flying from TLH to DFW yesterday and TSA wanted to root through my bag - I said, "Sure," because I had lots of electronics (an XM radio, a walkman, a digital camera, etc) and thought they might arouse minor suspicion.

The guy pulls out all of my clothes, sets aside the electronics, and grabs one of the two NR childrens' books I was packing (gifts for my nieces). He carefully flipped through both books, presumably making sure they didn't have gun-shaped holes carved in the pages... I practically laughed out loud when i saw what he was doing!

Incidentally, he was even more concerned about the cheese-board i was planning on giving to my mother. I got it at a county fair - it's made from a real wine-bottle, pressed flat and painted with flowers. Apparently the lead in the glass makes it look terribly dangerous in the x-ray machine. (he didn't notice the blunt, thumb-shaped cheese knife, thank goodness. I'd probably be in the gulag.)

Merry Christmas to all, even the TSA!

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee is criticizing President Bush's renomination of 20 people, recently blocked by Democrats, for federal judgeships. ...

"I would have preferred there would have been an interlude before they were resubmitted to provide an opportunity to improve the climate on the Judiciary Committee," Specter said in a telephone interview, referring to the bitter partisan fights on the panel over appeals court nominations during the last Congress. Specter added that he is consulting with senators of both parties in hopes of working out a bipartisan agreement for handling judicial nominations.

So. I'm looking for Florence of Arabia—a last-minute gift for the missus—at my local Hastings. It's quite possibly the worst books/music/movies store in the history of books/music/movies stores, but it's nearer my house than Borders and Barnes & Noble. I know, I know: I should have ordered it from the NR bookstore, but it was an impulse thing today.

Anyway, I can't find it. It's not in the "humor" section (but something by the annoying Wanda Sykes is), nor is it in the novels section, nor is it in the "new arrivals" display at the front of the store (again heavily populated by Ms. Sykes' book).

Not terribly surprised, I turned to the in-store computer search thingy, typed in "Christopher Buckley" and "Florence of Arabia" just for fun, and, to my horror, saw that, if the book were in stock, it'd be located in the "women's studies" section!

I swear to you I'm not making this up. WOMEN'S STUDIES!!!

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

From a reader who did have the sand to give his full address and name (asterisks mine):

Jonah,

Anyone who doesn't like France is a worthless piece of s**t.

Why don't you come up here, you gutless little coward. I'm 61 years old, but
I'll still kick your a**, snot-boy.

That Times story you mentioned, John, was quite interesting (Nagourney, "Democrats Weigh De-emphasizing Abortion as an Issue"). If the Democrats are serious about this, they have to ask themselves this question: How do they fight about the courts without fighting about the social issues? If they're really okay with parental notification now, and don't think judicial nominees who can't affect Roe should be stopped because of abortion alone, what's left of their argument against Priscilla Owen?

What happens if Bush nominates a judicial conservative for a Supreme Court vacancy? If they don't fight about social issues and especially abortion, the Democrats will have a few other issues left in their quiver. They can talk about civil rights, alleged right-wing judicial activism against democratically enacted economic regulation, the nominee's alleged personal flaws--but unless the personal flaws are really glaring, I don't think this would be enough to derail a nominee. They can talk about "privacy rights" in the abstract, or try to argue that the nominee's skepticism about modern privacy-rights jurisprudence threatens to bring back laws against contraception. But contraception per se is not a live issue, and abortion is. So a debate about privacy rights risks being either irrelevant or becoming another abortion debate. At the end of the day, I think, a Supreme Court fight will be largely a social-issues fight. If Democrats want to avoid that, they'll have to back off.

Republicans were also rebuked in their efforts to blanket the state over the next week looking for Rossi voters whose ballots were mistakenly disqualified. And they said they knew of military voters overseas who say they never received their ballots.

For the love of mixology, please don't propagate any "Manhattan" recipes that include no bitters. Bitters make the Manhattan and no cocktail is a Manhattan without bitters. The best recipe comes from the late Max Allen, bartender emeritus at the Seelbach Hotel in Louisville:

2 oz rye (for northeasterners), bourbon (for southerners), or Tennessee whiskey 1 oz sweet (red, Italian) vermouth
1 dash Angostura bitters
1 dash Peychaud's bitters
1 splash grenadine

Shake all ingredients with ice. Strain into a cocktail (martini) glass. Garnish with a maraschino cherry. Serve.

