements of science and medicine to serve humanity--and never allow[] science to treat some human beings as mere tools for the use of others." I take this line to be a statement of support for limits on the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research and for a ban on cloning.

Now one can certainly be pro-choice and anti-Roe. I can think of several journalists and the odd legal academic who take this position. But examples of practical politicians who take it are hard to come by. Most politicians seem to think that being against Roe is a harder sell, politically, than being generically pro-life, and tend to downplay their anti-Roe stance, in part because many people are under the mistaken impression that getting rid of Roe means prohibiting abortion. Certainly most politicians seem to think that opposing funding embryonic stem-cell research is harder than being generically pro-life. I'm just not sure there's a constituency for the position that Frum is advocating for the mayor. And so I think it's unlikely that Giuliani will take the advice, or that pro-lifers will support him in large numbers.

At the end of his acceptance speech Bush should forcefully call out John Kerry to a debate -- or more. He should end his challenge by shouting "Kerry" something like this

TRRRTLE BLAY....TRRRRTLE BLAY....That's what I plan on chanting with my NR beer hat and giant foam finger saying "Lowry's #1!" as I wander down the street -- right before I "water" the flowers at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza.

Be there, or risk being called the sort of kid who passed up seeing The Who in concert because you had to transcribe the minutes from the last Stamp Collectors' Club meeting.

Doug Brinkley is a nice guy. I've met him several times, though I doubt he remembers it. Anyway, he's managed to cultivate for himself a reputation as a major scholar very quickly and almost just as quickly he's earning for himself a reputation as an astounding hack and political star-f..., uh, Toady. John Miller's excellent piece in NR recently fleshed-out his latest stage of hackdom but it's been going on for a very long time. If memory serves, his exploitation of John Kennedy Jr.'s death was stunning. In the begining of the week he said he'd been an aquaintance of his, by the end of the week it almost sounded like John-John had bravely given his best friend the last parachute in the plane so that the Word could live on.

If John F. Kerry is burning with a desire to be the new JFK than I nominate Brinkley as the new self-appointed Arthur Schlesinger.

I don't know if James Carville is hurting for cash these days, but he's definitely over-exposed (note how I'm skipping the easy jokes here). First he appeared (in one of the most unfunny scenes) in Old School. Then he and his wife started shilling for an airlines in radio commercials. Now, he's doing kids books.

What I would really like to know is what kind of parent thinks it's just great to skip, say, Curious George and go straight to Lu and the Swamp Ghost.

From an advertisement in the New Yorker:

“In Lu and the Swamp Ghost…James Carville teams up with award-winning children’s book author Patricia C. McKissack to create a story about lending a helping hand. The book is based on an episode in the life of Carville’s mother, Lucille (known as “Miz Nippy”), who grew up in rural southern Louisiana during the Great Depression.”

Miz Nippy?

The vomit is rising in my gorge.

Over at Reason, Nick Gillespie is dancing with his usual gusto on the grave of that uniquely dull (beach volleyball excepted) spectacle known as the Olympics (copyright, trademark, yada, yada, yada).

This passage, in particular, is well worth repeating to a pompous US Olympics Committee that is, apparently, so enamored of its brand:

”The most disturbing of the political controversies was undoubtedly the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich games by the Palestinian group Black September. The terrorists' violence was compounded by the speech given by International Olympics Committee head Avery Brundage. Brundage declared that the games would continue—a controversial if defensible position. But in saying that the games "must go on," Brundage, who had enjoyed a warm relationship with Adolf Hitler during the '36 Munich Games, refused to plainly mention the killings. Rather, he bemoaned the fact that the Olympics had suffered "two savage attacks," a euphemistic reference to the murders and a campaign underway to expel Rhodesia, then a white-supremacist nation, from participating in the games.

Meanwhile, in other Olympics news, the eccentric, but occasionally entertaining UK Independence Party is doing its bid for London’s bid to host the 2012 games.

It’s announced its support for Paris.

The EU Referendum Blog has more on this, including a few details of London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s reaction.

”Mayor Livingstone also announced haughtily that 70 per cent of Londoners supported the Games and the investment, jobs and development they would bring to London. Subsequently, the figure became 81 per cent, then went back to 70 per cent. But one thing remained constant: no evidence of any poll was produced. So we still do not know how the figure was arrived at and who was asked.”

It seems that a trouble with numbers is something else that Livingstone shares with poor old Nurse Bloomberg, an enthusiast, of course, for bringing the Olympic plague to his city.

UKIP is also suggesting “that, as London taxes will go up enormously to pay for the bid, the Games and the fall-out afterwards, the people who live and run businesses in London should be asked in a referendum whether the bid should go ahead after a full and clear statement of the costings had been made.”

That’s a good idea. New Yorkers should insist on the same.

I have received some really awesome email from vets and non vets alike about the G-File. One point, however, lost on some of the angrier emailers is the point that while I have as much of a "right" to judge as anybody else, the validity of the arguments supporting some judgments is obviously superior to others. At some level this is a linguistic point. If I've never served in combat, I'd better have a pretty good command of the facts and the principles involved before I think I can persuade anybody. But I have just as much a right to try. I do not believe that experience isn't important or valuable. I simply think it doesn't trump everything else. I would certainly value the opinion of John Keegan about what it was like to fight in WWI than I would John Kerry, John McCain or most -- though perhaps not all -- Vietnam vets. I don't believe all opinions are equal and all judgments of identical value. How could I?

I'll be on the road -- actually in the air -- all day tomorrow (today, Friday, by the time you read this). I have to get the puddle-jumper to Seattle. Then a gnarly to leg flight to DC. So I won't be around. I have a conference on Saturday that I'm participating in (the excellent Arsalyn program which is run out of LA). And then Sunday I drive up to NYC for GOP-Palooza. Then, the following Friday, I fly back to Seattle, rejoin the family unit and drive back to DC where we'll be living in a small rented house while they continue to remodel our real home. And then I finish the book.

