WASHINGTON Dec 3, 2004 — Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced his resignation on Friday, warning as he left of dangers from a global flu outbreak and a possible terror attack on the nation's food supply.

"For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do," Thompson said as announced his departure before department employees. "We are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."

Congress Approves Of $250 Billion

WASHINGTON, DC—In a near-unanimous vote Monday, 434 members of the House and all 100 senators voiced their approval of $250 billion. "My fellow members of Congress, $250 billion is an incredibly vast sum of money," U.S. Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) said. "That much money is totally awesome." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the lone dissenter, disagreed with Rehberg's assessment, saying that, unless the money was stacked on a table in one-dollar bills, it was "pretty cool," but not "awesome."

Rep. Pitts: Abstinence study is merely a "partisan attack"

Washington-Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16) today sent the following letter to the Editor of the Washington Post regarding an ideologically-charged report on federally-funded abstinence education programs.

Dear Editor:

I am disappointed that your paper would confuse Congressman Henry Waxman's ideologically-driven report on federally funded abstinence education programs ["Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says," Dec. 2] with a serious examination of their effectiveness.

This report was prepared at taxpayer expense by partisan committee staff and was not reviewed in any hearings or publicly discussed with experts in abstinence education. Instead, Mr. Waxman took advantage of a slow news cycle to pass off his ideological attack as a legitimate congressional study. This type of misleading public relations tactic abuses taxpayer funds and distracts from the underlying fact that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

Federally-funded abstinence education programs are held to the strictest standards. The curricula used to educate our youth are meticulously researched and confirmed by reputable sources. By blasting abstinence education, Mr. Waxman puts at great risk so many of our youth who deserve to hear the hopeful and empowering message of abstinence education.

Additionally, polls show that parents want these programs. They want schools and the government to assist them in encouraging their kids to make positive and healthy life choices. If asked to side with partisan committee staff or parents, I'd choose parents every time.

This partisan committee staff report should be received with great skepticism. I'm disappointed that the Washington Post was so naïve as to take this partisan study on face value.

Sincerely,
Joe Pitts

"Pope condemns Bush," wish Times, others>BR> You know how Pope John Paul II condemned the U.S. invasion of Iraq, right? I mean, everyone knows that he pronounced it was not a "just war," and has publicly chastised President Bush for his warmongering on many occasions. Right? I mean, that has to be true, or else the New York Times and the BBC couldn't keep saying it. Right?

Well, Peter Robinson over at The Corner just refuses to reasonable about this. He actually wants to know when the pope literally, you know, said any of that stuff. Robinson wants someone -- anyone -- to e-mail him some actual quote from the actual pope that confirms his oft-adduced "outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq."

Sounds like a challenge to me. If you find such a statement by Pope John Paul II, e-mail it to me as well as to Robinson. The first one to send me any qualifying quote will win the coveted Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award, an honor so exclusive no one's ever earned it.

[I]t is not considered euthanasia to administer whatever quantity of drugs is necessary to releive pain, even if it may or will certainly cause death. I know from personal experience that the withholding of morphine to surgical patients because of suppression of circulatory function allows real pain, but because it does to allow recovery it is with held. I understood that for terminal patients, one may freely treat the pain as needed even if it hastens death. A fine line, but real, and may be what the translated statement [by the Dutch bishops] means.

You may not be able to link into this but give it a shot [i.e. subscriber-only]. It is an article from thestreet.com talking about how the traditional news sources, e.g., NYT, WaPo, Trib, need to develop answers to the blogosphere. The website comes at this from a financial survival point of view. These companies have to adapt or die. They are losing their readers. The writer notes how, “…my fingers no longer stain black when I read the news, and that spells trouble…” for the newsprint media. One solution mentioned so that these companies can survive is to buy the blog sponsors. That would be frightening.

According to a Council of Europe report on Euthanasia in 2003
“A number of quantitative studies of the rate and major characteristics of these practices have been conducted in 1990, 1995 and 2001. These have demonstrated a disturbingly high incidence of euthanasia being carried out without the patient’s explicit request and an equally disturbing failure by medical professionals to report euthanasia cases to the proper regulatory authority.”(Emphasis added)

As originally contemplated, doctor assisted suicide was supposed to be a rare event to ease the unrelenting pain and suffering of a person who was not going to get better.

What its become is a way to knock off granny before she becomes a financial burden on the family or to allow the kids to get their hands on granny’s estate before illness eats up the inheritance.

And, more and more, it appears granny - and now junior- is not being consulted on the subject.

I too grew up in the Eighties and think DD are underappreciated. I don't know if you've ever seen the video to `New Moon on Monday' [well, of course!] but it hit home with me. I was a Poli-Sci minor studying the Soviet Union at the time and the video, which appears to take place in Eastern Europe and chronicles an anti-governent demonstration----really romanticized for me, in a good way, anti-communism

That was my take at the time, anyway. Don't even get me started on the Apple `1984' ad.

"It is said there that one of the methods of treatments is, "And beat them." This is not obligatory, but it is permitted and it does not suit all wives. All Koranic commentators agree on this. Beating does not benefit all wives, but it is suitable for some."

These comments were made, not one thousand years ago, but last week.

Via the Financial Times:

"US distributors of the film Merchant of Venice, which premiered in London this week, have asked the director to cut out a background fresco by a Venetian old master so it is fit for American television viewers."

I note that other banned items included the "simulated slaughtering of goats".

Protecting 'the children', I suppose.

From a letter to the Guardian. The context is that the writer, an academic (I note without surprise) is addressing some questions posed in an earlier article:

"Would you rather have George Bush or Vladimir Putin? Given we have Bush, it is regrettable that we need Putin in order to fetter him and his fellow neocons. "

Simply deranged.

K-lo,
Duran Duran in Atlanta last night, ROCKED!
A forty-something Corner fan,

The Church's position on the subject of euthanasia is well known, constantly reasserted and confirmed with the intention to uphold the dignity and life of every human being: "It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it amounts to the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life and an attack on humanity" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, Chap. II).

The Roman Catholic Church realizes quite well that new born children can suffer from extremely serious afflictions, leading to agonizing situations. For both the children and their parents this means a via dolorosa. Without doubting the honorable motives of the doctors at the Academic Hospital of Groningen or the care they bring, the Church does not consider the active ending of the life of a newborn to be morally acceptable. Furthermore, the Church points to the proper alternatives that are used worldwide, such as witholding of further medical treatment, minimizing pain, and/or terminal sedation.

Many, many readers have written in to say that they too loooove that diamond commercial for the same reason that I do, but with a question. Who is ‘this woman’ ?

Needless to say, another reader obliges:

“I too enjoyed the DTC television ad "Declaration" - in fact, I've never so enjoyed having my intelligence insulted! I took the time following your Corner post to trace the actor in question, Dagmara Domincyz. It happens that she played the love interest in the recent Jim Caviezel vehicle, "The Count of Monte Cristo."

I don’t think this makes us all stalkers.

I'm swamped with other stuff right now (and I've already sounded-off on Beinart) but here are two emails re Drum's take:

He writes, "[Islam is] not fundamentally expansionist, and its power to kill people isn't even remotely in the same league."

1. Islam is expanding in Europe with no currently visible bounds. Islam is explicitly expansionist - it's called the Caliphate.

2. Islam is unlike fascism or communism - in that - it is not an external threat. It is a parasitic, internal threat - and that's specifically why it's so dangerous. It corrupts Western societies from within, using our own "tolerance" and lack of will to defeat us.
3. Iran and Pakistan both have nukes. It's not "in the same league" as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan - because it's MUCH WORSE. But it's not at all qualitatively different than the Soviet Union. Quantitatively different, yes, qualitatively, not at all.

After all, radical Islam succeeded in doing something no country (to my knowledge) has ever been able to do: Live in our country, to plot mass murder against us, using only readily available weapons, we willingly supplied.

Drum seems to have his metaphors mixed up. He says that in the 5 years leading up to Pearl Harbor, we had this, and that, and that done by the Germans and Japanese, but that since 9/11 nothing of such import has been seen out of Islam. What he forgets is that 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. Germany and Japan had no major victories after Pearl Harbor. Maybe the lack of another 9/11 has to do with Bush's prosecution of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and stepped up security at home--Gitmo, the prosecution of Jihadist groups, etc. He accidentally makes a good argument for Bush.

From the Senate Joint Economic Committee:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today that 112,000 new payroll jobs were created in November, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent. November’s payroll jobs gains followed gains of 303,000 in October and 119,000 in September. Including the benchmark revision of the payroll survey that was released in October*, 2.4 million new payroll jobs have been created since August 2003. Over 2 million new payroll jobs have been created thus far in 2004.

Full release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Highlights:

* During November, payroll employment increased by 112,000, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent.
* According to the payroll survey and including the benchmark revision, 2.4 million new jobs have been created since August 2003, and over 2 million new jobs have been created thus far in 2004.

Charts:

* How Many New Jobs?: http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Charts.Detail&Image_id=89
* 15 Straight Months of Payroll Job Growth: http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Charts.Detail&Image_id=84
* Unemployment Rate Declining: http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Charts.Detail&Image_id=69

The British Independent reports:

As American forces closed in on Baghdad last year, senior members of Saddam Hussein’s government devised a plan to send suicide bombers in vehicles packed with devastating high-energy explosives that were under UN safeguards.

The disappearance of the explosive, known as HMX (high melting explosives), in mysterious circumstances at the end of the war caused a few nasty moments for President George Bush’s presidential election campaign last month.

A letter to Saddam from Dr Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, five days before the fall of Baghdad, suggests taking the HMX from underground bunkers, where it had been kept under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and giving it to suicide bombers.

He wrote: “It is possible to increase the explosive power of the suicide-driven cars by using the highly explosive material [HMX] which is sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and stored in the warehouses of the Military Industry Departments.”

The Iraqi regime took credit for several suicide bombs towards the end of the war. After the fall of Saddam, one of the worst attacks - which killed 22 UN workers and the special envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, in August 2003 - had an explosive force that could only have come from military grade explosives.

The disappearance of 350 tons of explosives, including 191 tons of HMX, at the time of the war in April last year became a crucial issue in the last weeks of the US presidential election campaign. John Kerry portrayed the failure to secure the explosives, which could have been used to kill US soldiers, as a symbol of Mr Bush’s incompetence in Iraq.

It now appears that senior officials in the Iraqi government were discussing the removal of the HMX before the fall of Saddam. The letter from Dr Sabri, obtained by The Independent, was sent on 4 April 2003 as US tanks were advancing on Baghdad. It said that the world was getting the impression that Iraqi civilians were co-operating with American soldiers.

[Nod to Little Green Footballs]

The British Independent reports:

As American forces closed in on Baghdad last year, senior members of Saddam Hussein’s government devised a plan to send suicide bombers in vehicles packed with devastating high-energy explosives that were under UN safeguards.

The disappearance of the explosive, known as HMX (high melting explosives), in mysterious circumstances at the end of the war caused a few nasty moments for President George Bush’s presidential election campaign last month.

A letter to Saddam from Dr Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, five days before the fall of Baghdad, suggests taking the HMX from underground bunkers, where it had been kept under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and giving it to suicide bombers.

He wrote: “It is possible to increase the explosive power of the suicide-driven cars by using the highly explosive material [HMX] which is sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and stored in the warehouses of the Military Industry Departments.”

The Iraqi regime took credit for several suicide bombs towards the end of the war. After the fall of Saddam, one of the worst attacks - which killed 22 UN workers and the special envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, in August 2003 - had an explosive force that could only have come from military grade explosives.