Court of Appeals:
Terrence W. Boyle (4th Circuit) (first nominated May 9, 2001)
Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit) (first nominated May 9, 2001)
David W. McKeague (6th Circuit) (first nominated November 8, 2001)
Susan Bieke Neilson (6th Circuit) (first nominated November 8, 2001)
Henry W. Saad (6th Circuit) (first nominated November 8, 2001)
Richard A. Griffin (6th Circuit) (first nominated June 26, 2002)
William H. Pryor (11th Circuit) (first nominated April 9, 2003)
William Gerry Myers, III (9th Circuit) (first nominated May 15, 2003)
Janice Rogers Brown (District of Columbia Circuit) (first nominated July 25, 2003)
Brett M. Kavanaugh (District of Columbia Circuit) (first nominated July 25, 2003)
William James Haynes, II (4th Circuit) (first nominated September 29, 2003)
Thomas B. Griffith (District of Columbia Circuit) (first nominated May 10, 2004)

District Courts:
James C. Dever, III (Eastern District, North Carolina) (first nominated May 22, 2002)
Thomas L. Ludington (Eastern District, Michigan) (first nominated September 12, 2002)
Robert J. Conrad (Western District, North Carolina) (first nominated April 28, 2003)
Daniel P. Ryan (Eastern District, Michigan) (first nominated April 28, 2003)
Peter G. Sheridan (New Jersey) (first nominated November 5, 2003)
Paul A. Crotty (Southern District, New York) (first nominated September 7, 2004)
Sean F. Cox (Eastern District, Michigan) (first nominated September 10, 2004)
J. Michael Seabright (Hawaii) (first nominated September 15, 2004)

Return to Kyiv – International Interest Everywhere
Though I traveled to Ukraine many times in the last years of the Soviet Union and in the early years of Ukraine’s independence, and even though I continuously have met with, hosted and communicated with people from all across Ukraine, and even though Nadia has regularly traveled to Ukraine, it has been many years since I last was in Ukraine.
Even before I left Washington the growing interest in Ukraine was evident. Obviously we all are aware of the daily and prominent stories about the Orange Revolution and evolution of Ukraine’s presidential election. But there at Dulles International waiting to board my plane on Tuesday afternoon I quickly found myself in conversation with two women also flying to Ukraine to serve as observers at the December 26th revote.
Upon landing Wednesday afternoon at Kyiv’s Borispol Airport the immense international interest in Ukraine was evident everywhere. At passport control I believe at least 8 of the 14 check-through lines were designated for Canada’s arriving international observer corps. Upon passing passport control there were many facilitators meeting people with signs, “Canadian Observers,” “OSCE,” “NDI,” etc. There were others anticipating the arrival of teams from international news organizations, NBC, Sky News, etc. Further on, past the customs check-through, there were more people waiting for arriving elections observers. Cliff Downen had his sign for one of the former congressmen who was arriving a day before the rest of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation-Association of Former Members of Congress delegation, and Markian Bilynsky (Vice President of the Foundation and Director of Field Operations) was there to meet me.
The influx of what I understand to be over 8,500 registered international election observers is well underway.
The rest of our team of former United States senators and congressmen and former European parliamentarians arrived today and met tonight for dinner and the beginning of our briefings, training, preparations and dispersal throughout Ukraine on Friday, Christmas Eve.

Kyiv is Yushchenko Country
Yesterday, as soon as Markian and I left Borispol the “orange” became prevalent. Cars with orange flags flying and/or inside tied around the rear view mirrors, people with orange armbands, billboards, and this was only along the access road between Borispol and Kyiv.
As we came into the capital there was more and more orange. It was like arriving in Dallas on the weekend of the Texas-Oklahoma football game when the whole city is decked out with Texas’ burnt orange and Oklahoma’s red. The difference is that here everything is Yushchenko orange - - more billboards, more cars with banners, seemingly everyone walking on the sidewalks has scarves, hats, armbands of orange. There are orange ribbons tied around trees, organizational tents of orange along major streets, orange banners waving from buildings.