Oh, and: First post of the day!

Crazed, doubtless, by self-importance and who knows what else, the US Olympic Committee has (according to Reuters) asked the Bush campaign to pull its ad referring to, gasp, the Olympic Games. Apparently, the committee feels that this impertinently 'hijacks' the Olympics brand, even though the Bush commercial doesn't, um, actually display the games' logo.

For arrogance, this edict takes some beating. That sad little committee should be told to take a running jump.

For those that are interested, one notable moment in the history of this much-vaunted 'brand' can be seen here. There's a much better use for it here.

Another military reader:

Mr. Goldberg,

After reading your essay in the National Review, I felt it necessary to
email a personal view. To give perspective, my own military service has
included 7 years active duty Air Force, 2 years Air Force Reserve, 2 years
as a Traditional Air Guardsman, and one year as a fulltime active Air
Guardsman. During that time I have worked across many of the potential work
environments for communications in the modern military, to include 2 direct
deployments for operations in Enduring Freedom, and one during the
liberation of Iraq. I do feel that as both a student of military history
and a veteran I have some right to comment on many of the issues of military
force and service in America. But all of that is only a minor point.

I have stood up and taken an oath 3 times to defend the Constitution of the
United States of America. That simple document assures all Americans of the
right to have an opinion and to voice it in any civilized manner they so
chose. For me that is the end of the issue. It is not a matter of
objectivity or subjectivity, it simple a thing that is. I have lost friends
and loved ones in action from terrorist attacks in the mid 90's through the
atrocity of 9-11, right through to the current thuggery in Iraq. Those
individuals gave their life for that simple document. What it stands for and
embraces is all that matters to me in issues of who has the 'right' to speak
of an matter or event.

There are many American service personnel to my knowledge who are quite
unhappy with Bush's conduct of the war. Those personal reasons range from
inadequate post combat planning to going to soft and letting politics get in
the way of reality and operations. But many more voice distaste for Kerry's
lack of dignity in the 70's over his rejection of his military service. The
unspoken word hypocrite hangs in the air during those discussions. Just as
many serviceman have looked tight lipped and haunted eyed at the thought of
Al Gore being president during the past four years. Those of us who wear a
uniform are as diverse a group as any American demographic, but within my
subjective opinion most tend to favor a more conservative stance on issues,
thereby making Bush the canidate for the majority of the military, past and
present.

From a reader:

Sir, I enjoyed your logical and persuasive freedom of speech article. I served in the US Army for 21 years and in combat areas in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and believe I have a right to comment on military matters JUST AS ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO COMMENT ON MILITARY MATTERS, BY REASON OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. My rights do not exceed your rights so long as what we each say is true. I object to Kerry's lies about his Vietnam service. I know they are lies because of internal contradictions, because of the testimony of reasonable and valid observers, and because of Kerry's unfortunate tendency to lie about all things greaet and small. It matters particularly to me as a Vietnam veteran that, after becoming eligible for the draft and into the Army, Kerry applied for a one year extension so he could, as he put it, goof off in Paris. When it was refused, Kerry volunteered for the Navy, knowing the likelyhood of combat service there was much less than in the Army. He was also seeking to bolster his political future. Kerry volunteered for Swiftboats at a time when they were a coastal service, running up and down the coast, and shooting up unarmed sampans. He has said, "I didn't want any part of the war." When the duty changed, according to his fellow swiftboaters, Kerry, variously, acted like a maniac shooting up innocent people and burning villages. When actual combat happened, he fled the scene. After the way he maligned each of us who served in Vietnam for his own political advancement in -- God help them -- a state given over to liars and peacenicks like Ted Kennedy. He introduced the subject of Vietnam service into the campaign because he thought he could hammer Bush with it. Bush, incidently, served honorably in the Air National Guard, flying missions over the USA to keep out Russian bombers. Kerry, by his own admission, was a war criminal. So . . . you do have a right to speak about the war, about people's conduct in the war, and about anything else you damned well want to -- so long as you tell the truth (a condition which would keep you out of the Democrat party and the main line media, by the way). Thanks again,

From a guy in uniform:

As an officer I'm to remain impartial and publicly neutral. One point, though:

When Bush came into that mess tent in Baghdad (first hand account from two
friends), that place spontaneously erupted. Dudes had tears welling up in
their eyes (along with the president) and that place was shaking with
applause. That was not a scripted moment. I was north in Tikrit at the
time and we applauded when we saw the news report on AFN (armed forces
network).

I'd bet a month's pay that Senator Kerry would not enjoy the same response
in the same situation.

The vast majority of service men and women don't give two s**** whether
their commander in chief served in the armed forces 30 years ago. We just
want to be assured that he's looking out for our interests (collective
American interests) and making wise choices today.

The Bush administration is a fan of it, apparently. The New York Times has more:

"In a striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change, a new report to Congress focuses on federal research indicating that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades."

The "only" likely explanation?

Election year pandering, I suppose, and contemptible as it is counter-productive, sort of like an environmental McCain-Feingold-Bush. Pathetic.

Ifyou sent me an email this morning and it bounced back. The email box overloaded again. I think I've cleared out enough space.

And, yes, when things calm down a bit I will probably be shedding AOL. I need to find an email/internet connection I like. Thanks much to all the folks who offered Gmail as a solution to over-filled email boxes. The problem with Gmail is I really hate web-based email software. I don't know why.

Anyway, no need to send me suggestions on other email options. I know they're out there and I could handle the irony of having my email fill-up again by getting a zillion suggestions on how to avoid that problem.

A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran, Jerry Patterson, said someone from the Bush campaign contacted him Wednesday morning and asked him if he would travel to the ranch, welcome Cleland to Texas and accept the former senator's letter to Bush.

