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.'"