I have no knowledge about this myself, but it's an interesting take, from a reader:

It was interesting that you posted an email where the poster who claims embryos aren't human as they haven't yet implanted. Up until the mid 1950s the consensus of science was that life began when the egg was fertilized. So why the change in the 50s? Simple-it was the development of the IUD for birth control. Since it works by preventing implantation the pharmaceutical companies started a massive PR campaign to change the definition of conception from when the egg was fertilized to when it was implanted. obviously they were very successful.

argued that the stem-cell controversy would be good for abortion rights a few years ago. I can't find a link to her column, but here's what I said about it at the time. Michael Kinsley wrote a smarter column (natch) that was more analytical about the link, drawing the same conclusion with less celebration.

When embryo-destructive research first became a controversy, the late Robert Bartley argued that it would end up being the reverse of partial-birth abortion. Just as pro-choice arguments look their weakest and most theoretical at the end of pregnancy, pro-life ones look the most abstract and least compelling at the front end. Focusing attention on partial-birth abortion thus weakened the pro-choice movement generally, and Bartley thought that stem-cell research would weaken pro-lifers.

That's probably the way to bet. There is, however, another possibility. The risks pro-lifers made in raising partial-birth abortion as an issue is that it would a) make other abortions seem better, and b) end up increasing liberal support for infanticide. The debate over stem-cell research carries some risk, how big I would not venture a guess, for pro-choicers. So much of the time they are turning their argument on the fact that the early human embryo has no limbs, has no heart, is "undifferentiated," etc.--the more they stress this, perhaps, the more it will begin to seem wrong that they believe it should be possible to kill young human beings when they do have hearts, limbs, internal differentiation, etc. I may be grasping for a silver lining here.

One point several angry or objecting pro-choice or pro-stem cell readers keep making is that I admit my argument wasn't "logical." Actually, the point of that line was to say that the motivation on the part of the pro-stem cell folks wasn't entirely logical. I wasn't clear.

Let me try again. When I was talking about motivation, I was talking about a general psychological approach to the issue which infects the politics of the issue. I wasn't talking about the scientific facts. There are, in my mind at least, very real differences between abortion and embryonic stem cell research. But I think people -- on both sides -- have a more global approach to the issue which contains some irrationalism. The irrational connection of stem cells, abortion and progress is what I intended to call illogical. I think my argument is fairly logical and accurately describes some of what is going on. I don't think one could fairly accuse me of saying it describes everything that's going on on the pro-stem cell side. But just in case that's not clear: I think it's obvious there are other motivations at work as well.

Two emails, the first is from a friend who works on these issues closely:

Dear Jonah: I couldn't agree more about your stem cell point. Embryonic stem cell research doesn't involve abortion per se, of course, since it involves embryos before implantation in the womb, but the basic point that an important element of the enthusiasm for it on the left has to do with the fact that it puts the pro-lifers on the side of the dark ages seems right to me. In the abortion debate, the pro-life forces can speak about love and compassion and equality, while the pro-choice folks have to appeal to abstract notions of freedom or else concoct imaginary oppressions or newly minted rights. In the stem cell debate, on the other hand, the pro-life forces are stuck defending the humanity of a microscopic organism that looks nothing like anyone, while the pro-choice (now dubbed "pro-research") forces can speak about compassion and help for the suffering, and the like. Of course, the basic issue is the same: the defense of the defenseless against the selfishness of the strong; but the emotional calculus (on which, frankly, so much rests in both cases) is very different.

Watching the Democratic convention this summer, I found myself wondering why
speaker after speaker brought up the stem cell issue, and why the audience
seemed so energized by it. There were many reasons, I'm sure, but one key
one must have been that the issue offers a way for pro-abortion types to
stake out what feels like a kind of moral high ground, and to feel like the
expansion of license is akin to the progress of science.

and from a reader...

Jonah,

I'm on board with you as far as the non-embryonic research is concerned. However, the pro-life crowd has hijacked the stem cell debate much as the pro-choice crowd has. Naturally, abortion proponents don't want to see embryonic stem cell research banned because that would be tantamount to assigning some intrinsic value to the embryo. Taken to its conclusion, this could mean that they openly root for success in embryonic research and failure in other non-controversial types of research.