"I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me," said Patterson. "He would not face me. He kept rolling away from me. He's quite mobile."

Patterson, who spoke with the president on the phone, said the campaign asked him to give Cleland a letter for Kerry written by the Bush campaign and signed by Patterson and seven other veterans.

They're discussing an amendment to express opposition to hate-crimes laws. I'm moving "left" on the question, or at least moving against the standard equal-protection argument against it that the delegate made (and made rather well). (Here's what I used to think about the question.) I take the theory behind hate-crimes laws to be that these crimes have a larger social impact than other crimes and that the law can take account of that. We treat cop-killers worse than other killers, I take it, because we owe cops something for risking their lives for us and a community is dramatically less safe if it's open season on cops. The unequal treatment of these crimes is not a denial of a basic equality in the right to life of cops and everyone else. Now it may be that hate-crimes laws are a prelude to a campaign to criminalize "hate speech" of various kinds, or some similar campaign, and that may be a reason to oppose hate-crimes laws. But in theory I can see a case for it, and yes, that includes for crimes against people based on their sexual orientation.

While I composed this post, btw, the amendment failed.

The platform committee just added lines commending the president for supporting a mandate that health insurers cover mental and physical illness on equal terms. Here's an argument against.

Meanwhile, a number of amendments are now being offered to move the platform rightward on embryonic stem cell research--including a proposal to ban it altogether. Frist is speaking against it as I post.

A pro-choice and a pro-life delegate, working with pro-choice and pro-life organizations, worked out an amendment to the "summary and call to action" part of the platform. Instead of saying that Republicans "recognize" disagreements on many issues and commit to civil discussion, Republicans will now "respect and accept" these disagreements. But abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues will not be mentioned as specific causes of disagreement. The amendment doesn't, to my mind, change much, but I guess the sponsors thought that the way it was offered would be a useful show of unity.

Speaking of unity, the abortion section of the platform passed a little bit before this amendment, with no attempt at a challenge. Next up is the section of the platform that covers (among other things) stem-cell research and immigration. But really, people, if you're watching this on tv, flip the channel.

John Kerry speaking at a Martin Luther King day celebration in Virginia last year said, quote, "I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam. A place of violence. When the news reports brought home to me and my crew mates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King." That date, of Dr. King's death, was April 4, 1968. According to kerry's website, it was not until November 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.

Robert Samuelson on McCain-Feingold-Bush:

"The presidential campaign has confirmed that, under the guise of "campaign finance reform," Congress and the Supreme Court have repealed large parts of the First Amendment. They have simply discarded what were once considered constitutional rights of free speech and political association. It is not that these rights have vanished. But they are no longer constitutional guarantees. They're governed by limits and qualifications imposed by Congress, the courts, state legislatures, regulatory agencies -- and lawyers' interpretations of all of the above. We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this -- the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking -- and so hardly anyone does. The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org. Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered. Now there's another possibility. The government may screen what voters see and hear."

Read the whole thing.

Last night on a talk show…the Kerry spokesman said that the atrocities in Vietnam are well documented matters of record, and Kerry had every right to talk about them in 1972. My blood began to boil again.

As a military lawyer, I knew of the atrocities being committed by Marines in Vietnam. The atrocities were isolated incidents, and they were punished by every level of command at the time and before it became trendy for the media to sensationalize the crimes. They are matters of record because the perpetrators were court martialed, and you can read about them in the court martial reports.

Kerry's characterization of Vietnam atrocities as being widespread on a daily basis with the knowledge of all levels of command is a lie.

The Kerry machine’s sending spokesmen out to attest to widespread atrocities in Vietnam multiplies the insult. Not only should Kerry apologize, but every spokesman from the nameless man I saw last night to James Carville should apologize. Until they do, I will support the Swiftvets with my money and with my voice.

We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw Ammerica lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too -- and proud to support President Bush. He's been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He's made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 -- in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he's praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran's right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient

[S]everal months ago in Detroit, we [Kerry’s antiwar organization] had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Rich, you're quite right, of course. Here's a tremendous editorial from today's Wall Street Journal explaining just how the President got himself in this mess:

"President Bush didn't tell the full story on Monday when he denounced TV ads by such "527s" as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But not because he didn't agree to the Kerry campaign's demand that he repudiate the specific Swift Boat ads. Our gripe is that Mr. Bush assailed the very campaign-finance system that he helped create."I don't think we ought to have 527s," Mr. Bush said, referring to the independent political fund-raising groups that have become such an important part of this election season. "And I hope my opponent joins me in saying, condemning those activities of the 527s. It's the -- I think they're bad for the system." Not so fast, Mr. President. One reason 527s are so prominent now is because Mr. Bush made the mistake of signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" that barred big donations to political parties. So 527s have become the new alternative vehicle that Americans passionate about politics are using to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech. The difference is that now the campaigns can't control how that money is spent.If Mr. Bush wanted the two major parties to better control their campaign messages, he could have vetoed McCain-Feingold. Some of us urged him to do so, but his political advisers whispered not to worry, the Supreme Court will take care of it. Well, Sandra Day O'Connor failed too, but in any event since when are Presidents supposed to pass the buck to judges?In our view, this was among the worst moments of Mr. Bush's term. Having helped to midwife the current campaign-finance system, it ill behooves him to blame others for the way this world works."

Indeed it does.

"On immigration, the platform supports Mr. Bush's call for a new temporary worker program that would also be open to some current illegal immigrants.Republican strategists say that although the president's proposals on immigration have largely fallen out of the headlines, the subject remains a delicate issue within the party. Loosening immigration restrictions offers an opportunity for Republicans to court the rapidly growing number of Hispanic voters while pleasing some big employers. But the measures face stiff resistance from cultural conservatives.Dr. Frist said, "The president has spoken, and there has been a reaction, and this is the first forum to debate it." "There is a lot of misrepresentation of the president's policy, that people can take shortcuts to citizenship," he said. "There will be a lot of clarification of that."