The disappearance of 350 tons of explosives, including 191 tons of HMX, at the time of the war in April last year became a crucial issue in the last weeks of the US presidential election campaign. John Kerry portrayed the failure to secure the explosives, which could have been used to kill US soldiers, as a symbol of Mr Bush’s incompetence in Iraq.

It now appears that senior officials in the Iraqi government were discussing the removal of the HMX before the fall of Saddam. The letter from Dr Sabri, obtained by The Independent, was sent on 4 April 2003 as US tanks were advancing on Baghdad. It said that the world was getting the impression that Iraqi civilians were co-operating with American soldiers.

[Nod to Little Green Footballs]

We're doing better this morning, but still in third. We were in fourth last night when I posted that link (sorry about that Powerline). If our third-place status doesn't change by the end of the day, some NR interns will be shot, in the leg at first, northward soon after.

But we are soaring in best group blog and Jim's way out in front for best new blog. But how can we be the Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu waza Banga of the worldwide web while eating Glenn Reynold's dust? I ask you, How! HOW!?!?!

[Note interns get scared by large and loud ALL CAPS, cowering under desks]

Since I posted that link to the Weblog Awards about 1,400 people have voted. Mostly, it seems, for the Corner. At least in the top category (I hope you're voting for the Kerry Spot too).

I've mentioned that my anti-youth vote columns seem to have a half-life. Here's one that just arrived at my syndicated column email address:

Dear Mr.Goldberg, You are a very smug and unhappy little man in my eyes. I can't believe someone especially a journalist whose words get published all over the world would have the nerve to say that Youths Shouldn't Vote. Well just because teenagers did not live through everything you have does not mean you know way more than us . We have school Government classes everyday that tell us exactly what goes on and we pay much attention to everything we read. We teenagers have our opinions just as adults do and sometimes one opinion is better than another, but you don't need to call us ignorant and make us feel like we are inexperienced with voting. We know what goes on and we pick which man would be best at being President. We are smart as well as you with politics and know just about as much as you do and maybe even a little more. Yes as well to teenagers having t.v. shows that tell us things are sexy and cool and hot but you don't know what we really think and feel. You have made us teens feels stupid and your sarcasm doesn't help either. If you think that teens can't be serious about voting and want to make them know that in harsh words then maybe you shouldn't have the job you have. You have hurt alot of people with your article. Sincerely, Angry teen

Vote your conscience. Vote it early. Vote it often.

Note: Remember to scroll down to the other categories. There are a lot of them. And a lot of blogs I've never heard of.

Several Supreme Court dark horses are making the rounds. Former solicitor general Ted Olson, 64, could get the job. Another possibility is former Missouri senator John Danforth, now the US ambassador to the United Nations....Danforth’s integrity and character are widely admired.

Working against Danforth would be his age—68. The oldest person appointed to the court in recent years was Richmond’s Lewis Powell at 64. When Powell was approached in 1969 about a possible appointment, he advised President Nixon to “appoint a relatively young man who will have the prospect of at least two decades of service.” Powell took his seat in 1972 and retired in 1987 after 15 years on the Court.

From a reader:

Jonah,

I went to the range with my sister’s boyfriend last weekend, and he brought his newly-acquired Ruger Mini-14. The clerk looked at it and said, “That must be the least-lethal rifle ever.” When I asked why he said so, he responded, “They used those things all the time on the A-Team, and nobody ever died!”

Best Regards,

This email could be from me -- if I'd gone to Middlebury and lived in Japan. But I should note that the best cartoon when it came to not observing the no-kill rule was Johnny Quest. I never really liked it much, but I was always amazed that the henchmen would catch some lead in their chests and die. That was cool. Good times, good times...oh right. The email:

When I was a sophomore at Middlebury (whom am I kidding…it continued through junior year) there were about five of us at my house that would catch a daily double billing of Transformers and GI Joe back to back. Personally, I went in more for Joe than Transformers except I couldn’t take the no-kill rule in Joe. If a Cobra plane was shot down they had to show two Cobra pilots safely gliding to earth in parachutes. We even instituted this awful practice of throwing a bucket of ice water on housemates in the shower. These attacks were known as “Cobra” attacks and were always accompanied by the battle cry “COBRAAAA!!”

Later, when living in Japan there was a group of us that would kill for any American television and that meant Knight Rider followed by the A-Team. A-Team was fantastic, but they had the same no kill rule as GI Joe. It made me long for the days of Magnum PI where he would kill someone at least once a month (I used to muse that Magnum must spend about 3/4’s of his off-camera time in the court room)

Yes, yes I know the flying turtle was named Gamera. In fact I wrote in 2001:

(For the record, yes, I know that the turtle's name was Gamera, and that in fact he wasn't a colleague of Godzilla at all. In fact he never appeared in any Godzilla, i.e. Toho Productions, films period.)

More than meets the eye. Transformers, robots in disguise! This link (via instapundit) made me so nostalgic for the Transformers. Ah, high school. Come home. Heat up some Stouffer's french bread pizza. Check to see that the 4:30 movie doesn't stink (wouldn't want to miss that flying turtle with the flame coming out of his leg holes). Than switch over to see what hijinx those whacky decepticons were getting into this week.

Sigh....

Transformers
More than meets the eye
Transformers
Robots in Disguise
Transformers

Autobots wage their Battle
To destroy the evil forces
Of the Decepticons

It's judgment day and now we've made our stand
And now the powers of darkness
Have been driven from our land

The Battle's over but the war has just begun
And this way it will remain til the day when all are one

Transformers
Transformers
Transformers
Transformers
More than meets the eye

How did I miss this?? Former Democratic congressmen -- paid by a lobbyist hired by Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych endorsed the Ukranian election.

Suffice it to say I can't remember the last time I received so many differing emails about a column. Lots of people agree, lots of people disagree. Lots of people hated it, lots of people loved it and folks within each group disagree wildly as to the reasons why the reacted the way they did.

I'm not going to clutter the Corner with any more emails about this. But let me just offer a scattershot of responses rapid fire. I don't think I'm making up my own religion (hint my daughter won't be attending the Synagogue of Jonah); I do believe that morality is transcendent and have never said otherwise; I do not think religion is trivial or silly. I think people seeking to logically diagram today's column missed the point a bit.

I think you can be un-religious and moral and I think you can be religious and immoral. But, I think the odds of you being moral are greatly increased if you are religious. Even religious people within the same tradition can disagree about what is or is not moral. Except in the most glaring circumstances we figure out what is moral by weighing history, text, arguments, etc and make our best judgement. There can be no, or very, very few perfectly moral acts, because we live in an imperfect world.

Yes, the soup can was a false idol and I can understand why that analogy annoyed people. My only response there is that I am perfectly comfortable with the argument that we will know fairly quickly if someone's religion is based upon a false idol by the actions that flow from his form of worship. For example, we can tell that the Thuggee cult was a bad faith largely from the fact that it required its adherents to murder people. But also because they liked mint jelly. I am making up the part about mint jelly, even though I find it disgusting and I think all moral people would be compelled to agree with me.

Lastly, yes my argument was a secular argument, not a religious one. In other words, I think it's perfectly legitimate and reasonable for people to be offended or simply to disagree on theological or religious grounds. The whole point of being concerned with morality is that it affords some purchase for us all to discuss things. I am not qualified to discuss the finer points of theology except as an amateur in the strictest sense.

John: As you may recall, before the election I was tossing around the idea of writing an article on Bush's top ten political mistakes in the event he lost. I was going to include two Cabinet appointments: Ann Veneman as Agriculture Secretary and Norm Mineta at Transportation. Both are Californians. And California is a big agricultural producer and exporter, which perhaps made Veneman seem like a good choice. But ag has a much larger impact in other states. A politically competent ag secretary from Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Iowa could have locked down his home state. Transportation is also a bit of an empire. If it's a prelude to a 2006 run by Johanns, this ag appointment looks a lot better than the last one--although getting Nelson to flip would be even better.

(Incidentally, I was talking to a top Republican about that Senate seat and he quipped to me, "We'll flip it either with [Nelson] or without him.")

We were scared of carny folk because they smell like cabbage?

Oh, wait, that's Austin Powers.

I love this word. I didn't remember it from Habits of the Heart which I read in college. From a reader:

Jonah-

I appreciated your abbreviated g-file on belief in God. I am a minister, so it is my business to ask people (although not necessarily public figures like you) what they think about God, beyond what they practice. In my case, however, most people don't think I am being rude, they just think I am doing my job. I do believe that there is an unhealthy interest in what people believe, especially when you are in no position to enter into an ongoing conversation on the topic.

Now, to Sheilaism. Your disgust at people picking their favorite items off salad bar of religious belief is right-on. It is really a way of saying, "I only believe in anything, but I do pick and choose the best of everything to create a religion that fits my lifestyle." Last time I checked, any faithful religious observance (no matter the religion or tradition) shapes one's life, not the other way around. You are not the first to dislike or observe this phenomenon. Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart written in the 1980's interviewed a woman who described her religion as "Sheilaism," which was a smattering of all the things that she thought were most true and fit her own outlook.

I thought that you might like to know the technical term and where it came from.

Peace,

Now, this is a helpful term I didn't remember from when I read Habits of the Heart in college. I think I'll be using it for quite a while. From a reader:

Jonah- I appreciated your abbreviated g-file on belief in God. I am a minister, so it is my business to ask people (although not necessarily public figures like you) what they think about God, beyond what they practice. In my case, however, most people don't think I am being rude, they just think I am doing my job. I do believe that there is an unhealthy interest in what people believe, especially when you are in no position to enter into an ongoing conversation on the topic.

Now, to Sheilaism. Your disgust at people picking their favorite items off salad bar of religious belief is right-on. It is really a way of saying, "I only believe in anything, but I do pick and choose the best of everything to create a religion that fits my lifestyle." Last time I checked, any faithful religious observance (no matter the religion or tradition) shapes one's life, not the other way around. You are not the first to dislike or observe this phenomenon. Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart written in the 1980's interviewed a woman who described her religion as "Sheilaism," which was a smattering of all the things that she thought were most true and fit her own outlook.

I thought that you might like to know the technical term and where it came from.

Peace,

From a reader:

Ditto. Where I differ from you is that I strongly believe in established religion as a stabilizing social force, but I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around God. I’m sort of a reluctant atheist.

I enjoyed your point about silly people who try to customize their religion. I’ve always gone the opposite way. On those occasions when I participate in religious events (Passover, etc), I always opt for the conservative practice – otherwise, why bother?

Your opening point about asking people about their faith reminded me of the story my parents always told about their arrival in this country from Israel. They ended up in Kansas City, Missouri, which they always have said was a lovely, friendly community. What surprised them from the get-go was that everyone they met immediately (a) asked them what Church they attended and, without waiting for an answer, went to (b) a sales-pitch for their own Church. My Dad always found fascinating this concept of marketing your Church (not your faith; your Church). It is, of course, a distinctly American approach to religion.

Another point about faith. When I lived in Texas in the mid-1980s, I was frequently asked about my faith. When I identified myself as Jewish, many people responded with a moment of silence followed, not by an anti-Semitic remark or social withdrawal, but by an earnest request to reconsider finding Jesus. I was always flattered by this, rather than offended, since I felt it stemmed from a genuinely kind impulse to have me join the ranks of the saved, rather than a hatred of my Judaism. This differed profoundly from my experiences in England a few years before, when identifying myself as Jewish often resulted in ignorant remarks (“Are you rich?”) or actively anti-Semitic remarks (usually in the form of Auschwitz jokes). Perhaps that’s why I, unlike many Jews on the Left, am not afraid of American Christians.

Anyway, thank you for your very interesting thoughts. Obviously, they resonated with me at many levels.