The pro-life people want to see the cord blood/adult stem cell route succeed so they can credibly add "Because embryonic research doesn't work as well, anyway" to their list of reasons for wanting it banned. Whether embryonic stem cell research works or doesn't work has little to do with the pro-life argument for wanting it banned. However, if it can be proven to be inferior to the cord blood alternative, the "miracle cure" red herring will be squashed and the ban will be easier to get passed.

K-Lo -- I know you've probably heard this argument a zillion times because you follow this stuff far more than I do. But it's always seemed to me that one strong motivation for pursuing embryonic stem cell research over less offensive techniques has been simply that it would make abortion "necessary." I completely understand this isn't a completely logical argument, but I think the reproductive freedom crowd is enamored with the idea of tying abortion to "progress" in as many ways as possible. The less it's solely about lifestyle and the more it's part of the larger technological-cultural momentum toward Something Better, the more easy it is for them to paint those who stand in their way as not merely "anti-woman" and "anti-choice" (a slogan itself designed to convey the alleged anti-modernism of abortion foes) but "anti-progress." In other words, those other stem cell avenues aren't merely less exciting -- because compromise in such existential battles is always unexciting -- they are less useful.

If abortions helped solve global warming, I'm sure lots of people would be not-too-secretly delighted.

From a reader:

Jonah:

I couldn't agree more with your point. One thing that
really got to me about this story was how the Army
keeps to its rules- just look at the picture in the
story you linked, of Jenkins saluting and the salute
being returned. Furthermore, the Army actually got him
a fully up to date uniform, with all of his rank
insignia, decorations, and so on, to wear at the court
martial. After all, he was still on active duty after
all these years, just AWOL. They must have had to hunt
down ribbons that haven't been issued in decades, not
to mention making a uniform that would fit his frame,
probably unique in the armed forces. He was even
wearing the black beret the Army only adopted a few
years back.

I think this says something profoundly positive about
our military and country.

I'm all in favor of people getting justice for their crimes and all that stuff. But there are some mistakes whose consequences are so severe that further legal punishment really doesn't make any sense. For example, I think people should pay a fine if they try to feed cigars to bears at the zoo. But, if in the process the bear bites off half your face, the courts should pretty much stay out of it.

The story of Robert Jenkins seems to fall pretty squarely into that category. Desertion is bad and should be punished. Defection is even worse. But forty years of hell in North Korea seems to have been a pretty good punishment for his actions. He wasted his whole life, and regretted his decision every day. I was glad to see the army went relatively easy on the guy -- dishonorable discharge, demotion, but only 25 days in the stockade -- while still upholding the principle that what he did was unforgivable. He reportedly had to share as much intelligence as he could as well. If he'd spent the last forty years living it up in a Russian dacha, I would have been glad to see him spend the remainder of his days behind bars. But this seems like the right call to me.

Most people tell their browser to not underline links? He's kidding, right? "Most people" can't find Tools-internet options [KJL: or the time!] to empty their own Temporary Internet files, much less tell it how to display links.

I think Drudgereport looks just fine in it's uber-uglified underlined-linkiness. And NRO is nice and neat without blue lettering scarring up the landscape.

Someone needs to relax a little.

The vast majority of emailers who have an opinion on the subject have this opinion, more or less:

This guy says "Most people tell their browser to not underline links".

What polling company did he use to come up with that? Zogby?

I think you'd find in a scientific poll of 1000 likely browser users that
most people don't even know how to turn the underlining off (although they
do now, since you've published it).

But what do I know. I personally like the underlined links. Makes them
easier to see.

Everyone in Moscow wants to be in Kiev.

I had no idea this might be an issue. Kathryn should we have someone flogged? From a reader:

Most people tell their browser to not underline links (Tools-internet options-advanced then choose underline links-never). For instance, the Drudgereport, washingpost, etc all look much better with links NOT underlined.

Color, not underlining, is used to mark links, blue especially. For some f--ked up reason NRO chooses not to make links blue or any other color and so i (along with many others) constantly have to run my pointer along the sentence to find the link.

the result is, with my browser, the Corner does not LOOK like a blog. there are no links visible anywhere on the page. the menu buttons in the navigation bar are obviously links but otherwise the Corner defies www linking conventions.

in spite of this odd behavior i read the corner every day. thanks and congradulations on a great site (but please make your links blue).