Dr. Frist is right about one thing. There has been a lot of misrepresentation about the proposed immigration 'reform'. Unfortunately, most of it has been from the President.

Lots of email on other candidate demographics for least qualified to vote. I think a few people have missed my point. I don't have particular animus toward today's 18-24 year olds. For all I know they are potentially the greatest generation ever. All I mean is that it is inherent to being young to either take politics too seriously or not seriously enough. Anyway, a couple emails:

First,

Less qualified to vote than the group you describe are their older counterparts, the GenX-ers (who are now the same age as you and me) who failed to wake up and smell the reality after they left the liberal halls of their colleges. Youth generally equals ignorance and so is forgivable, but 30-something, college-educated people who still believe they should take their political direction from the likes of Alec Baldwin are really pathetic. And probably too stupid to vote.

And..

Mr. Goldberg,

As one who has recently departed the 18-24 year old group (I'm 27), I
wholeheartedly agree with you. I work for a university and interact with
students frequently, and when they find that I used to work in politics, the
conversation inevitable turns in that direction. They're almost all empty
vessels into which some opinion has been poured, either by parents or
teachers or, Heaven forefend, MTV. This, I suspect, is because they lack
the wisdom or discernment to formulate a coherent opinion themselves. I
don't know if I was that way just a few years ago (more likely) or if I'm
wiser now (much less likely), but either way, nearly everyone 18-24 strikes
me as a person who should commit to staying home on election day.

Who's keeping Couch company while you're on vacation?

And...

As a former student "leader" I was E.D. of the Florida Student Association in the late 80's we tried to mobilize the youth vote and youth activism in politics. The only time in my tenure we were able to motivate a substantial portion of students across Florida was over tuition increases, but this was for a rally at the capital (and we had really cool t-shirts that we gave away). So as a campaign guy in my younger days, I have run with local and state candidates up the hill of motivating young people to vote several times and have come away bloodied and on the losing end of the vote tally. They are completely unreliable, uninformed and generally interested in almost every possible diversion from participating in the political process. Hell, why do we think these people are going to get out and vote in real numbers for any politician when they vote at a rate of about 5 to 7% in campus elections. And this is in places like Florida that has a student activity fee that the student government has complete authority to spend (basically, taxing authority for students) egads! Additionally, those that do vote are generally involved in some campus organization like fraternities and sororities or big clubs of students. So basically if you are not a joiner... you don't get involved... hmnn... funny how that works in the general electorate and why we try to create or tap so many grass roots organizations. So I realize that the Kerry campaign will lose in November because they are spending time catering to and trying to mobilize the youth vote two months from an election. They have run out of ways to actually reach real voters.

My syndicated column on youth politics (containing an argument many NRO readers will find very familiar) has gotten a lot of play around the country. The Arizona Republic even ran a little sidebar asking readers something to the effect of "Is this guy right?" The response has been typical in tone but atypical in size.

Anyway, I keep getting nice letters like this one:

Dear, Mr. Goldberg: I am deeply offended by your recent column on voting and youth that appeared in my local paper on August 24th. You said that no bloc of the electorate (with the exception of the mentally disabled) is more uninformed then the youth vote. I am very offended by what you said. I happen to be a 21-year old Republican who will vote to reelect President Bush. You are correct in saying that MTV and Rock the Vote are liberal and are probably not the best place to get information, but blasting one group (the youth) and labeling us with words to the effect of one giant mass of MTV-watching rap-listening slobs is unjust. I am very informed. I go to debates featuring county offiicals and will attend another one featuring our state House of Representatives candidates. I am majoring in political science and I have heard that today's young people actually may be more conservative then others. I usually read and agree with your columns, but I disagree with this one very strongly. You may judge the 18-34 year old age group (with words to the effect of) being MTV-watching apathetic dummies, but please remember that there are always exceptions to the rule like me!

This letter to the Arizona Republic is also typical.

Anyway, I'm not going to rehash these arguments all over again. But I would like to make one point and ask one question. First, one of my main gripes is with the idea the suggestion that youth are all the same, so of course I'm willing to concede that there are a sizable number of exceptions to the rule. I know a lot of very smart, well-educated and savvy young people.

Which brings me to my question. I get so much angry email from young people who feel some sort of personal loyalty to a demographic cohort, which is sad enough. But these kids pound the table about my assertion that as a group young people have less experience or education than older people. And yet none of them can name a significant demographic group which is less informed and less qualified to vote. Sure, if you narrow the criteria to "really dumb people who don't read and who watched "I Love Lucy" in primetime," you might be able to tease the data in your favor. But among significant slices of the populace, Who is less qualified to vote than, say, 18-24 year-olds? I await a serious, good faith answer to that question.

How many times have our most "reliable" hard news outlets passed along this passage of monstrous American evil that so inflames the veterans against John Kerry? A Nexis search reveals a list of some of the national outlets that had never relayed a quote of these words before the second Swift Vet ad was released: CBS, NBC, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Here are the major newspapers who’ve captured this testimony exactly once: The Washington Post and The New York Times, buried inside their papers on Saturdays in late February. ABC repeated one snippet of the paragraph, the "Genghis Khan" snippet, in four stories surrounding the anniversary of the testimony in April. Kerry said then: "I’m sorry that they’re offended by that, but that’s what happened."

If there’s one thing that’s consistent about John Kerry it’s that his attitude to foreign policy is rooted firmly in the past. We’ve heard plenty about the lessons he took away from those four months in Vietnam, but, unless his attack on the Bush administration’s recent decision to re-deploy some troops from Western Europe was merely an act of cheap political opportunism (and who’d want to allege that?), the only explanation for Kerry’s stance is that the poor fellow is still hopelessly mired in the geopolitics of the Cold War, still worried, perhaps, that the Red Army might be about to pour through the Fulda Gap.