K-Lo: This is a serious slap to Nelson. The administration's going to use this opportunity to strengthen Johanns' image before his eventual run against Nelson -- just like they did for Mel Martinez, Mitch Daniels et. al.

This is no small thing. Even though Nebraska is an overwhelmingly republican state, we seem to elect democrats quite often. Think Bob Kerrey, Jim Exon, and Ben Nelson. And even though Nelson's a Democrat, Johann's would be fighting an uphill battle trying to defeat him. That is until now. Advantage Johanns.

From a reader:

Thanks for such an honest Gfile. It's another gem that the Mainstream media couldn't touch. While you friendly critic may be right, your positions will certainly resonate with many, and the discussion that are started will be valuable. Of course, for a classic picture of modern theology, we need only look to Homer (from the episode where he gets of debt, I think): "Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal:

You freeze everything the way it is, and I wont ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign.

OK, deal.

In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done."

Best,

[No Name]

From a German emailer no less:

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

in The Corner, you lamented that almost half of Britons did not know
what Auschwitz stands for. It surprised me, too, that so many people
had never heard of it.

Now, what would be most interesting to know is how many of these
ignorant dolts have heard of Guantanamo and are majorly appalled at
the inhuman atrocities committed there by the Evil Americans. ;-\

I've said many times around here that I think Libertarians tend to be very smart even though I disagree with them. There are always exceptions. Increasingly, I've come to think that Harry Browne is the exception. Or, if that's unfair, I think he's consumed so much of his own Kool Aid he's incapable of talking to anybody except those who agree with him 100% already. We went toe-to-toe a few years ago and I was underwhelmed then.

He's going after me again this week. I'm really not sure it's worth a detailed response. But let me just note that he brings a lot of assumptions to the table he doesn't prove. He simply asserts (with three exclamation points!!!) that I am trying to justify the entire war in Iraq on the basis of a single nice story in Iraq about the good works that Marines are doing there. And then he completely cuts the lifeline to reasonableness.

Oh well, from an often critical e-friend:

Jonah, your "God & Me" column was a gigantic failure and I'm very
disappointed for it. It was a logical & theological mess.

You write: "I also detest the tendency of Americans, Westerners, or
"Moderns" to boast of how they've customized their religious views to
fit their lifestyles."

Since you fail to tell us exactly what you DO believe...then you are
member of this crowd you detest. You've made your own God. Surely you
must see this.

Also, this "religion public, belief private" construct you've set-up
is is whole 'nother can-'o-worms. (although I understand what your
getting at).

Anyways, your probably busy reading the million e-mails pointing out
the problems of your column...

Half of Britons have never heard of Auschwitz.

This is depressing for all of the obvious reasons. But also it's just a bummer to think that so many people are just immune to serious conversations about history. Regardless of what lessons, if any, you draw from Auschwitz and the Holocaust, if you haven't heard of it, it's almost inconceivable to have a serious conversation about a vast swath of human history. For people like all of us at NRO, this just underscores that there are lots of people who are simply beyond our reach no matter what because they don't even have the basic facts that make intelligent argumentation possible.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if this survey is a bit fishy in that all of the tut-tutting it will generate should be good publicity for the folks behind a new documentary on Auschwitz. And, of course, more people have probably heard of the Holocaust than of Auschwitz. But no matter what this is a sad sign for historical literacy in the English-speaking world.

French president Jacques Chirac now blames America for making the world a more dangerous place. This reminds me of the summer of 2002, when I spent a week in the Paris home of an old friend who loves America but cannot comprehend how we could have elected a trigger-happy cowboy like George W. Bush to be our president. His own leaders, he explained, had a more measured and realistic world view than Bush, who seemed eager to start another war.

A year ago I thought about what my friend had said. Reluctant to broach the subject of the war, I sent an e-mail to console him for the loss of the many WWII-era French citizens who died during the fierce heat wave that struck France the previous summer. His surprising response told me more about his leaders’ world view than anything he had said to me while I was in Paris:

"We were above all revolted that these elderly people, who as you said survived many horrors, passed because of lack of air-conditioning during the "sacred" French holiday time. Our dear president was having his in Canada - didn't bother to return. This country is run for many years now by stinking corrupt ambitious unscrupulous and moneythirsty politicians. I do not have the slightest respect for these people."

President Chirac recently told the London Times: "Britain gave its support [to the Americans] but I did not see much in return, I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

In light of what my French friend said, I have to wonder: what sort of favors Chirac is accustomed to receiving, from what friends, and in return for what? Perhaps the time has come to examine the motivations of the leadership of the UN and the three Security Council members who seemed to want to maintain the status quo in Iraq for as long as possible.

Those pre-war French, German and Russian petroleum contracts come to mind. And so does the UN oil-for-food program, that now appears to have enriched Saddam and his family to the tune of $21 billion that was supposed to provide food and medicine for the Iraqi people. No one diverts that kind of money from any program without the cooperation of what my friend might describe as stinking corrupt ambitious unscrupulous and moneythirsty insiders. How highly placed were those insiders and how much cash did they pocket? More importantly, how much influence did this money and those oil contracts have on the debate over the enforcement of UN resolutions?

There is much to question and to criticize about the way this war has been prosecuted. It certainly has not gone as well as we had hoped. But we can only guess at how it might have gone if, instead of telling us to give Saddam more time, Kofi Annan had told Saddam that his time was up - and our ‘old European’ and Russian allies had stood with us.

Is it possible that an isolated, friendless Saddam might not have attempted to resist such a powerful, united coalition, and that thousands of Iraqis, Americans, Britons and others might not have died? If so, then perhaps we should consider whether those deaths can be best attributed to the willingness of some to act – or to the unwillingness of others.

I'm going to write a syndicated column about it , which may not be enough room. Basically, I think it's a wonderful, heartfelt, tough-minded, morally and politically serious wake-up call (even if I have a few quibbles about some details). For all those readers who wonder why I'm a fan of his, never mind a friend, this should help explain why.

I also fear for Beinart's and the nation's sake that it will fall on deaf ears and that what he hopes to make possible in the Democratic Party is more or less impossible. But I would love to see it happen. I would truly love to see the Democratic and Republican parties competing on who could be more aggressive on the war on terror, not just militarily but morally, economically and politically. The Democratic Party has credibility and strength on issues very much needed for the war on terror. But that Democratic Party has remained largely dormant. As I've written many times, a morally serious foreign policy liberal wouldn't have applauded John Kerry's vote against the $87 billion because that was too much money he would have denounced the whole enterprise as too little money. If you believed any of the rhetoric about nation-building and humanitarian war spouted by liberals in the 1990s, you had to favor doing more in Iraq, not less.

Peter thinks that his party can become that party. I am very pessimisted that such a thing is possible any time in the near future. And I think short of another truly horrible attack on US soil, it will be almost impossible for Beinart's project to even get off the ground.

At the same moment the tumult over the Tet offensive was unfolding, “the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression shook the Western world,” in the words of economic historian Robert M. Collins. In a nutshell, there was a loss of confidence and a near-panic over the U.S. dollar. In the old days, if bank depositors feared for their deposits and lost confidence in their bank, there would be a run on the bank. If the bank had enough reserves or could borrow dollars from another bank, the panic could be quickly dispelled. But what happens when the financial system is backed up by a central bank promising to redeem depositors with gold? If a crisis of confidence occurs, then you have not a run on a bank, but a run on a whole country’s currency and gold reserves. This is what happened in 1968. The episode brought to an abrupt end the lofty promise of “growth liberalism” or the “New Economics,” and set the stage for rising inflation and economic instability that took 20 years to remedy.

I'm not in burning agreement or disagreement with anything in this email. But since the reader managed to work in a reference to Cyrano Jones -- a first in the history of NRO as far as I know -- I figured it deserved posting. I'm sure some of you out there are seething upon hearing the news that up until today I had a policy of posting the very first email -- regardless of content -- containing such a reference. Just to drive a few of you nuts, I should say that there are still 9 other pop culture references that have such a status. Anyway, from a reader:

Tonight on Hannity and Colmes, Sean was talking to Ron Daniels from Ctr for Constitutional Rights. Sean pointed out the obvious fact that President Bush has appointed more minority personnel to more positions of real power than any president in our history....."the president who has reached out in ways no Democrat ever has; giving African Americans positions of power that they've never had before because they're most qualified......Where was Bill Clinton? Why didn't Bill Clinton appoint somebody in the minority community to Secretary of State or National Security Advisor? He had a couple of opportunities with the Supreme Court - he was nowhere to be found!"

Alan (who has unfortunately become progressively more radically left over
the last year) chirped in that "Clinton did more than any president up until
that time." Daniels concurred.

As everyone's favorite Tribble salesman would say, "Twice nothing is still
nothing." Clinton did nothing for minorities or women (at least nothing
that can be talked about in polite company). Kerry didn't have any
minorities on his campaign until the public started fussing about it.

Bush just quietly picked Colin Powell to be his SoS (and a great one in my
opinion) and Condi Rice as NSA and now is finding qualified people of all
colors and backgrounds to do the hard work of the next four years.

The Dems just don't get it!

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.

Well put, Ramesh. Let me add the following: the Constitution is a governing document. I don't much care if we call it federalism, states' rights, or something else, but the Tenth Amendment underscores the fact that the Constitution conferred limited, enumerated powers on the central government, and the rest of the governing authority remained with the states. States can't declare war, for example, because the Constitution empowers the federal Congress with that authority. The Commerce Clause, as originally conceived, was intended to overcome the barriers created by the states to trade and encourage commerce, among other things, which the Articles of Confederation did not effectively address. (Today, of course, the Commerce Clause is used to impede commerce and enhance the power of the federal bureaucracy). So, to this extent, the issue isn't one of federalism, but the clear language of those enumerated powers in the Constitution.

In any event, those powers not enumerated were retained by the states because: 1. otherwise, as a practical matter, the states would not have ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights; 2. Madison's notes and later the state ratifying debates make clear the near unanimous concern about centralized power; 3. recognition of the diversity of geography and populations; and 4. the widespread view that states are more accountable to their citizens than a centralized government. However, "states' rights" has become a loaded phrase, for historical reasons. Perhaps the more accurate description would be state authority. But the Tenth Amendment does not, by itself, confer rights on individual citizens. Like the Constitution, it describes the distribution of governing power between and among competing entities.

Now, the Ninth Amendment underscores your point about individual rights, but only as applies to the federal government, which is why subsequent amendments were adopted to protect individual rights as applied to the state, such as the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Ninth Amendment had protected individual rights vis-a-vis the states, or the Tenth Amendment was more than a recognition of state authority and, in fact, conferred individual rights of some kind to citizens directly, the Fourteenth Amendment, among others, would have been unnecessary.

Anyway, as you understand, it's difficult to fully discuss such a complex issue here given the limitations of this format.

As for Randy Barnett's post here, I'm glad you concur. Andy McCarthy provided me with this excerpt from the New York Times, which reports certain of Justice Scalia's comments regarding Wickard v. Filburn. Obviously, as my prior post makes clear, I wholeheartedly agree with Scalia (unfortunately, it remains the law, regardless of Lopez and Morrison, as those decisions didn't go far enough):

"In fact, much of the debate in the courtroom on Monday centered on one particular precedent, Wickard v. Filburn, a decision from 1942 that upheld Congress's effort to support wheat prices by controlling wheat production. The court held that even the wheat that a farmer cultivated for home consumption could be regulated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act's quota system on the theory that all wheat production took place within a national market. That decision is regarded as one of the most far-reaching extensions of Congressional power that the Supreme Court has ever upheld.