The EU Observer has the details:

"According to Dutch daily De Volkskrant on Saturday (4 December), a police raid in September 2003 revealed dangerous abuses of environmental and safety standards at a reactor based in Petten, which is owned by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

However, documents from the Dutch Justice Ministry, obtained by the paper, show that the Dutch government hindered further judicial investigations against the plant. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs allegedly feared a diplomatic conflict with the European Commission.

The Commission had stated in a series of letters to the Dutch authorities that it would find prosecution of the Petten plant staff unacceptable, as Commission employees working at Petten possess legal immunity in the Netherlands.

Ongoing investigations against the plant by the Dutch public prosecutor were therefore hastily broken off in March 2004. However, after the police raid, Dutch prosecution authorities characterised the situation at Petten as very serious. The investigations had revealed that toxic waste was stored without protection, bearing a risk of explosion. "

As we enter this critical week the Constitutional Court tomorrow is suppose to rule on the validity of the government's dismissal. The Parliament's consultative meeting has proposed candidacies for the new Central Electoral Committee--80% of the current members, minus the present chairman and one or two others. And, Kuchma has gone on record that the Supreme Court's ruling must be implemented.

But what does any of this mean?

According to Viktor Yushchenko--speaking to the demonstrators in Independence Square yesterday--the next three days are absolutely critical.

The Supreme Court victory on Friday was huge, and the momentum clearly has built in favor of the people of Ukraine and Yushchenko but this is Ukraine. The will of the people and rationale standards of behavior and following laws are what is at issue--the people in power do not "play" by those rules and those standards. To the extent Kuchma and company are even influenced by law and rationale standards it is only because high-priced and mostly foreign advisors try to coat and spin their lawless and criminal behavior in terms of national interests and protecting society.

This struggle is a long way from over. Everything remains in doubt--serious doubt. President Kuchma--always the meticulous, clawing, determined thug--has not given up and is following a methodical "anybody but Yushchenko campaign."

Kuchma is also trying to press the necessary number of parliamentarians into amending the constitution before the revote to limit the powers of the presidency--to make sure that if Yushchenko does win it will be a hollow victory and the Kuchmnestas can continue to control Ukraine and the citizens of Ukraine from another power base. The horse trading going on in Parliament today involves the dilution of the powers of the presidency, by shifting some powers to the parliament and Prime Minister effective January 1, 2005. Yushchenko's team supports the constitutional reforms, but wants them to go into effect after the March 2006 parliamentary elections, when a new parliamentary election on proportional party list basis can form a cabinet of ministers for which it will be accountable. Kuchma supporters and allies of the Communist Leader Symonenko and Socialist Leader Moroz want the changes to take effect next month, leaving Yushchenko with very limited presidential powers. Critical negotiations on these issues are taking place in Kyiv today.

Note also the potential for Kuchma to hold out long enough--in not dismissing the government, the Central Election Commission, etc.--to have the December 26th election take place and be just as disgraceful and farce as that which took place on November 21st--remember all the same players, including eastern oblast chiefs--and with the same result--an election all election monitors proclaim to have been contrary to international norms. Then Kuchma might declare some sort of a state of an emergency, renounce the election and the candidates and--posing as some sort of statesman--try to start the entire process over without either of the "offending" candidates "in the interests of Ukraine."

Never forget the lengths to which these people will go--

PETER ROBINSON: I’m going to quote…from an essay. [Proceeding to read from Wolfe’s famous essay in Forbes ASAP:]

“I had a picture of modern man plunging headlong back into the primordial ooze….He’s floundering, sloshing about, gulping for air, frantically treading ooze when he feels something huge and smooth swim up beneath him and boost him up like some almighty dolphin. He can’t see it, but he’s much impressed. He names it God.”

Does Tom Wolfe believe in God?

TOM WOLFE: No.

From a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous:

Jonah-

Why don't hardcore bloggers consider The Corner a
blog? Well, ya'll are missing a couple of key
elements that separate you from the rest of the
blogosphere: a blogroll and links within posts to
other blogs.

Beyond occasional links to Glenn Reynolds, The Corner
writers rarely connect with the rest of the
blogosphere. You have no one to blame but yourselves
for this reputation.

[name withheld]

Now, it's true we don't have a long line of links along the side. But as for not linking to other blogs, that's just factually not true. Just ask all the people who yell at me for paying attention to Andrew Sullivan, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum etc. I see links in just the last few days to all sorts of blogs. Stuttaford links to blogs a lot. But I guess we don't do it as much as others do. If that's why the Corner's not a blog in some bloggers' minds, okay. But maybe that says more and less than this correspondent thinks.