In truth, of course, even after massive cuts, the US garrison in Germany has long been too large for the realities of the world since 1991. Reducing it further was long overdue.

This week’s Economist takes a look at this whole topic. The link requires subscription so here are some (shamelessly selective) extracts:

“Mr Kerry would rather recruit another 40,000 soldiers to cope with the problem of overstretch. All the same, it makes little military sense to keep America's overseas forces in the two great clumps, in Europe (chiefly in Germany) and Asia (chiefly in Japan and South Korea), that formed during the cold war to deter the Soviet threat. America now needs a more globally integrated military structure, able to move forces quickly to any trouble-spot. The plan is for numbers to come down faster in Europe, but the backwash of the changes will be felt most keenly in Asia.

“Europe currently plays host to 114,000 American troops (down from over 300,000 at the end of the cold war) and over ten years will see the number drop to 72,000. Smaller changes will take place throughout Europe, but Germany will lose its two American heavy divisions, while gaining a much smaller but more mobile brigade. The net effect: 40,000 troops would still be based there, compared with over 70,000 today. A snub after the recent political strains over Iraq? Both sides flatly deny it. America will also keep its huge Ramstein airbase, to rotate troops on to the Middle East and other hot spots.

“A threat, then, to NATO? The alliance is undergoing its own streamlining of commands, and many of its officials think the reorganisation could go further. Most members have also accepted the need for reforms that will help turn out more capable and deployable soldiers of their own, though few have also agreed to pay for this. Mr Bush's planned military reorganisation may encourage them.

“American officials accept that, despite long months of consultation, some allies are still nervous. But in Europe and elsewhere the reorganisation will help America build new defence relationships with countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, and in strategically important places like Central Asia, as troops rotate in for shorter tours in less permanent training facilities. It remains to be seen, though, whether this lighter “footprint” will be enough to reassure new allies (and some old ones) of America's continuing commitment.”

Mr. Kerry is also criticizing plans to pull some troops out of South Korea, but The Economist doesn’t seem to agree with him on this either:

“In Asia, by contrast, the threats are still looming, and the planned cuts in overall numbers correspondingly smaller. But why cut at all? Pointedly, Mr Kerry asked this week how it can be safe to withdraw 12,000 American troops (actually 12,500, out of 37,000) from South Korea by the end of next year, just as America is negotiating with a hostile and probably nuclear-armed North Korea. Last week 3,500 combat troops were redeployed from South Korea to Iraq, suggesting that strains elsewhere have been having an effect.

“Yet the bulk of the draw-down on the peninsula will come from cutting support services that can just as easily be provided from elsewhere. The decision already taken to move American bases away from Seoul and the front line with North Korea, it is argued, will actually strengthen America's ability to help defend South Korea. So will the extra $11 billion already earmarked for military improvements there. Putting more heavy bombers on Guam, and possibly moving an aircraft-carrier battlegroup from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will enable America to respond swiftly and forcefully to any attack. All the same, the South Korean government has asked for a two-year delay in the withdrawal.”

Food for thought, John?

Next up is a room filled with large, floating, silver, rectangular balloons. We bat them around, then move along past plywood replicas of Heinz ketchup grocery cartons. “What do you think of Teresa Heinz Kerry?” I ask about the heiress, feminist and (cross your fingers) next first lady, who not only has been all over countless newspapers, but used to be married to Senator John Heinz III until he died in a plane crash in 1991.

“I’m sorry?”

“John Kerry’s wife. I think she’s also from Pittsburgh.”

“Is she?”

“Yeah, she’s supposed to be pretty cool.”

“I feel like if you’re not in sports, you’re kind of invisible in Pittsburgh,” she answers. “I didn’t even know this museum was here before. And this is Andy Warhol.”

“What woman to you think would make a good president?”

“Interesting question…. Well, I’ll run,” she says, laughing.

From a reader:

Sir,

Kerry's instincts for going anti war remind me of Austin Powers'
instincts upon being defrosted and hearing that the cold war is
over..."well I guess we showed those capitalist pigs eh comrades?"

Forty years later he's switched to "well, yea capitalism."

I'm no fan of his: I'm still wondering why he hasn't moved back to Russell, Kansas, the way he promised he would during his 1996 run if he lost. But Matthew Yglesias is criticizing him for what I regard as the best moments in his career: when he helped to sink the Clintons' health plan.

Yglesias writes about "Dole's legislative program of mindless [obstructionism]" during this period: "Famously, Clinton couldn't get a single Republican vote for his 1993 deficit-reduction bill (the one that was supposed to destroy the economy), though many GOP members had voted for a similar bill during the first Bush administration. Worse, in the long term, this led Dole to accept the logic of a memo penned by Bill Kristol (a man with no demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in, health-care issues) urging Republicans to oppose Clinton's health-reform proposals "[sight] unseen," not because the proposal was bad (it was, remember, unseen) but because it might be good, thereby restoring middle-class faith in the efficacy of government action. Dole successfully whipped his caucus into doing just that, using the filibuster power to ensure that no plan would pass rather than [using] leverage to forge a more moderate bill. That this entailed having several senators back away from ideas they'd long been on record as favoring, and even forced Dole to repudiate a compromise measure he'd co-sponsored, was of little concern. The important thing was to deny Clinton any legislative compromises.

"Thus Dole found himself present at the creation, almost simultaneously, of all the most repugnant aspects of the modern Republican Party: the pursuit of partisan gain at the expense of the public interest and any recognizably coherent ideology, the dogmatic insistence that no tax ever be raised under any circumstances, and the pretense that the Democratic Party is less an opposition party than some sort of illegitimate force to be crushed by any means necessary. In combination, the resulting legacy is one of fundamental unseriousness about public life. . ."