"Randy E. Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor arguing on behalf of the two women, told the justices on Monday that if they accepted the administration's argument in this case, "then Ashcroft v. Raich will replace Wickard v. Filburn as the most far-reaching example" of Congress's power over interstate commerce. Prohibition of "a class of activity that is noneconomic and wholly intrastate" was not essential to the government's "regulatory regime," he said, adding: "There is no interstate connection whatsoever."

"But the justices whom Mr. Barnett needed to persuade, those who have questioned federal authority in recent cases, were skeptical. 'It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia told him, adding: "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says." He continued: "Why is this not economic activity? This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere.'"

I remarked earlier (and derivatively) that federalism should be for citizens, not just states. Mark Levin takes issue with this comment, saying that federalism is “about state authority and the structure of our government as enumerated in the Constitution,” and that “[p]rotecting individual rights per se means everything and nothing.”

I’m not sure we really disagree. Let me try to explain what I meant, and see what Mark thinks. To start with: I think one of the reasons that federalism is a good idea is precisely that the division of coercive power protects individual rights. So far so good?

Also: The Constitution does not include the word “federalism.” It does, however, include many provisions that divide authority among the federal and state governments. Some of these provisions constrain the federal government, and some of them constrain state governments. A constitutional federalism—which is the most defensible federalism around—is not just freedom for state governments to do whatever they want to do. They should not be able to impose their laws extra-territorially: Madison County, Illinois, should not be able to make product-liability laws for the whole country and call it federalism. They should not be able to legislate on inherently national subjects: States can’t declare war or abstain from wars on their own, whatever Osama bin Laden believes. Mark: Disagree with anything here?

The Constitution’s limits on the federal government are not just there for the glory of the states. The feds may not assume certain powers even if every state in the Union wants them too. They are there for the citizens.

Assuming that federalism equals “states’ rights” creates two problems. The first is that limits on federal power will not be taken seriously if they do not protect states’ “sovereignty.” The Supreme Court has been much more likely to restrict federal power when state governments have yelped—but these may be precisely the cases where the political process is most likely to restrain federal power and where the court is least needed. The medical marijuana case, to return to the genesis of these posts, illustrates the point: Whether the federal government has the power to criminalize the medicinal use of marijuana probably shouldn’t turn on state policies, but it does in the Supreme Court.

The second is that constitutional limits on the states that are as much part of the federalist architecture as constitutional limits on the feds will be ignored. The Supreme Court’s record on the compact clause, the full faith and credit clause, and other state-restricting provisions of the Constitution, I think, amply bears out this concern.

I agree with Levin’s comments about the overpraise of Supreme Court cases that imposed pathetically weak limits on federal power.

Re: "...if every kiss begins with a bauble from Kay, then you're either dating, or married to, a whore."

I think I can visualize Andy Rooney saying that on 60 Minutes.

First, my problem with the Court's rationale in Lopez is that it's clearly fact specific. Same with Morrison. I've always felt praise from our corner for these decisions was overdone. I'm all for these decisions, but they're baby-steps. They left untouched the rationale for the broad holdings in Wickard v. Filburn and Maryland v. Wirtz.

Ramesh, my earlier comment about federalism being about state authority was in response to your earlier post in which you wrote, in part: "The Court seeks a federalism for states rather than one for citizens, as AEI federalism scholar Mike Greve puts it." I figured you knew that.

Ramesh - I probably agree with you that many liberals are advocating federalism in bad faith. That certainly seems to be the case of many pro-gay marriage neo-federalists who see nothing wrong with legalizing it at the federal level but who cry "what about federalism!?" when they hear of attempts to illegalize it at the federal level (assuming "illegalize" is a word).

Nevertheless, I personally see it as a step forward whenever the other side starts adopting your arguments rather than rejecting them. But I've got to go get ready for an engagement elsewhere. We shall continue this later, I'm sure.

Re Citibank, Jonah: Then the question is whether Citigroup is actually buying any good will; that's what I doubt.

Re marijuana: Thanks, Prof. Barnett, for your post, which adds to Adler's already helpful description of the Court's current jurisprudence. My point concerned what the Court's jurisprudence should be, so there's no disagreement here (nor do Adler or Barnett suggest that there is one).

Now to Jonah's column on liberal enthusiasm for federalism: I don't think liberals are, in fact, rediscovering the virtues of federalism. It's not as though they want states to be able to make their own policies on abortion or school prayer. The sort of "federalism" they want maintains all past liberal gains in imposing their preferred policies via the federal courts, while empowering litigation-happy state governments (or litigation-happy bits of state governments) to set national policies. Neither part of this mix is federalism. It's just liberals using power where they can wield it, which is an old story.

Noam Scheiber is bashing John Kasich's New York Times op-ed (registration required) on Social Security. He likes Kasich's idea of changing the formula for calculating benefits so that it rises with prices rather than with wages--a change that would solve Social Security's long-term solvency problem. What vexes Scheiber is that Kasich also supports private accounts.

"[I]f you allow today's workers to divert 25 percent of their payroll taxes into private accounts, cutting the benefits they're promised won't help you pay for it one bit. We were never counting on their payroll contributions to fund their own benefits; we were counting on their payroll contributions to fund the benefits of current retirees (and near-retirees)--benefits which, in the very next paragraph, Kasich promises not to cut.

"In effect, Kasich has spent the first seven paragraphs of his piece proposing a very reasonable way to save Social Security several trillion dollars, which would basically make it solvent. Then, in the final two grafs, he's proposing something that would cost several trillion dollars, which would immediately undermine the earlier proposal and leave Social Security in just as bad (probably worse) financial shape than when he started."

If you think about Social Security's solvency over the long run, then it does indeed make sense to cut the traditional benefits for today's workers in return for giving them investment options. It would be politically smart to fix the solvency problem as much as possible that way, and to rely as little as possible on changing the benefits formula.

But solvency isn't the only thing worth looking at. Social Security also offers young workers today a bad deal, and cutting benefits (or raising taxes) would make that problem worse. For Kasich to propose cutting benefits and then giving young workers something to compensate for it is not absurd, and no shell game (even if I am not sold on the particular mix of policies he is recommending).

Comedian Ron White (of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour) has a great bit on the diamond ads. He’s annoyed that they are so indirect. To paraphrase:

They started out as “Diamonds are Forever.”

Then it was—“Diamonds—They’ll leave her speechless.”

Why not just come right out and say it—“Diamonds—That’ll shut her up.”

I know, it’s sexist. But so are the ads. And Ron White is one of the funniest comics I’ve ever seen.

Ramesh - How so? I'm referring to Macy's policy of sending customers to Gimbels, putting the interests of the children ahead of the interests of the company etc. What part of Miracle on 34th Street am I missing?

Though now that we're talking about it, didn't we have a thing in here awhile ago about how it was outrageous that the federal government (via the post office) was the final word on Santa's existence? Or did we like it? I just can't remember.

An email: "I really, really agree--and other people look at me strangely whenever I bring it up. I suspect that-- as with the somehow-less-annoying Mastercard 'Priceless' ads-- part of the point is to say, 'Don't worry your pretty little consumer head about your credit card debt. You just keep running it up and enjoying yourself.'"

Me: Some, maybe most, of the Citibank ads have this tenor. Others, however, take an anti-spending message. I believe one of them goes, "He who dies with the most toys is still dead." I have never been able to figure out what the company thinks it is accomplishing with this campaign.

Yglesias responds Here. . More thoughtful comments -- or at least more comments -- to follow.

Here's another heartwarming missive re my Thanksgiving column:

War is,even at best, a murderous, vicious, hideous action on the part of one government, or at least its leadership, against a large number of innocent and defenseless people whose only fault was being the wrong nationality. As a human being, don't you feel just a little embarassed, showing youself in front of millions of other people as an obscene spectacle who finds something,(or who would even wish to find anything noble,uplifting,praiseworthy in the loathsome atrocity that is the American presence in Fallujah.)There are many things to truly celebrate about our country, but not this country's government's actions in a savage, unwinnable, and increasing genocidal conflict halfway around the world from people who are no danger to us. Next year, maybe you will write a more seemly column.

From an American stationed in Iraq in response to that Zaitchik guy I linked to this morning:

Anger sharks are swimming!!! That guy reminds me of some of the reporters who would buy a new set of khakis, show up in Iraq, and ask some the dumbest questions I've ever heard. One of my responsibilities in our operations center was giving them a brief overview and "entertaining" them until the brigade commander talked to them. The San Francisco Chronicle team was my favorite ("Do you derive any pleasure from killing Iraqis?"). The British papers were a close second.

Back to Zaitchik. Snipers targeting children? really? this guy objectively
believes that? Snipers lining up little six year old girls in their sights
and squeezing one off? Nice, guy. If a civilian is killed, it's an accident
and we make restitution with the family. It's an unfortunate effect of war.
If our soldiers are guilty of war crimes or some other violation of the
uniform code of military justice, they're prosecuted. For example, the
marine who tapped the guy in the mosque will have to give an account for his
actions. That's what a just society does.

Derb - I certainly take your point, and I am very reluctant to address this issue for fear of getting a lot of email from the mouth-breathers who think all such discussions return to Israel. Still, I'm not sure that loyalty has to be either/or or zero sum.

I suspect that you are more loyal to the United Kingdom than you are to, hmm, Costa Rica. This means in circumstances in which your support, moral or otherwise is torn between the UK and Costa Rica you will side with the UK, even if it's only a matter of rhetoric and cocktail conversation. Similarly, I am sure you are loyal to your friends and loyal to your family, but you are more loyal to your family than to your friends. This is probably rarely a problem except in those instances where the interests of your friends and the interests of your family come into conflict.

I agree with you about maintaining dual nationality, but I think dual loyalty is not so bad so long as the dual loyalties in question are not in conflict. For example, in almost any contest between Britain and France, I will root for Britain because as an American I feel a greater sense of loyalty to Britain than I do to France. Indeed, I would certainly be willing to argue that as a loyal American it is in America's interests to come to the aid of Britain if it were in a pinch, even if in the short term that created problems for America. Why? because loyalty to America must be rewarded with loyalty from America. Anyway, you get the point.

Well, Tim, I loooove that ad, although that has everything to do with the actress in question. I also looove this. The words say it all...

As I was writing about the Catholic vote for NRO, it occurred to me that there is one type of Catholic from whom we did not hear much during the campaign controversies about Catholicism in politics: the type of Catholic who a) is pro-life, b) is liberal on most other issues, and c) believes that Catholic politicians who support abortion should not present themselves for communion. There are plenty of Catholics who meet criteria a and b. But very few pro-life liberals were willing to say that politicians who support legal abortion should be denied communion. I can't think of one.

Among the small band of Catholic elites who are pro-life liberals, it may be that the felt imperative to maintain friendly terms with pro-abortion Catholic liberals sways people's views on the communion question. It may also be that they believe a strong form of the "seamless garment" argument: They believe, that is, that their church's teachings on war and poverty are just as practically definitive, and just as urgent, as its teachings on abortion. In either case, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that pro-life liberals in the Catholic church have let their liberalism compromise their pro-life stand.

Totally fair point. I hate those commercials too, from a reader:

With all the erectile dysfunction and male enhancement commercials on the air, you choose to be upset by a woman who will only kiss for a diamond? Better that than hearing another speaking slyly about how her aging husband “responds” to whatever the drug is this week, I say.

I think the evolutionary psychologists have more tact, but this reader gets to the heart of something here:

Jonah - I know this will likely automatically put me in the misogynist category, but am I the only one who has noticed that, while women typically categorize men as cavemen they are the ones who flip out over shiny rocks set in shiny metal? It's either some genetic throwback to primitive enchantment or women are just interested in the thought of copious amounts of money being spent on them (any doubts? Buy a woman a cubic zirconia and tell her it's real and observe her reaction when she finds it to be untrue). I'm not saying this about all women, mind you. I happen to be married to one of the few who cares little to nothing about jewelry.

