The chairman of the Committee for Justice writes, with regard to the Ornstein column I mentioned earlier: "Never before in history had there been a true filibuster (i.e. permanent, minority blockage) of a judicial nominee until 2003. A single failed cloture vote, for procedural reasons or to extend debate, does not a filibuster make. Historically, failed cloture votes on judicial nominations have always been followed by successful cloture votes and majority confirmation votes. The one exception is Abe Fortas, whose nomination was pulled after a single cloture vote – four days in – failed with 45 votes, indicating Fortas lacked majority support. The cloture vote functioned as a test vote to avoid subjecting Fortas (and President Johnson) to humiliating final rejection. Fortas’ bipartisan opponents signaled willingness to proceed to an up or down floor vote if necessary.

"To repeat: the current Democrat judicial filibusters are the first permanent denial of cloture to nominees with majority Senate support. They are unprecedented.

"Ornstein quotes Sen. Robert Griffin from the time, but somehow misses his most salient words: '[T]hus far, there have been only four days of Senate debate on this very important, historic issue. . . . [A] filibuster, by any ordinary definition, is not now in progress.' And: 'An examination of the Congressional Record . . . clearly reveals that the will of the majority was not frustrated. . . . On the basis of the Record, then, it is ridiculous to say that the will of a majority in the Senate has been frustrated.'

"Regardless, if Ornstein – and Senate Democrats – wish the Fortas case to be their standard, fine: I’m sure on contentious nominees the majority would be glad to allow one cloture vote and four days of debate."

Incredible.

“The dead poor sheep farmers on Sicily at the turn of the century argued that America must be heaven on earth as emigrated family members relayed messages of having meat for dinner everyday. That was a mouthwatering experience for people who could enjoy that privilege maybe once in a lifetime. You can argue that particular instinct to be ‘ordinary’ or ‘superficial’ like so many do here, but it is way beyond me to look down on it. America is hated because it embodies the hope of people that yearn for a better life, to have meat everyday, but also to believe in the God they choose, or not. To say what you want without being persecuted. To be a woman without a veil, with the right to vote, free expression and adultery, without being stoned."

It is impossible to read those words, and others that you can see up on the site, without being proufoundly moved - and remembering that Theo van Gogh was murdered for his opinions. Slaughtered for speaking his mind. In Europe. In 2004.

I suppose we should be grateful that in Britain, by contrast, Tony Blair only wants to lock dissenters up.

Esquire will be happy to send a copy of Mr. Buckley's article to anyone requesting it. (Please write to Peter Martin, Esquire Magazine, 1790 Broadway, 13th floor, New York, NY 10019.)

In every state but three in 1960, you had a choice between Kennedy and Nixon (sometimes with a few minor-party candidates), and popular votes were counted as usual. In Louisiana and Mississippi, there was a three-way race: Kennedy, Nixon, or "uncommitted." In Louisiana, Kennedy won, and in Mississippi, "uncommitted" won--but in both cases, people could vote for Kennedy (or Nixon) if they wanted, and their votes were recorded as Kennedy (or Nixon) votes. So there was no funny business in either of those states.

The problem occurs in Alabama. There, only two slates of electors were on the ballot (again excluding minor parties): One uncommitted and one for Nixon. "Uncommitted" won by 324,000 to 238,000, and of Alabama's 11 electors, 6 voted for Byrd and 5 for Kennedy. So technically, Rakove [the Stanford history professor] is right--these 324,000 votes are usually counted as Kennedy votes, when in fact they were "uncommitted" votes. And since Kennedy won the election by only 120,000, you can call him a minority president.

Of course, if you want to be super technical, in Alabama and many other states, no one voted for either candidate but rather for electors for that candidate. Yes, this is an exceedingly minor quibble, and if the 11 Alabama electors had cast their votes for Kennedy, no one would object to counting the popular votes as Kennedy votes too. If only one elector had defected, as happened in Oklahoma, they would still have been counted as Kennedy votes. But since 6 of the Alabama electors voted for Byrd [the Virginia Dixiecrat], the question arises as to who should get credit for the 324,000 popular votes.

If you want to boost JFK's total, you call them Kennedy votes and say the 6 electors were faithless, like the Oklahoma guy. If you want to boost Nixon, you say the "uncommitted" votes were for nobody and the Nixon votes were for Nixon. This would leave Nixon with a popular-vote majority of about 200,000….But you can still make a plausible case for counting those votes as Kennedy votes. And if you object that Kennedy's name did not appear on the ballot in Alabama, well, neither did Nixon's. So to be consistent, you would have to take away his 238,000 votes, and Kennedy squeaks ahead again.

Now the margin for Kennedy nationally has long been said to have been about 113,000 votes nationally (the Clerk of the House gave him a margin of 119,000 in April 1961, but the lower figure is accepted today). What we would have to know in order to say that Kennedy actually received fewer votes nationwide than Nixon--and we simply cannot know it--is that at least 113,000 Alabama voters, or more than one-third of those voting Democratic, went to the polls and pulled the lever for the entire slate of eleven Democratic presidential electors while thinking "I want Byrd" (or at least "I don't want Kennedy") rather than "I want Kennedy."

Since Alabama then, as now, used the winner-take-all method of allocating electors to candidates--the party winning the popular-vote plurality having all its electors seated in the college--there was only one way for either Kennedy voters or Byrd voters to get even one electoral vote out of the eleven the state had to cast, and that was to vote for the whole party ticket of electors, whether any presidential candidate's name was on the ballot or not.