Kristol was right to urge opposition to Clinton's original plan, and possible later compromises based on it, "sight unseen." Kristol's theory was that Clinton wanted to move the country toward some form of national health insurance, and that this would be bad for the country, that one of the ways it would be bad for the country was that it would encourage an unhealthy degree of public dependence on the government and the party of government, and that this was one of the reasons Clinton wanted it. (Stanley Greenberg had said something to this effect beforehand.) So of course you didn't need to wait to see the details to oppose the plan; you could oppose the whole concept. There's nothing ideologically incoherent about that, and it is not on its face a repudiation of the public interest. The stance undermined the public interest only if one or more of these premises were wrong (which I don't believe they were). Getting senators to back away from bad ideas they had supported, meanwhile, is something Senate majority leaders should do more often.

I haven't read any of the John Kerry biographies, mostly because I haven't had a chance but also because someone said that if I jabbed a spoon into my eye I wouldn't have to.

So, here's how I see John Kerry through my one good eye. He went to Vietnam out of a mix of ambition and patriotism -- hardly an uncommon mix. He idolized JFK and he was a good liberal off to fight what was, until then, a liberal war. He was disillusioned by what he saw, but eager to get his credentials while there (hence the rather rapid accumulation of Purple Hearts of dubious merit). When Richard Nixon was elected, he suddenly saw that that the war was a loser for aspiring liberal politicians. I base this point almost entirely on the fact that not once have I heard Kerry refer to Vietnam as LBJ's or JFK's war but I've heard him denounce Nixon ad nauseum. Indeed, the "I was in Cambodia" line usually seems framed as a slap against Nixon, even though he wasn't even sworn in yet.

Kerry comes home and, partly because he's from Mass. partly because he has horrendous political instincts and partly because all of his liberal friends back home have turned anti-war, he assumes that being anti-war is a great career move. So he switches and switches hard. Obviously, real conviction is part of the story too. But since he seems to have wanted to be president from the womb, his conviction is always shaped through the prism of his ambition. So for the better part of two decades, Kerry runs on his anti-war, anti-military credentials.It slowly dawns on him that anti-Vietnam credentials may have played well to get him elected in the most liberal state, they don't win that many points in the states necessary to become president. Indeed, neither does the 20 year Senate record he amassed. So, suddenly, he's running for president as if his entire career is nothing but a parentheses and his qualifications are based almost entirely on the fact he "reported for duty" thirty years ago. Now that that duty is being scrutinized, he's getting the flop-sweats because he has absolutely nothing else in his record or his personality that would help him get elected president in 2004.

Years ago, I was told that these horns on the statue of Moses were the result of a mistranslation or mis-copying of a text from Exodus, where the word for rays of light (I don't remember what it was in the original) was changed to 'cornu' (horns). My Latin is pretty rusty, so I apologize if this is not exact, but that's the gist of the story as I heard it. I don't really remember where I heard this or when, but it might have been in Scripture class in the seminary, or maybe even Art History class...

And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

Cumque descenderet Moses de monte Sinai tenebat duas tabulas testimonii et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Dei videntes autem Aaron et filii Israhel cornutam Mosi faciem timuerunt prope accedere

The writer [below, which the reader found on a website] claims the Hebrew words for "radiated" and "grew horns" are basically the same, so since he couldn't sculpt "radiation of the face" he sculpted "growing horns". Kind of a visual pun for Hebrew speakers, really:

“It is in his treatment of the rays which it said Moses' face radiated (Exodus 34:29-30) that Michelangelo displays his greatest sophistication in the interpretation of the biblical text. In the Hebrew bible it says that the skin of the face of Moses radiated (in Hebrew : karan) , yet the depiction of this in sculpture would mean the defacing of Moses' face and depiction of stone rays instead of facial features. Michelangelo uses the other meaning of the Hebrew word karan - grew horns ('cornuto' in Italian), and placed the rays of light on Moses' head as if they were two small horns. He may have based his action on Jerome's translation that actually used the Latin term 'cornutam' as a translation of the Hebrew word karan.” (Source.)

The Catholic bishops have commissioned a poll of their own. The following question was asked of 1,001 adults: "Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments?" The result: 46.9 percent opposed the subsidy, and 43.3 percent supported it.

They were also asked this question: "Stem cells for research can be obtained by destroying human embryos. They can also be obtained from adults, from placentas left over from live births, and in other ways that do no harm to the donor. Scientists disagree on which source may end up being most successful in treating diseases. How would you prefer your tax dollars to be used this year for stem cell research?" Only 23.0 percent said that all methods should be used, "including those that require destroying human embryos, to see which will be most successful." In contrast, 61.4 percent wanted to pursue only the non-embryonic approaches.

Other questions found strong (82.1 percent) opposition to allowing cloning for infertile couples to have children, and nearly as strong opposition (79.8 percent) to the use of "human cloning to to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research."

The bishops' poll question is loaded--although no more so than many of the other polls on the subject. What it emonstrates is that the public's answer to these questions depends strongly on the wording. When the possible benefits of embryo research for sick people are not mentioned, the fact that the research "destroy[s]" "live" embryos is mentioned, and "your federal tax dollars" are discussed, the public opposes it. (It could have been more loaded: An even larger number would probably have taken the bishops' side if they had asked about research that "kills" rather than just "destroys" human embryos.)

The news for opponents of the subsidies is not all good. When the bishops asked an almost identical question in 2001, 69.9 percent of the public opposed taxpayer funding for the research. The opponents have lost a lot of ground in these three years.

This poll is a very useful corrective to the steady barrage of stacked polls we've seen from the other side. Most people do not have strong and firmly held views on these questions, which is why the choice of poll wording has such a large effect. And the issue can be framed in ways that win majority support for pro-lifers.