This is not an E-mail about media bias (well not really). It’s about the best way to stay informed. This is a fairly obvious point I think, but I came across a great example of what I’m talking about today and I had to share it.

Whenever political debates pop up with friends I will be faulted for quoting something I read on NRO, whereas friends will often present their source saying something like “…it was in the New York Times?” with a question mark on the end as if to say “have you heard of it?” Now I read the Wall Street Journal every day, and various articles in the W Post or the Chicago Sun Times (I’ve learned to appreciate stories about guys attacking snow plow trucks). I find plenty of worthwhile stuff from all these sources, but if you really want to know what’s going on you have to read a debate, e.g. NRO, WS, TNR, Slate, etc. All these publications compete with each other for the best arguments, and they clearly account for each other’s arguments when creating their own.

Unlike, say, an AP story, writers for NRO know that if they make a significant gaffe, it will swing on a flagpole at an opposing publication for a long time. Andrew Sullivan knows if he gets lazy with an argument on gay marriage it could be quoted again and again for years an NRO. In other words, there is a much higher degree of accountability in the opinion press than there is in the MSM.

Take for example the following AP story that ran in today’s Sun-Times. An uninformed reader could conclude the following from this story: 1) All Iranians want a nuclear program and they will overthrow any government that tries to take a soft-line with Europe or the United States [how? Through elections I guess]; 2) The moderates (read: Good guys) want to go the European way and negotiate, but the mullahs, those hard-liners, have the popular will on their side and want nothing to do with it. Therefore it’s negotiate the European way or give into those popular mullahs.

Taking this example, I would argue that your arguments would be more sound and better informed if you read absolutely nothing, than if you tried to form an opinion off this story. Again, just one example. For five or six more each morning, watch the Today show. Would the NYT, AP, the Today Show and so on report this way if they had to account for their arguments? If Katie Couric knew her reporting would be comedy fodder for Good Morning America, do you think she’d actually try half the stuff she does? If you want accurate reporting you need accountability and you can’t get that in the MSM.

I think this has been reported several places at least in part but yesterday the Razumkov Center, which has done polling during the election campaign, publicized its latest poll numbers.

In a sample of 2,013 adult citizens taken November 25-29, the Razumkov poll shows that of those people who would participate in a third round (or repeat second round) of voting for the presidency, Yushchenko would take 56% of the vote and Yanukovych 40%. This is the largest margin to date between the two candidates.

This could explain why the Kuchma regime and Yanukovych too have floated the theme of a new election (remember the distinction between "new election" and "revote." They want to field another candidate, who they believe can close the 16-point margin that currently exists between Yushchenko and Yanukovych.

Several candidates come to mind for Kuchma: Former National Bank Chairman Serhiy Tyhypko and Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn. Both could, according to Presidential Administration logic, compete with Yushchenko. Tyhypko said yesterday he would not rule out a presidential run. Lytvyn said he wants to remain speaker until 2006.

Even more important in the polling -- while before more citizens believed Yanukovych would become President not because he won the vote, but because he stole the election and got away with it. Now, the poll shows, 30% of the citizens believe Yanukovych will win the third round compared to 45% for Yushchenko. Previously the numbers were 58% Yanukovych would win compared to 19% Yushchenko would win.

These same numbers have most likely been given to the President by the Security Service, which also conducts sociological surveys.

Yushchenko continues to stand on repeat voting in the next 2-3 weeks. Polish President Kwasniewski announced yesterday that his 5-point plan also has a proposal for a repeat vote either the 19th or 26th of December. We'll see how talks in Kyiv develop today.

What is it?

Seriously, I was reading this post by Matt Yglesias offering the usual, if not entirely unfair, jabs at conservatives over foreign policy stuff. And it struck me, I really have no idea what liberals believe when it comes to foreign policy. Sure, I know about the more famous sentiments about multilateralism, the UN, etc., but I really have no idea what liberal foreign policy is. Criticizing, mocking and pointing out inconsistencies within conservative or "neoconservative" foreign policy is not an actual foreign policy itself. Indeed, the relentless and relentlessly tiresome charges of "hypocrisy" aimed at conservatives are in some way tributes to conservative foreign policy. You cannot be a hypocrite or inconsistent unless you have a principle in the first place to apply hypocritically or inconsistently.

Amidst all of their handwringing about what Democrats should be and do in the coming years, I really haven't heard much about foreign policy. You guys might want to get on that.

I'm pretty sure I said this last year around this time, but I see no reason not to repeat myself on such a weighty issue. I hate these omnipresent TV commercials from Kay Jewellers. I don't know if it's a nationwide chain or not. But the tagline is "Every kiss begins with Kay."

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if every kiss begins with a bauble from Kay, then you're either dating, or married to, a whore.

The military is messing with the enemy's mind. Good for them. My friend Mark Mazzetti has the details in the LA Times. Mark seems more concerned about it than most people will be, but that's his job.

I've never heard of Alexander Zaitchik but I am a fan of the New York Press, even if I don't get to read it that often. Which is why I think it's too bad they're running pieces like this Zaitchik guy's. He runs a long extended quote from my syndicated column on Thanksgiving in which I wrote that I often receive "wonderful, uplifting, heart-wrenching e-mails from Marines and soldiers or their families with similar stories of Iraqis' expressing their gratitude and relief that the Americans are doing the hard work of democracy and decency" and that I often see similar stories of American courage and decency on obscure websites.

And then he says "I wish I knew what 'obscure Internet sites' people like Goldberg get their wonderful, uplifting news from. Online these days, I keep running into reports of U.S. artillery slamming into hospitals and U.S. snipers targeting children. Officials claim these reports are insurgency propaganda, and some of it probably is."

Maybe Zaitchik has the answer to his own question. Maybe he's the kind of guy who seeks out the sort of stuff that has a very high probability of being enemy propaganda because that's the sort of news he really wants to hear? Or, maybe not. But his column certainly gives off that impression.

The larger point, though, is that the "it's-all-an-American-plot" arguments circulating in cyberspace again demonstrate something that the writer Christopher Hitchens, himself a former Trotskyite, has been talking about for a long time: At least a part of the Western left -- or rather the Western far left -- is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government that would be friendly to the United States. Many of the same people who found it hard to say anything bad about Saddam Hussein find it equally difficult to say anything nice about pro-democracy demonstrators in Ukraine. Many of the same people who would refuse to condemn a dictator who is anti-American cannot bring themselves to admire democrats who admire, or at least don't hate, the United States. I certainly don't believe, as President Bush sometimes simplistically says, that everyone who disagrees with American policies in Iraq or elsewhere "hates freedom." That's why it's so shocking to discover that some of them do.

I refrained from posting all of the nasty email I've gotten response to my Thanksgiving column in large part because 98% of the responses were very generous, patriotic and kind. But 2% were amazingly anti-American. Most were from Americans who, on the merits, despise their country. But this one just came in over the transom from a Canadian address (which I'd be glad to share with the secret service) and it should give you a good sense of the general tenor of the whole batch (though the spelling here is particularly sub-par):

Janoh, I have just read your article. You should be ashamed of yourself, are you blind.

It is a bunch of morons like you that reelected the stupidest President
in US history. That SOB is a war criminal
The best thing that could happen would be that somebody would shoot the
basterd before he ruins the US
You should have the troops in Irak read your story. But do not go
yourself, they will linch you, you MORON

Dionne ends his column today thus: "[I]f Social Security privatization is supposed to be about making 'younger workers' better off, as Bush has said, will he please explain why piling yet more debt on their backs should make them grateful?"

There are, as I'm sure Dionne would concede, circumstances under which increases in the national debt are good for young people. Going into debt to win World War II, for example, was probably a good investment that made the young people of 1941 a lot better off over the course of their lives. Would adding personal accounts to Social Security yield benefits that are worth an increase in the national debt?

Maybe--but we don't need to answer the question. Dionne should re-read the supposedly damning quote he uses to lead into his conclusion. "'The president does support personal accounts, which need not add over all to the cost of the program but could in the short run require additional borrowing to finance the transition,' [OMB director Josh] Bolten said. 'I believe there's a strong case that this approach not only makes sense as a matter of savings policy, but is also fiscally prudent.'" E. J. continues: "A huge new borrowing -- 'from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over a decade,' as [New York Times reporter Richard] Stevenson notes -- is suddenly 'fiscally prudent' in the administration's eyes."

Well, of course it could be fiscally prudent. Dionne doesn't pay attention to some important words in Bolten's comment: "need not add over all to the cost of the program" and "in the short run." Bolten is clearly envisioning a plan that moves some of the future costs of the program into the present without increasing those costs--and he almost certainly has in mind a plan that reduces those future costs substantially. While any such plan could involve imprudence, it isn't obvious that it does. And over the long run, such a plan would not pile more debt on young workers.

The Key Monk notes that he was the first to launch the Me-for-Safire's-Gig bandwagon.. This appears to be true, but he made the mistake of doing this while I was on a cruise.

Folks, just to be very clear. I'm not really lobbying for the Safire job, nor do I think I have the remotest chance in the world of ever getting it. I think it's kind of funny to talk about though. I am very happy where I am with NRO, with my syndicate, etc.

That said, Shannen, while I wouldn't ever want Rather's job, there is one CBS gig long time readers know I want. Andy Rooney's. I think he's got the greatest racket in the world. He probably makes good ducats doing it and he gets to write on the side anyway. I would love, love, love to have a minute or two to gripe about odd things and impoortant things every week on "60 Minutes." I honestly think I could be great at it and I would be eternally grateful if my flying monkeys mounted a massive campaign for me the moment Rooney announces his retirement. Though it's beyond me why he would ever retire from a job like that.

Several readers have offered this complaint:

Hi Jonah, your "Party Over" column does a fantastic job of putting the Republican victory into a wider perspective. One quibble: It's the second time in recent weeks that you've listed "gays in the military" as evidence of Clinton's liberal agenda when he took office. But Clinton didn't seek out that issue, it was a brilliant (though I believe cynical) move by Republicans in Congress that brought the issue to the fore, a move that effectively dashed his brief honeymoon. There's no way Clinton, who never took a major public stand for gay rights, would have sought out that fight, a clear loser at the time. All the best, Andrew.

Me:This isn't exactly how I remember it, but I'll go look it up.

Update Woops. I didn't mean to include the emailer's name. But since it's there, I should clairfy that it's not from that Andrew.

I did this discussion with David Brooks for the CloseUp Foundation. It'll be on C-Span this Friday at 7:00 PM. It was a good time and I had lunch with Brooks afterwards. Unfortunately, I learned next to nothing about the Times gig, except that there is not a lot of buzz about yours truly and that nobody at the Times knows about this.

K-Lo,

In response to Derb's query about the Stooges, but mostly for the benefit of Jonah and the other Simpsons maniacs out there, I give you the greatest moment in television history.

From the episode "Homer the Heretic", written by oddball genius George Meyer, known to those with inside scoop as the true voice of the Simpsons and its greatest single contributor:

Homer has decided to stop going to church on Sundays. Instead we find him blissfully alone on his sofa, with the family dog at his feet, watching television. From the sound we know he's watching the Three Stooges. He chuckles, then turns to the dog.

Homer: "Moe is their leader."

I swear to you, nothing beats it.

His comment on his 75th Birthday: "I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter."