We know only that the six Alabama electors who had made no pledge to Kennedy voted for Byrd--probably their intent all along….Is it possible that more than 113,000 Alabama Democratic voters wanted Byrd over Kennedy? Yes. Do we know that for sure? No way….

However, what was true of essentially single-faith societies is not true in today's multicultural Western Europe. Unless one believes the ecumenicist nonsense that all religions are, at root, the same, the uncomfortable fact is that one person's faith is another person's blasphemy. For all the happytalk about 'people of the book' , what a Christian believes about Jesus will to a Muslim be something akin to blasphemy, and vice versa. Throw Judaism, let alone Hinduism or any of the many other religions now practised in Britain into the mix and, well, you get the picture. Under these circumstances, unless the UK is to ban proselytizing, and open, frank debate between faiths, a ban on blasphemy makes no intellectual sense whatsoever.

As for the comments of Iqbal Sacranie, you link to, for disingenuousness and dishonesty they take some beating. An overwhelming sense of nausea makes it difficult to go through the whole thing, but these words alone should sound alarm bells enough:

"We can make a critical distinction between the substance and form of free speech. The law need not infringe on the substance but can assist to moderate the form."

When I want my free speech "moderated", Mr. Sacranie, I'll let you know.

Even when a Santa - who has cleared criminal checks - can be found in his house, the setup does not necessarily inspire misty-eyed nostalgia. At the St. Elli Shopping Center in Llanelli, Wales, Santa's lap is off limits; children now sit on a bench next to him, a move aimed at appeasing jittery parents, corporations and Santa himself.

But that's not all. The frosted glass that decorated the house last year was scraped off to provide better sight lines so a newly installed camera can record Santa's every move. 'It's peace of mind for the parents and for Santa,' said Gilmore Jones, the manager of St. Elli Shopping Center. 'Things happen. We didn't mean to be drastic, nothing of the sort.'

Santa's house is still popular, and the children do not mind the camera at all, he said. 'They think it's a cracking idea,' Mr. Jones said. On second thought, he added, wistfully, 'People have said it's sad, but they can understand why it's done.'

Up north in Scotland, Santa has confronted bigger problems. Every year for decades Santa Claus has ridden down every single street in Clackmannanshire, collecting money for charity. Two years ago, though, he and his elves were set upon by an expletive-shouting gang of 40 teenage thugs who hurled stones, some as big as potatoes.

'We had to kill the lights and music and speed out of the area,' Douglas Richmond, one of the elves, told the BBC. 'We had to get away as fast as we could. Someone could have had an eye out.'

So spooked was Santa that last year's event was canceled. This year Santa is staying put at one location in each village of Clackmannanshire while an unmarked police car is parked conspicuously nearby. The charity collection, sponsored by the social club the Round Table, has been sidelined."

It may be time to rescue NRO from blue-state hell in Manhattan. K-Lo's posts about not driving X-miles for lumber are so (dare I say it?) Noo Yawk, which is in turn so blue state. David Letterman used to shift the Home Office, from whence the Top Ten List emerged, from place to place, and he favored sites like Nebraska or Oklahoma (red state ground zero!) I know you all (an Okie-ism) will never actually leave the dreary prison of Manhattan, but honestly, having NR originate there is something like publishing abstinence literature at Hugh Hefner's mansion . . . a decided mismatch. Perchance a little symbolic home-officing in Oklahoma City or Tulsa or Lincoln or Topeka would be balm for the soul. And then we'll all pop over to Home Depot and test tractor mowers for spring!

Herbert M. Hazelkorn, DDS, PhD Herbert M. Hazelkorn, of Glencoe, Illinois, left us on December 7, 2004, of a broken heart at the recent passing of his wife of 35 years, Bobby, exacerbated by a broken spirit arising from the results of the Presidential election. Born March 14, 1924 in Brooklyn, NY, Herb graduated from the University of Illinois at Navy Pier, then U of I Dental School, and after retirement from 40 years in dentistry, he earned his doctorate in Public Health at U of I. Herb, a former Naval officer, was an internationally known public and political activist. His sister Dorothy, his first wife Ila, and his second wife Bobby, predeceased him. He is survived by his twin brother Jules (wife Joyce and daughter Arlene); daughter Ellen Byrne (husband Eric and daughters Ila and Lisa); son Bud Hazelkorn (daughter Sadie); brother-in-law Seymour; stepdaughters Terry Rosenberg (husband Steve and children Alex, Ben and Abbey), Denise Skyler (fiance Jerome Russ and Denise's daughter Jennifer), and Marcy Lowenstein (son Harrison). Friends and family are invited to an informal celebration of Herb's life on Saturday evening December 11, from 7:00-9:00 pm at 10 Lakewood Drive, Glencoe, IL. Family and friends are also welcome at the home of Jules and Joyce Hazelkorn in the afternoon and evening of Sunday December 12 at 3555 Summit Ave, Highland Park, IL. A formal memorial service will be planned for the spring of 2005. For further information please call Bruce Bloom at 847-529-6888. In lieu of flowers or other donations, contributions may be sent to the Bobby and Herb Hazelkorn Fund for Early Cancer Detection at Goldman Philanthropic Partnerships, 155 N. Pfingsten Road, Suite 109, Deerfield, IL (or on-line at www.4Cures.com).