An email: "I live in Huntsville, AL and would like to get together a local group of smart conservatives who are good writers and interested in politics to work on some projects, possibly including a group blog. No professional writing experience is needed (I have none myself). I just want people who are conservative, smart, informed, and who can express themselves well. The amount of time an individual spends on this effort will be strictly up to them.

"As in many places in Red America, conservatives may be dominant in numbers here, but the lefties are better organized, more involved, and are basically kicking our butts in terms of the local public debate. Having a liberal local newspaper does not make things easier. I want to help turn this situation around.

"If you could please post this to the Corner, I would be most appreciative. I figure that Corner readers are exactly the sort of intelligent, informed, Internet-savvy people I am looking for to help me in this effort.

"Anyone interested can contact me at ConservWriters@hotmail.com.

"Thank you! -- Ben Gibbons"

Tim Carney has an article going after David Frum, William Kristol, Max Boot, and others. Carney concludes that the neoconservatives "tell us to abandon the culture wars at home and instead to find more overseas battles." His evidence: Frum is "devoutly pro-choice" (which is not, I think, quite the phrase that Frum himself would use), and Boot says conservatives should not fight same-sex marriage. Never mind that few writers have argued as much against same-sex marriage as Frum has, or that Kristol has been a leading voice against embryo-killing research. Kristol supports the FMA, too.

On Carney's account, Frum denounced conservative opponents of the Iraq war as "unpatriotic" in the spring of 2003. I don't think that's a fair reading of the article, but draw your own conclusions. Anyway, Carney defends his boss, Robert Novak, from Frum's charges--but the defense is misleading.

Carney writes, "Frum accused Novak of 'terror denial' for saying al-Qaeda is more dangerous than Hezbollah. Novak was guilty of 'espousing defeatism' for writing, 'The CIA, in its present state, is viewed by its Capitol Hill overseers as incapable of targeting bin Laden.'"

Carney continues: "First, how is saying one Islamic terrorist organization is a bigger threat than another 'denying' anything? On the second charge, Novak is called unpatriotic for quoting sources who judge that the CIA is in bad shape and will have trouble catching bin Laden (both judgments are evidently true and now universally embraced in the Republican Party)."

Now read Frum's actual article, or just the passages about Novak. On Hezbollah, what Frum actually suggested was that Novak should not be taking its word that it has done nothing against Americans when it has in fact killed Americans. Carney also omits the context of the CIA quote, which makes it clear that Frum was hardly criticizing Novak for trashing the agency. Frum wrote that Novak had "predict[ed] that any campaign in Afghanistan would be a futile slaughter: 'The CIA, in its present state, is viewed by its Capitol Hill overseers as incapable of targeting bin Laden. That leads to an irresistible impulse to satisfy Americans by pulverizing Afghanistan'" (emphasis added).

Carney's version of Frum, like his version of Novak, is distorted.

Thanks for all the nice and/or interesting feedback to Friday’s epic-length G-File. As for the constructive – and sometimes less than constructive – criticisms, I’d like to make a couple points.

First, lots of folks seem peeved by the fact that I was dealing with a narrow aspect of the gay marriage debate. But that was my intent from the beginning – to deal with a specific argument, namely the one made by Rauch. Obviously, there are other arguments for and against gay marriage but I was trying to address the “Hayekian” argument offered by Rauch on its own terms.

Second, I shouldn’t have made it sound like I was saying gay marriage is inevitable, even if I suspect that it may well be. My argument about waiting is not an argument about waiting for the inevitable. There have been plenty of “enlightened” social policies which seemed to have the weight of politics and history behind them which have never panned out. Indeed, Friedrich Hayek spent much of his life battling against those who thought he was a crank for not admitting that socialism was inevitable. More recently, the Equal Rights Amendment failed when many were confident history was on its side. This magazine itself was founded on the mantra of Standing athwart history, yelling Stop. And even if something seems inevitable that doesn’t mean that one should automatically accept it. Whittacker Chambers was confident that he was switching from the winning to the losing side of the Cold War when he abandoned the Communists and joined with the West. My point is that waiting in and of itself has great social benefits.

My dad sent me a clip from the August 13 New York Times, with two passages circled. It’s a review of some guy named Brian Dykstra’s off Broadway show “Bryan Dykstra: Cornered and Alone.” The first circled part is the opening paragraph (I'm typing it out so typos are mine):

“Here’s how Brian Dykstra describes George W. Bush: ‘My A.D.D.-suffering, dyslexic, drunk-driving Bush Klan president with a 13-minute attention span, leaky brain pan” – we pause here to omit a deprecating anatomical reference – the “I.Q. of a cracked blue soap dish, the verbal skills of a glue-sniffing gerbil with social-anxiety disorder”with “that severely self-medicated wife (and who can blame her?)”

The second circled part is this sentence which appears in the second-to-last paragraph after a long not very interesting discussion about how Republicans might want to skip some shows while visiting the city during the GOP convention:

“The only problem with Mr. Dykstra’s show is that it doesn’t start until a half-hour after he has taken the stage….[Italics mine]

Can anyone imagine a review of a one-man show full of such facile bile aimed at Bill Clinton A) being reviewed by the Times? B) Being criticized solely for taking too long to get going?

I wouldn't be so harsh on Nip/Tuck. Yes, there is some material which is just unnecessary, or even if it does serve a purpose, its presented in a childish manner (ie having weird sex just to attract viewers, not as an explanation of a character's spiritual descent).

But THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ASPECTS A CONSERVATIVE WOULD LOVE. First, Dr. Troy's life turns around big time when he is caring for the black baby. He chastises Matt for masturbating in public, urges his ex-girlfriend to stop having sex all the time, and is a lot more responsible. The child isn't even his, but it transforms him - WHAT A GIFT A CHILD CAN BE!