In order to head-off any more Mobty Python emails, let me just post these two:

Jonah, I saw you rrecent post in the Corner regarding determining if a woman is a witch. As a resident of Salem MA and someone who has viewed Monty Python & The Holy Grail approximately 178,091,645 times, I can with utmost certainty assure you that Hammurabi's code has absolutely nothing to do with determing if a woman is a witch.

In order to properly determine this, you must realize that witches burn. What else burns? Wood does. And since wood floats, and ducks also float, if a woman weighs the same as a duck, she is in fact a witch. At that point you may burn her without fear of recriminations.

I'm glad to be of help, and if in the future, please let me know if you need help satisfying the demands of any Knights who say "Ni!" The answer involves shrubbery.

Good day.

And...

An even better skit involving witches and the matter of them floating comes from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". I've attached the relevant scene altough I'm sure it is too lengthy for the corner.

Danny [last name withheld]
Houston, Tx
-----------------------------------------
Scene 5

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
BEDEMIR: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEMIR: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't - no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
BEDEMIR: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEMIR: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat - but she is a witch!
CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn? [pause]
VILLAGER #3: B -... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEMIR: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah, yeah... right.
BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks! (A fine example of scientific knowledge)
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches - churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead - lead!
ARTHUR: (Dramatically) A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore - ?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales! [yelling]
BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports! [whop] [creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop.

Big honkin' (mildly depressing) G-File up, btw.

Derb - eeeenteresting. I wonder if that's where the whole medieval thing about testing to see if a woman is a witch comes from. If she sinks, she's not a witch! (but she also drowns).

There was a great SNL skit on this theme with Steve Martin btw.

It's also not quite right to draw too sharp a distinction between Georgia and the situation in the Ukraine today. Georgia is, in fact, very far from being an ethnically homogenous state, but its rose revolution began in the Georgian heartland. In fact, in a possibly ominous precedent, it has yet to be extended to the whole country.

The British Indepdent offers this headline about the Alexander the Great bomb (nod to Peter Schramm at No Left Turns):

Alexander the (not so) Great fails to conquer America's homophobes

Oops--was already mentioned earlier. Still High-larious.

Kathryn -- I thought readers of The Corner might find this interesting/maddening/amusing. Note the differences between how AP introduces the nominee for Commerce vs. how the NYT does. Here's the AP:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday chose Carlos Gutierrez, a native of Cuba who rose from truck driver to chief executive officer of Kellogg Co., to be secretary of Commerce. "

Here's the Times, or at least what goes out to the Times News Service:

"BUSH FILLS FOURTH SLOT IN SECOND TERM CABINET
" (For use by New York Times News Service clients.)
" By STEWART M. POWELL û
" c. 2004 Hearst Newspapers û

" WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday named multimillionaire Carlos Gutierrez, the Cuba-born head of the $9 billion-a-year Kellogg cereal company, to join his 15-member Cabinet as secretary of commerce in a continued shake up for the second term.

" Bush announced the selection of the 51-year-old corporate executive..."

Amidst all the turmoil in the Ukraine, I expected at least one person in the Corner to mention that nation's last foray into mainstream culture. In the great Risk episode of Seinfeld, Kramer is battling away destroying Newman's armies. While riding the subway, the following scene takes place:

Newman: I'm not beaten yet. I still have armies in the Ukraine.

This comment perks up the ears of what appears to be a Russian immigrant.

Kramer: Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.

Ukrainian: I come from Ukraine. You not say Ukraine weak.

Kramer: Yeah, well we're playing a game here, pal.

Ukrainian: Ukraine is game to you?! Howbout I take your little board and smash it!!

The Ukrainian pounds the game board, destroying it and sending army pieces flying.

I think this episode should be front and center in the formulation of US policy during the current crisis.

From a reader:

Jonah, Watch the knee-jerk there, pal. To condemn private property in land is not to condemn private property. Rousseau's point, which was made even more clear by Henry George about a hundred years or so later, was that you can't just fence off a piece of land, hoist a flag, and declare it yours. If no one was in California, and I fenced it off and named it after myself, would I then have the right to charge people to settle on it? C'est ridicule!

The fact is that no one can really "own" land because no one made land.
People do however, improve land all the time. To these improvements people
can claim full rights. There is however, an underlying value in improved
land, the value of the land in its unimproved form. To grant people rights to
that value is, at its heart, anti-capitalist.

Consider the idea of licensing. The government grants licenses to a certain
amount of cabbies in any given city. Because of this, there are less cab
drivers than their would be if there was no required license. This government
imposed quota on the number of cabbies drives profits in the cabbie industry
above what they would be in a purely competitive cabbie market. These excess
profits are what economists call "rent." The emergence of unlicensed black
market cab drivers in many US cities is an example of entrepreneurs trying to
get a piece of that rent, those excess profits.

The same thing happens with land; the government grants artificial rights to
"own" land the same way it grants artifical rights to drive a cab. Excess
profits again arise, but it's more difficult for a uh, land-owning black
market to emerge as well.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Sincerely,
a conservative on campus

It's funny, I was saying almost the exact same thing to my wife this morning. But I was too lazy to look up the transcript. From a reader:

Amidst all the turmoil in the Ukraine, I expected at least one person in the Corner to mention that nation's last foray into mainstream culture. In the great Risk episode of Seinfeld, Kramer is battling away destroying Newman's armies. While riding the subway, the following scene takes place:

Newman: I'm not beaten yet. I still have armies in the
Ukraine.

This comment perks up the ears of what appears to be a Russian immigrant.

Kramer: Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.

Ukrainian: I come from Ukraine. You not say Ukraine weak.

Kramer: Yeah, well we're playing a game here, pal.

Ukrainian: Ukraine is game to you?! Howbout I take your little board and smash it!!

The Ukrainian pounds the game board, destroying it and sending army pieces flying.

I think this episode should be front and center in the formulation of US policy during the current crisis.

Kind of makes it hard to like the guy. From a friend:

I think your learned reader may have missed some things, like this from JJR's Discourse on Inequality: "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. Humanity would have been spared infinite crimes, wars, homicides, murders, if only someone had ripped up the fences or filled in the ditches and said, "Do not listen to this pretender! You are eternally lost if you do not remember that the fruits of the earth are everyone's property and that the land is no-one's property!" '

From a poli-sci prof:

Jonah -

ah poor Rousseau, so maligned and yet in many ways so deserving. He gets it
from both sides because there are so many contradictory strands in his thought.
One point about your column - Rousseau makes an important and clear distinction in Book II of the Social Contract between the "general will" and the "will of all." The general will requires that each member of the community will the common good above their own particular good. The general will is not the
aggregate of everyone's particular goods. The general will does not exist if
each person is willing their particular good - thus whatever is reflected in
public opinion polls about abortion or whatever, it is certainly not Rousseau's
general will. That being said the general will has no substantive content -
rights or anything else - all that really matters is that the proper procedure
is involved. The whole point of having a constitution is to bind our law to
certain principles that exist independently of the majority's belief in them.
If the constitution only means what people think it means, then what the hell
is the point. The general will is not bound to recognize any principle beyond
the one in fact creates it. Under the social contract Rousseau style, citizens
have no rights that the general will is bound to respect - no rights that they
do not surrender as part of the social contract. That is why Madison
(following Locke) thought Rousseau was full of crap. (Jefferson by the way was
a big fan - which is one of the myriad reasons that I am not a fan of
Jefferson).

love your stuff.
[Name withheld]

Mark makes a good point, though I don't think it muddies the issue much about which side to root for. Ukraine means, "border." Which is why it was always referred to in English (but I don't think in Russian) as "The Ukraine" joining a long list of proud "the" places: The Netherlands, The Hague, The Levant, The Bronx, the East Indies, The Sudan, The Yukon, The Falklands, the Seat of My Pants, etc.

Personally, I think nations and places with "the" in their name should form an association or commonwealth. But that's mostly because I'm feeling very silly.

Update: I should have remember that the Russians don't use "the." I think the Mongols stole all the "thes."

Which is often, like today, a mixed blessing.

But I do like the first post in the comments section which responds to Drum's assertion that 9/11 was the CIA's biggest failure in history. The poster writes "9/11 was the biggest CIA success in history. Please try to understand the real situation."

Interesting subject. More important, create an instalanche by clicking here. Seriously click it right now. Click it. Click it I tell you!

From a reader:

Having only read about 1,000 pages of Rousseau, I am at a distinct disadvantage to the e-mailer who wrote you earlier. Thus I am forced to conclude that other than his rejection of constitutionalism, his desire to overthrow the existing social order, his wish to replace organized religion with a state-sponsored civil religion, his embrace of untempered, majoritarian democracy, his utter abandonment of the idea of community, and his not so subtle advocacy of totalitarian measures of thought control, Rousseau is truly a philosopher that conservatives should hold as one of their own.

Good point Rich. But as I'm sure you know, and as I recently argued in a column, the media clamor for more dissenters is a ruse. If they wanted more dissenters they'd be demanding to know why Bush hasn't appointed people to his right too. No the clamor for dissenters from Bush's critics is really a demand that Bush hire more people who agree with Bush's critics. The same goes with Congress. Bold, brave, "independent" congressmen are liberal Republicans who make like difficult for Bush. Obstructionists are conservative congressmen who prevent Bush from doing what liberals think he should do.

Boswell: "Do you really think him [Rousseau] a bad man?" Johnson: "Sir, if you are talking jestingly of this, I don't talk with you. If you mean to be serious, I think him one of the worst of men; a rascal, who ought to be hunted out of society, as he has been. Three or four nations have expelled him: and it is a shame that he is protected in this country." Boswell: "I don't deny, Sir, but that his novel may, perhaps, do harm; but I cannot think his intention was bad." Johnson: "Sir, that will not do. We cannot prove any man's intention to be bad. You may shoot a man through the head, and say you intended to miss him; but the Judge will order you to be hanged. An alleged want of intention, when evil is committed, will not be allowed in a court of justice. Rousseau, Sir, is a very bad man. I would sooner sign a sentence for his transportation, than that of any felon who has gone from the Old Bailey these many years. Yes, I should like to have him work in the plantations."

"He’s part of the taste of America, the stuff that gets under your skin – from the not entirely “home-made” pies rotating at the diner to the red, white and blue Jell-O salad at the Fourth of July fireworks. That’s how he deserves to be celebrated: take 1 pkg of Jell-O, throw in 1 pkg of Cool Whip, add Tang, mix, lob in a couple of Pop Rocks, and stand well back.