To head-off a lot of email, let me just tell you the results from our poll from the
Spring of 1999: They were:

In the Heat of the Night (129) 9%

Raging Bull (156) 11%

The Rocky Movies (233) 17%

The Bridge on the River Kwai (409) 29%

Cool Hand Luke (474) 34%

This was whittled down from a very long list of movies I don't have time to reconstruct. Also, to head-off even more email, I am very aware that Cool Hand Luke was the answer to the same question from the TV show Cheers.

From the AP:

CONNANTRAY-VAUREFROY, France - A French soldier who locked himself in an explosives depot and threatened to blow it up surrendered Monday, ending a three-day standoff, the Interior Ministry said.

Lots of folks keep emailing me to ask why I/we care about winning blog awards. I don't want to speak for K-Lo who runs the show around here, but I'd be shocked if she violently disagreed with me. I don't care that much. It's nice. It's good. It's flattering and reassuring. It's better than losing. But NRO (as I often tell quite a few Corner readers) is about a heck of a lot more than just the Corner. And while I'm just an editor-at-large now, I am still a jealous defender and promoter of this ol' rustbucket.

That said, it does bother me that the Corner doesn't get the props it deserves. Journalists are constantly writing stories about blogs, but they don't think the Corner counts because magazine blogs don't fit their storylines about the pajamahedeen and all that (historical note: I was writing about writing in my underwear -- never mind my spaghetti strainer codpiece -- long before anyone heard of blogs). When the Corner pretty much swept the Washington Post's blog survey recently there was barely a ripple of press attention. That's fine, in the big scheme of things it's not a hot story like the release of a hot dog toaster thingamajig. But I just know that if the Daily Kos or some such won those awards we'd be hearing a lot about it. And, I must say, NRO gets it from both ends. We are sufficiently huge that the bloggers often treat us like we're Big Media. We're strangers in both lands.

But enough of that. Here's something I don't understand. The Corner on a fairly good day can have 100,000+ readers. My understanding is that Instapundit and a few others do even better. I also assume that most blog readers couldn't bother to vote in such polls. I don't blame them. But can someone explain to me how it is that the total number of votes cast in the Weblog Awards for best blog is only 37 thousand after days of voting, when you're allowed to vote again every day. Doesn't that seem remarkably low? These are the most popular blogs, after all. Is it because the universe of blog readers is much smaller -- and much more shared -- than we've been lead to expect? Is it because for all the enthusiasm at the top, most people don't care enough about blogs to even vote? Is it something technological or strategic (fear of cookies or some such?). I noticed a similar phenomenon when I ran polls in the very early days of NRO (What was the sweatiest movie ever made? for example). The number of respondents would always be tiny compared to our readership. Anyway, I just don't get it.

Kathryn - Here's more Reid on Thomas and the Court (via Drudge), who knew he was such a deep thinker?

When asked to comment on Thomas as a possible replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Reid told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.

"I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

Rehnquist announced he had thyroid cancer earlier this year, and there has been speculation about a possible replacement should he retire.

Kathy Arberg, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, said Thomas' policy is not to comment on such matters.

But the Nevada Democrat said that he could support Thomas' fellow conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, if he were nominated.

"I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy," Reid said of Scalia. "And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reasons for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute."

Citing a hunting trip Scalia took with Dick Cheney before hearing a case involving the commission the vice president set up to work on an energy bill, Reid said the justice has some ethics problems.

"So we have to get over this," he said.

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid said yesterday that Democrats would vigorously oppose the privatization of Social Security, a proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and any effort to appoint as U.S. chief justice Clarence Thomas, whom he referred to as "an embarrassment."

New York – The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is demanding airline carriers “immediately” report each incident that could be considered a security threat – first to the TSA rather than any other law enforcement agency, including the FBI, reports TIME’s Sally Donnelly.

ONLINE

The airlines tell TIME that being forced to report even minor incidents is unnecessary and will add delays. “The TSA has no idea what they are getting into,” says one airline-industry source. “The airlines get thousands of prank calls a year, and there are thousands more disruptive passengers who turn out to be drunks, not terrorists.”

Ken Maxwell, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of security for JetBlue Airways, says he is “very concerned” that the new TSA rules will hinder security.