Second, the life coach Eva makes a comment to her teenage son that she wished she had aborted him many years ago. What a horrible thing to say - but if you think about it, it CLARIFIES THE HYPOCRISY OF ABORTION. An "abortion" would mean killing the person that grew up to be this child - not just a group of cells, but a group of cells that would grow up to be a human of many ages and stages of development....

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.

"Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

I think The Corner should remind people there is one last chance to see the amazing, way too short, 3-hour conversation with Victor Davis Hanson. It will be rebroadcast again on CSPAN2, tonight, Sunday Aug. 22 at Midnight Eastern time.

My husband and I watched yesterday and plan to watch again and tape it tonight.

TIVO it or tape it. But warning: if you start watching, regardless of the hour, it will be almost impossible to tear yourself away.

Morgan (Super Size Me) Spurlock, the buffoon who gorged himself on 5,000 calories a day for a month and was surprised by the results, is in the UK at the moment and, it seems, taking himself way, way too seriously. That’s his right, I suppose, but it’s worrying to read this:

“He is currently preparing a child-friendly version of the film to be released on DVD with accompanying educational material, and will take it on a tour of schools this autumn.”

Trying to catch ‘em when they are too young to argue back, eh, Morgan?

Whatever you may think of Tony Blair’s foreign policy, domestically his government has been a disaster – over-regulating, over-taxing (some of the largest increases in the OECD, I recall), dedicated to the destruction of some of Britain’s better traditions – and the preservation of some of the worst. Now it seems that he is looking at increasing the death tax paid by some better off Britons, all in the name of ‘fairness’, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Well, not just ‘fairness’:

“The money would be redistributed to boost baby bonds, which are payable to all children born in Britain….”

Ah, ‘The Children’. I might have known.

An update...

“ESPAÑOLA, N.M. -- Four years ago, about 2,300 voters traveled the winding roads through this remote county to cast their ballots before Election Day on state-of-the-art, push-button electronic voting machines. For 678 of them, their votes were never recorded.”

When it comes to smoking, Nurse Bloomberg still has trouble with facts. Here he is in Athens (the Nurse is a major supporter of the insane effort to bring the Olympics to New York City) arguing that his smoking ban is a good reason to give the games to New York. Amongst his comments were these:

"Very few people smoke in New York City - the number of people that are smoking is declining precipitously and, for the first time since, I think, World War II, life expectancy in New York City is higher than it is on average in the United States."

The Nurse’s implication is clear. He has saved lives!

Well, lets take a look at what his own health department had to say about improving life expectancy data about 18 months ago (about the time, coincidentally, of the introduction of the ban):

“NEW YORK CITY - April 21, 2003 - The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) today announced that life expectancy for New Yorkers has increased markedly for both women and men over the past decade. Life expectancy for females born in 2000 in New York City is 80.2 years, an increase of 3.2 years from 1990. Life expectancy for males born in 2000 in New York City is 74.5 years, a dramatic increase of 6.8 years from a decade earlier. These increases are attributable in large part to declines in the number of deaths from HIV disease and homicide, as well as the continuing downward trend in the City's Infant Mortality Rate.”

No mention there of smoking cessation (although it goes without saying that widespread quitting would help the numbers). Importantly, however, these data show that the improving trend has been in place for a while now – and owes nothing to Bloomberg’s obsession with tobacco.

It’s also interesting to note that the Nurse has this to say:

“One of the great things about New York is that nobody smokes anymore.”

“Nobody”, Mr. Mayor? Well, even your own statistics reveal that there are 1.1 million smokers still clinging on in NYC.

When it’s time to vote for you or your successor, these ‘nobodies’ will know what to do.

Lenin, a shrewd judge of human nature if nothing else, is said to have said that “the capitalists are so hungry for profits that they will sell us the rope to hang them with.”

And that, via Charles Moore at the Daily Telegraph brings me to this story:

“This month saw the launch of Britain's first fully regulated and approved Sharia-compliant bank, the Islamic Bank of Britain. And the big banks have also developed Islamic banking arms. The need for these is said to arise because the Koran forbids "riba", which is interest, or usury. Yet Muslims need money and banks need to make a living. Systems are devised to get round the ban. For example, instead of a Muslim holding a mortgage for a house, the bank can own the house and make arrangements for the Muslim gradually to buy it off the bank over a period of years. HSBC now boasts of "Our Sharia Board" stuffed with learned sheikhs and Justices from Arabia and Pakistan. Isn't all this an encouraging example of how the resourcefulness of modern free societies can achieve tolerance and market efficiency?

“But when you look a little further into the question of Islamic banking, you find that it is not, in fact, required by Islam. Al-Azhar University, in Cairo, the main and ancient home of Sunni religious learning, teaches that "riba" means extortionate interest, not any interest at all, and that moderate interest should be permitted. Most Egyptian banks charge and pay interest. Even Muslims who reject this interpretation say that the doctrine of "extreme necessity" permits Muslims in non-Muslim countries to pay interest.

“So what is being proposed with Islamic banking is actually a hardening of the religion, not an accommodation of its existing custom. It is rather as if Catholics, arriving in large numbers in a Muslim country, insisted that they must eat fish rather than meat on a Friday, a rule which has been dropped by the Church in modern times. And when you look at HSBC's Sharia Board you find that a couple of its members have links with the Deoband, the long-standing ultra-conservative group whose schools in Pakistan educated many of the Taliban. Two others are Wahhabis, trained by the intolerant and puritanical school of thought that dominates the religious life of Saudi Arabia. If HSBC had a Christian Banking Board would they staff it with disciples of the Rev Ian Paisley, the Rev Jerry Falwell and the followers of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, rather than nice Dr Rowan Williams or Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor?”

Judging by what Moore has to say, HSBC, a bank whose ignorance is, quite clearly, matched only by its greed, should be ashamed of itself.

But read the whole of what Moore has to say, particularly on the role of Islam in the UK today. It’s a brave, and thought-provoking, piece.