Political theory sunday seems to have a half-life. From a reader in response to today's syndicated column in which I wrote, ""Saying that the courts should follow the Rousseauian General Will of the people isn't "moderate" at all —
indeed, it's a form of radicalism.":

This is ironic considering my comments on Rousseau
when I emailed you about Niet. this weekend. You are
just wrong on this, and howsoever much I love what you
and Rich Lowery do (and I love it very much since I
have been coming back for more for the last-almost
12-years, since I was 14), you-especially he-have this
thing against Rousseau that is totally wrong. There
is nothing in 1) The Social Contract, 2) the First
Discourse, 3) the Second Discourse, 4) the Letter on
Stage Spectacles, 5) The Confessions, 5) The Discourse
on Political Economy, 6) The Discourse on the Origin
of Languages, 7) The Essay on Heroic Virtue, 8)
Narcisse, or, the Self-Admirer, 9) the first parts of
the Letter to Count Weilhorski on the Government of
Poland or 10) several letters from Rousseau to
Voltaire, Diderot, etc. that in any way contradicts
originalism, traditionalism, conservatism, capitalism,
or anything else that you hold dear (also, just incase
you were wondering about this, Rousseau was not
French, he was a citizen of Geneva). I have read the
entirety of everything I have just mentioned (so for
the Letter on Poland, I have only read a little of
it), plus parts of "La Nouvelle Eloise," and a little
of Emile (I don't know if Emile's educational theory
is as bad as Lowry thinks it is, it may be, but the
whole of Emile I think is less than 600 pages, all the
reading I have described to you is about 1500 pages).
And all of it is 1) very good, 2) often as
nationalistic as John O'Sullivan (so the thing Lowry
has against Kant, the one bad thing about Kant, his
love for a UN before we-sadly-got one, Rousseau is
innocent of), 3) the greatest stuff out there against
euthanasia and the so-called "right-to-die" and at no
point is the "general will" confused with the impulse
of the mob-though Rousseau hated all indirect
democracy, and therefore he did not approve of our
Anglo-American system (he knew how M.P.'s in England
were elected, I think his views on this were stupid,
but they only occupy one footnote in the Social
Contract), anyway, believing that we should all be
like Geneva (or Rome before the Empire) where everyone
in the "city" can vote, and thus, we should all live
in city-states is something that Aristotle too
believed-and all the Alastir MacIntyre-Leon Kass
people never have to defend their hero's conservatism
to you guys, even though Aristotle DID defend
infanticide and euthanasia (which is bad stuff,
right?).
You and Lowry are great, but-like Burke, you seem
to think that just because Robespierre *said* he was a
disciple of Rousseau, he was in fact one. Justice
Brennan quoted George Washington, but you'd never
saddle the Father of the Country with that moral
relativist idiot's "work" on the Supreme Court, people
at NR should read more Rousseau before they attack
him, they will find that there is precious little to
attack.
Thank you for your time.

Academia responds to the charge they no write good. And since Orwell's come up around here, here's my take on the issue. I've always been fond if this column.

As with most such polls, the respondents to this poll were clueless as to the subject matter. The funny thing though is that the poll results prove this fact, although the story doesn't bother to point it out.

The story begins by saying that "Six in 10 Americans say there should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices". Then, just three sentences later, the author admits that 59% of the respondents did not know what job William H. Rehnquist, holds.

The chattering continues.

I agree with everything he stands for. I voted for him four years ago. But this election was just plain obvious. The choice was to vote for a politician or vote in a President. Kerry had nothing. The polls of people who voted for Kerry found that they voted for him because he wasn't Bush, which doesn't make sense to me. I don't see why people didn't vote for Bush. I heard, “Well, he went to Iraq and we didn't find weapons of mass destruction.” What? That's why you don't like him. That's all you got. We're saving lives here. We liberated 50 million people and we took Saddam out of power.

Peter - Funny you mention this. I was telling Rich not long ago that I thought it would be fun to launch an occasional feature at NRO where we set readers on a scavenger hunt of some kind. My idea would be to enlist various NR types to construct riddles, trivia questions, historical arcana, puzzles, poems whatever that would reveal new clues toward finding a hidden NRO-Treasure. I suspect Derb would be particularly good at the math riddles. We could reveal the riddle on a Monday and provide the answer on a Friday. Anyone who figured it out before then would have a headstart.

We could launch it in one city or go nationwide or whatever. Contestants could bring digital cameras and send in pictures of their "adventures." I'm not entirely sure why I think this is a good idea, but I think something along these lines could be a lot of fun and extend further NRO's wacky, pioneering, fun-loving NRO-ness. I haven't passed the idea by K-Lo yet (though I suppose I just did) and I haven't exactly thought it all through. But maybe in the Spring we can figure something out. Or...maybe not. I have these crazy ideas all the time and my colleagues generally humor me until I forget them.

Academics such as the next secretary of state still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."

A reader offers an interesting clarification:

The fact in the LA Times story should be put in context: Bush won 81% of all counties nation wide, according to uselectionatlas.com, so winning 97% of the fastest growing counties is not as astounding as one might initially think. It's still good news, though.

Color me dubious. From the Jerusalem Post:

Sheikh Hassan Yusef, head of the Hamas political bureau in Ramallah said Monday that Hamas is willing to declare a 10 year hudna, or ceasefire.

In an interview with Israel Radio, the senior Hamas leader said that the Islamic movement would consider committing to a ceasefire in order to ultimately join a national unity government with the Palestinian leadership, as Hamas is interested in playing an active role in the new Palestinian government and participating in national decisions.

He did not reject the possibility that Hamas would stop terror attacks against Israel during negotiations. However, a truce with Israel, Yusef said, would be dependant on an end of the Israeli occupation of the territories, release of security prisoners and "elimination of Israeli violence." When asked which borders "occupation" was referring to, he said the borders of 1967, not 1948.

Yusef also called on the United States and the international community to reconsider their definition of Hamas a "terror organization."

The statements came following Mahmoud Abbas's (Abu Mazen) appeals to end the state of anarchy and illegal armament in the territories.

Sheikh Yusef, who was recently released from an Israeli prison after completing a two-year-and-four-month sentence for membership in an illegal movement, was a close associate of the late PA chairman Yasser Arafat and is considered a senior and influential member of Hamas.

Senior Hamas members in the Gaza Strip and abroad have not yet reacted to Yusef's declarations.

Security sources in Gaza have said that the Palestinian Authority has put together a security plan that will attempt to put an end to the illegal carrying of weapons on the Palestinian street.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, who served as Arafat's spokesman for the past decade, also recently came out against the prevalent trend of illegally bearing arms. In an interview with al-Jazeera, Rudeineh said, "Both the Fatah and Hamas need to understand that this phenomenon will harm the Palestinians rather than strengthen them."

Report: PA calls to stop incitement against Israel

Meanwhile, according to London based pan-Arab newspaper a-Sharak al-Awsat, the Palestinian Authority leadership has instructed its media to halt all incendiary broadcasts against Israel, especially songs and video clips directly calling on audiences to continue the Intifada.

The newspaper claimed that the order was given less than 24 hours after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon demanded that the Palestinians stop incitement against Israel if they want to renew negotiations, Army Radio reported. Sharon made the statements in a speech to the Likud faction a week and a half ago.

At the same time, PA sources are reportedly assembling a collection of statements made by Israeli politicians, military officers and rabbis which discriminate against Palestinians to prove that Israel is guilty of incitement and sedition as well, Army Radio reported.

Yesterday's Washington Post featured an interesting -- though not exactly spell-binding -- article by John Harris on whether or not the GOP 2004 victory signals a realignment. There was one eye-popping statistic in there though:

Mark Gersh, a leading elections analyst with the Democratic-supporting National Committee for an Effective Congress, said he does not believe a realignment has occurred, but he does fear that the results highlight serious structural problems for Democrats. In addition to the higher number of Republican-leaning states -- a major GOP advantage in the Senate -- the Democrats are getting trounced in the outer suburbs of metropolitan regions. While these areas still produce relatively few votes, they are the fastest-growing areas of the country. A Los Angeles Times analysis found that Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties. [Emphasis mine]

This op-ed by David Satter in today's WSJ (Sub req'd) is the best piece I've read on the Ukranian situation. If you feel like you've fallen behind on events or that you haven't read up enough, this is an outstanding cheat-sheet and a powerful essay at the same time.

Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) has a very good piece on Kofi Annan and why we should replace him with my man Vaclav as well. Which also may be the shortest op-ed I've seen in a while.

From a Johns Hopkins student:

Hey Jonah,

Just thought I'd add something a little late to the ongoing Corner
Debate. I went this morning to register for January short courses that
they offer here at JHU between semesters, and what do I see but:

AS 191.308 (S) THE LEFT/RIGHT NIETZSCHEAN DEBATE (2)
What is Nietzsche's legacy for contemporary political theory? This
course stages a debate between a Left Nietzschean, Gilles Delenze, and a
Right Nietzschean, Leo Strauss.

Apparently someone here in our Poli Sci department considers Strauss a
Nietzschean in some form, if that counts for anything. Unfortunately
the timing of the class is off such that I can't take it and report
back. Sorry!

The United Nations nuclear watchdog said Monday it had verified that Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment-related activity was now complete.

From a reader, re that heroin story below:

Jonah, The article you quoted said: Three years ago, it recorded more overdoses than any other major European city. Now, after a two-year decline in drug deaths — in part because of the war in Afghanistan, which interrupted the production and distribution of heroin — the number of overdoses is rising. Proof that the Taliban did nothing to curtail the flow of heroin from Afghanistan. We have been told that the Taliban hated the drug trade and was successful in stopping it.

We're not going to rehash (no pun intended) the whole drug war thing today (NR's agin' it, I'm fer it, though I'm in favor of decriminalizing pot). But this LA Times story strikes me as worth reading. Here's the opener:

OSLO — She said she only smoked heroin, but there were needle bruises on her neck. She said she loved her boyfriend, but she stood on a corner and offered herself to others. She said she was a girl, but then remembered she had become a woman. She said she wanted to quit, but she knew she wouldn't.

Across town in a brick chapel, Father Jon Atle Wetaas lighted three votive candles. "These are for peace and reflection," the priest said. "We never know what we'll meet out there." Then he and a nurse loaded a camper with clean needles, medicine and coffee and drove the streets searching for some of the estimated 5,000 to 7,000 heroin addicts that shadow this Norwegian port city.

They came upon the woman on the corner, a shattered 18-year-old desperately looking to fill her empty syringe. Her name was Katrin Nygard Helgeland.

"I try to quit," she said, her face pale in the autumn half-light. "I get depressed, and I run away inside myself."

Clean and tidy Oslo, the capital of a nation with one of the highest standards of living and some of the best social programs in the world, is one of Europe's heroin havens. Three years ago, it recorded more overdoses than any other major European city. Now, after a two-year decline in drug deaths — in part because of the war in Afghanistan, which interrupted the production and distribution of heroin — the number of overdoses is rising.

Worst idea ever. I mean we conservatives may or may not have some great cooks amongst us, but who on earth would buy a cookbook based on the politics of the recipe writers? Vegan eating Mother Jones nutjobs are about the only demographic I think might respond to such a thing.

DO IT! Sell a million and give yourselves a raise. I'll buy at least one.
Thanks for all yall do.

Kathryn - Do I have to post on Monday if I posted all weekend?

So says this guy (but color me unpersuaded):

Dear Mr. Goldberg, Whoever said that a follower of Nietzsche could never be conservative understands neither Nietzsche nor conservatism. Nietzsche was the great opponent of the pretense to absolute truth, of "rationality" that claimed to span across all times and places, of so-called "objective" perspectives that span across historical situations. It constantly amazes me that conservatives don't seem to realize that they agree with Nietzsche on all of these points (thought they certainly disagree with him on others). Conservatives, especially but not only secular conservatives, take their bearings from the arbitrary historical position in which they are born. Whenever you hear a conservative use the term "Judao-Christian tradition" to describe where their moral values come from, this is what they're saying. Conservatives don't (or at least shouldn't, if they have any idea of what they're talking about) claim that their societies are "simply best" or "purely rational," but rather that there are good reasons for generally leaving historically conditioned social values as they are. Conservatives reject rationalistic political projects, such as the Marxist world state. Now, Nietzsche sought to replace the Judao-Christian tradition with his more brutal set of values, and this is where Nietzsche and conservatives part ways. But the underlying thought process, a preference for historical values over purely rational values, remains. Every true conservative agrees with Nietzsche's fundamental tenets.

Leo Strauss agrees with Nietzsche on all of these points too. But things get more complicated when one realizes that Strauss wanted to leave room for universal, Platonic rationality in an elite group of philosophers, despite the fact that this effort was in tension with the kind of society he preferred. This causes a lot of confusion in the debate over whether or not Strauss is a conservative.

Hope this clarifies things.

To taunt Steve more often.

By the way Steve, did I mention that Jane Addams and the gang at Hull House boiled their Thanksgiving turkey?

Dear Friend,

I am Mrs Suha Arafat the wife of late palestinians leader organasation ( PLO ). I must confess that my Agitation is real, and my words are my bond, in this Proposal.

My late husband diverted this money meant for purchaseing Of ammunition, for my country, during the civil war in My country, now he had deposited the money with a security company in DUBAI (UAE) as personal iterms but the security company does not no the content of the consignment, it is on this note That I am contacting! you, if you kidly handle this fund for me,all I needed from you is to Furnish me with your telephone and fax number for you to Assist me claim this money into where it is in DUBAI (UAE ), the said mount is USD75 milion dollars out of $1.5 billions my husband kept there. sating you with 15% of the total money amount, Now all my hope is on you and I really want To invest this money in your country til when my daughter will be mature, were their is Stability of Government, political and economic Welfare. Honestly I want you to believe that this Transaction is real and never a joke.

My late husband Arafat gave me the photocopies of the Certificate of deposit issued to him by the security company on the Date of deposit, and he wanted to transfer this money With the assistance of a foreigner as the beneficiary Of the fund, for you to be clarify because, I do not Expose my self to anybody I see, I believe that you are able to keep this funds secret for me Because this funds is the hope of my life, it is Important. Please contact me immediately you must have Gone through my message through my email address.

That is the reason why I offered you 15% of the total Money and 5% percent for local and international Expenses, and in case of any other necessary expenses You might incur during this claim of funds N.B Try and negotiate for me some profitable blue Cheep Investment opportunities which is risky free which I Can invest with this money when it is claimed to Your account, personally I am interested in estate Management and hotel business.

Email me immediately You receive this message for more explanation. And Promise me and my children to be a Father considering our situation and not to betray us. Thanks and God bless, Best regards MRS.Suha Arafat

A joke, of course.

George Will has more:

“Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations -- except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome. They do indeed cultivate diversity -- in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.”

He’s right, of course.

What puzzles me is why, despite this, the universities’ customers, many of whom are paying large sums to go there, do nothing about this. And why do alumni still stump up cash to subsidize an intolerance that many must find repulsive?

That Congressmen should actually be given time to read the legislation they vote on.

How about it?

(And if that means that they have less time to dream up other legislation, so much the better).

Via Radley Balko.

“London's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games has been damaged by allegations that ministers may have broken rules on influencing members of the International Olympic Committee, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.”

This is, of course, tremendous news for Londoners – as it makes it far less likely that their city will be put through the Olympic nightmare, but it’s grim news for New York for exactly the same reason.

Paris 2012!

For reasons that escape me, the England cricket team is now embarking on a tour of Robert Mugabe’s nightmare kingdom. For a little perspective, here’s the story of Roy Bennett, a Zimbabwean MP who has now been jailed, and his wife, Heather:

”Seeing your husband imprisoned in a country with one of the world’s worst human rights records is bad enough. But over the past four years Heather Bennett has also been abducted at knifepoint and miscarried a baby. The couple have lost their property and been repeatedly threatened, their workers have been brutalised and raped. Last April the military drove them off their farm. This week the couple should have been celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary. Instead Bennett is crammed with 17 other prisoners in a cell meant for four.”

The cricketers should go home.

…or just the vodka speaking?

From the London Sunday Times:

”Draped in a blue pro-government flag and swigging from a vodka bottle to keep warm, Viktor Kolukh was in no mood to compromise yesterday. A hefty miner with thick, tattooed hands, he had travelled 600 miles by bus from Ukraine’s heavily industrialised east with an unmistakable message for the opposition demonstrators on the streets of Kiev. Cheered on by dozens of fellow miners gathered around a camp fire, Kolukh spat contemptuously on an orange opposition banner and trod it deep into the snow. “We want to avoid violence but the situation is very tense. It could blow up any moment,” said Kolukh, 34. “The opposition must accept that it lost the elections. We are patient but if the results are annulled and we are robbed of our victory, there will be blood on the streets.”

Ms. Lopez:

I have given up trying to copy-and-paste the flood of recipes that have appeared in The Corner over the Thanksgiving holidays; there were just too many to keep track of. So….

How about producing an Official Corner Holiday Cookbook?

Euro MP Daniel Hannan on how the EU ‘parliament’ reacted to the revelation that Chirac’s new EU Commissioner Barrot was, until an amnesty, a convicted criminal:

“It fell to a man called Nigel Farage, capo of the UK Independence Party, to inform the chamber of Mr Barrot's conviction. The pro-EU parties had not looked into his background because, deep down, they didn't want to find anything… The way MEPs reacted to Farage's revelation was horrible. One by one they rose to threaten him with legal action. The Liberal leader, Graham Watson, likened him to the football hooligans who had disgraced Britain in Europe. A fomer colleague of Barrot's, Jacques Toubon, rushed up and down the aisle, apparently looking for someone to punch (Robert Kilroy-Silk, recognising him as the minister who had tried to ban the English language from French airwaves, told him mischievously that no one would understand him unless he spoke English, which sent him into a choking fit). All this because Farage was doing the job that the rest of us ought to have done.”

And as for the rest of the new Commission:

“Of the 25 commissioners, six are former Communists and four have recently lost elections - again demonstrating that the Commission is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic, attracting politicians who have been expressly rejected by voters. We have an agriculture commissioner who makes money from the CAP, a competition commissioner who, after only two days, has already run into conflicts of interest, and an anti-fraud commissioner who was recently involved in a fraud case (although he was acquitted)…If you think I am exaggerating, consider the Commission's other personnel change - one that has been largely overlooked as a result of the Buttiglione and Barrot affairs. The Latvian candidate, Ingrida Udre, was withdrawn as a candidate. Her crime? To tell MEPs that she favoured tax competition. Her inquisitors were scandalised, and Mrs Udre was duly replaced by a Hungarian apparatchik. There you have it. As far as MEPs are concerned, it is all right to have supported a totalitarian regime, to have been convicted in a corruption case or, indeed, to be an evident dullard with no knowledge of your portfolio. What is not all right is to support the supremacy of national parliaments. Dolts, shysters, reds and retreads are welcome. But someone who believes that nations should set their own taxes? That would be going too far.”

They are crooks in support of a delusion – and a pay-off. Nothing more.

I know it isn't fashionable to talk about the Axis of Evil anymore, but this should help bring the phrase back into common parlance:

Thousands Respond to Call for Martyrs

The 300 men filling out forms in the offices of an Iranian aid group were offered three choices: train for suicide attacks against US troops in Iraq, or train for suicide attacks against Israelis. Or train to assassinate British author Salman Rushdie.

It looked at first glance like a gathering on the fringes of a society divided between moderates who want better relations with the world and hard-line Muslim militants hostile toward the United States and Israel.

I promise to stop this soon, but everyone knows that the first Sunday after Thanksgiving is known as "political theory Sunday." From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

I have a rule of not writing commentators, but Leo Strauss so mis-represented and mis-understood in both the conservative and the liberal media, that I decided to go ahead with this email notwithstanding my personal rules.

I openly call myself a Straussian, and a conservative (a neo-conservative, if I had to be classified into a particular group). I studied with two direct students of Leo Strauss, one self-educated Straussian (the late Eve Adler, who probably understood Strauss better than anyone in her generation), and another student of Strauss' students at Middlebury. My education largely focused on the sort of careful reading of ancient and modern texts of philosophy that Strauss thought worthwhile. I also studied a lot of Strauss himself, even though most of his former students prefer not to teach his writings in their classroom. (Incidentally, in connection to a topic that was discussion at the NRO blog earlier this month, the main reason why Middlebury is not as heavily influenced by the academic left as other similar schools in New England is because of its Straussian professors, as well as other teachers who are influenced by Strauss one way or the other.)

I think it is a stretch to suggest that Leo Strauss was a conservative. The fact is that Strauss and three of his most important early students (Joseph Cropsey, Allan Bloom, and Herbert Storing) were moderates who stayed away from politics. A further testament to this fact is that most of Strauss' other direct students are not conservative either. If you look across the academia, it is true that many students of Strauss fight the radical leftward movements, the attempt to undo the study of the classical tradition, and the like, but they are not ideological in the sense that we understand conservatives. They are judicious moderates who try to stay away from politics as much as they can. Furthermore, I think most Straussians are disheartened when their teacher is brought into the partisan debate between conservatives and liberals, notwithstanding his great influence on modern conservatism. They also find it quite unfortunate when people who regard themselves as Straussian bring in their partisanship into the classroom; I will not mention any names, but on a personal level, I chose to attend Middlebury precisely because Straussians there do not do that, while at some its competitor colleges, they did.

Of course, there are many conservatives who trace their academic roots to Strauss (including some who studied with him) like Charles Fairbanks, Bill Kristol, Harvey Mansfield, etc. My own view is that it is impossible to read Strauss and not be supportive of the ideas that are today represented by the conservative movement, especially on foreign policy. However, this is a minority view among those who knew Strauss personally, and I think his students are accurate in arguing that Strauss stayed away from partisan politics for a reason. He has had a great influence on modern conservatism, but it does injustice to his great scholarship when he is made part of the partisan debate. This is largely the doing of the left (Norton's book is the most recent example of an attempt to try to demonize Strauss), but his conservative followers would be most fateful to their teacher if they defend his writings on its own merits as some of the most important contribution to political philosophy there is, rather than to try to defend his merits as a conservative.

With best wishes,
Irakly Areshidze

From "a law student at the London School of Economics":

Mr Goldberg,

Under the heading "Wolfie, Lolita, Strauss, Women....", you post a reader's email mentioning that, in Reading Lolita in Tehran, author Azar Nafisi cryptically acknowledges "Paul" for introducing her to Leo Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing. The email goes on to claim that the "Paul" in question is Paul Wolfowitz.

The Corner, I fear, has been Rathered.

The origins of this controversy began when closet neo-con Christopher Hitchens, speaking to Britain's Independent tabloid (formerly a newspaper) (http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=564559), claimed that Reading Lolita in Tehran was "dedicated" to Paul Wolfowitz. In fact, the book's dedication reads as follows:
"In memory of my mother, Nezhat Nafisi
For my father, Ahmad Nafisi,
And my family: Bijan, Negar and Dara Naderi."

In a subsequently published article in Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2105821), Hitchens revised his earlier claim, saying, "on the pages devoted to 'Acknowledgements' ...one finds a tribute to 'Paul'... 'Paul,' you may care to know, is Paul Wolfowitz."

I mean no disrespect to Christopher Hitchens or the author of the letter you posted, both of whom I'm sure are lovely people, but there is no persuasive evidence that Azar Nafisi was thanking Paul Wolfowitz; unless, of course, he is the only "Paul" to have read Leo Strauss.

One of the highlights of recent weeks was the delightful confession by the Centers for Disease Control that their claim that 400,000 deaths a year due to obesity was, well, wrong.

Apparently, there was an “inadvertent calculation error”.

However, even better still, as Reason’sJacob Sullum has noted, this mistake, and the boost it gave to the anti-obesity crusade, has caused outrage amongst the anti-cigarette jihadists. Their complaint? They want nothing, nothing, to displace tobacco’s role as this nation’s number one scourge, a wheezing, coughing fifth nag of the Apocalypse that can be used to justify raising taxes, fighting ‘passive smoking’ and so on.

Sullums comment? “Some might be dismayed at such squabbling among lifestyle dictators, but it's music to my ears.”

Oh, indeed.

Yes, yes, I know what she means, but you have to admit that this statement from Britain’s, sigh, Children’s Minister does sound a touch sinister:

"For me it's not a question of whether we should intrude in family life, but how and when."