Headlines and On-going International Communications Only Tell a Fraction of the Story
In the late afternoon yesterday we met with a key campaign contact on the latest developments in the campaign and political maneuverings. From the stand point of observing this upcoming revote most interesting were the reports of plans to discredit Yushchenko. Groups already on the move from the Donetsk region to central and western Ukraine with the intention of causing disruptions that then can be blamed on Yushchenko supporters. We heard of these and other plans to disrupt the vote in ways that can be charged against Yushchenko supporters and used to support post-vote charges of election fraud.
There were more reports on the efforts in a number of Eastern Ukrainian cities to prohibit entry of a large motorcade of citizens. The motorcade, mentioned in some western newspapers, is a mixture of Yushchenko supporters and less aliened Ukrainians championing a free and fair revote.
Of course there was discussion about Yanukovych’s growing charges against President Kuchma and “the government” (though he insists he is still the Prime Minister) and his calls for an open and fair election while, at the same time, his making no public effort to dissuade people in his home region from dispatching the troublemakers to the West or the hooligans blocking access to his hometown and other Eastern cities.
There were more details on the arrest of the Russians responsible for the positioning of a car bomb outside Yushchenko’s Kyiv headquarters several weeks ago. After the bomb was discovered and disarmed these men were caught and arrested. They have admitted being paid in Russia and of having entered Ukraine on false passports with materials provided to them.
The point of course is, again, this election is not over. Polls, calmer public declarations from President Kuchma and Russian President Putin’s acceptance-like comments in Germany this week, all are very welcome but such sentiments are not necessarily reflected in what is going on below the public radar screen as the revote approaches.
A number of Donetsk oligarchs have told western reporters and analysts of their desire to integrate their businesses with Europe, sounding sanguine about the potential of a Yushchenko victory, while at the same time they sponsor disruption.
On the positive side there may be close to 8,500 international observers, a massive international media build-up and a citizenry with a heightened sense of election propriety, but there are still 33,000 polling places, many regional vote tabulation stations and forces determined to disrupt what might otherwise be seen as inevitable.
So This Is Post November 21st Independence Square!
After our meeting we walked to Independence Square. Seeing it on television, in pictures and reading and hearing about this “revolution” is one thing. Walking through and standing with these people is something quite different.
It is night and the closer you get to the central square the thicker the crowds. They spread out in every direction from the great square itself.
Everyone is friendly, everyone is calm. They stand decked in orange, holding everything from small orange flags, to large orange banners on long poles, to Ukraine’s blue and yellow flag, to a huge banner saying in English, “Welcome to Ukraine.” They listen to music from the massive stage and politely listen to short comments from political spokespeople. When there is a periodic lull in music or comment from the stage the chant begins, “Yu-chshen-ko, Yu-chshen-ko, Yu-chshen-ko….”
In the middle of the crowd I look around at the changes in downtown Kyiv, the lights, the signs of bustling commerce, the huge monument to independence (with a huge orange flag flying from its top) on the square below the massive building where, in the basement, Stalin had something over 1,000 bards gathered and killed, the new buildings, and the Christmas decorations.
I think back to a time in the early 1990s, in an apartment the windows of which are barely visible in the distance beyond the Yushchenko stage, where I first met Viktor Yushchenko. It was at a small and informal dinner in Katya Chumachenko’s apartment where she wanted me to have time to visit with my already old friend Yuri Kostenko and the young and reform-minded banker I had been told so much about. So much has changed, so much has happened, so much needs to be done.
I marveled at this crowd. Thousands and thousands of people standing quietly, no rancor, no uncivil words heard, little talking as they listen to music and political comments, in temperatures -5 centigrade. Some are passing out more orange ribbons. Some visit quietly, no voices raised except when the periodic chant begins only to subside when the next song or voice is heard from the stage. There were old and young, groups, couples and individuals.
At one end of the crowd is the stretch of street where many tents remain from the 24-7 demonstration immediately after the November 21st vote. Young people still living in their city of tents, friendly, posing in front of their tents with yellow banners and clothes. Their humor found in the names over the portable toilets - - “Yanukovych Headquarters,” etc.
Then a little past 8:00 PM music started that invigorated the crowd, essentially Yushchenko’s theme song. This meant that Viktor was here and would be addressing his supporters. He came out onto the stage to a warm greeting. A massive screen projected his picture so that all could see.
First he spoke to what the crowds meant to him, to what they have done. He listed what these people have accomplished since November 21st. He talked about their accomplishments - - the finding of the vote to have been fraudulent, the scheduling of the revote, the dismissal of the prime minister, the dismissal of the procurator general, the changes in the laws, the historic and unprecedented opening up of Ukraine’s press. He applauded the crowd. He talked of how they - - citizens of Ukraine - - opened their arms to those who traveled from Donetsk to demonstrate for his opponent but who had no shelter, and ran out of food and support. He talked of their generosity as Ukrainians, taking in those with a different political view. He talked of the businesses and the restaurants that provided food and supplies to demonstrators. He talked of the heroes in the streets - - the citizens he was looking at - - the diplomats who put their careers on the line by denouncing the fraudulent November vote, the others who took personal risks to declare their values. And he remembered Ukraine’s past patriots and heroes who he reminded had never had a chance to see such changes and witness what he saw before him from the stage.
Yushchenko summarized his program from pension payments, to limiting the service of those conscripted into the armed forces to one year, to making certain that no Russian language schools are closed, to making sure that there are no divisions due to language, religion or ethnicity, to focusing on the needs of all Ukraine - - focusing just as much on the regions that do not support him as those the will.
He urged all to vote and to be vigilant on the day of the revote.
Yushchenko ended asking God’s blessing for Ukraine and for all citizens of Ukraine.

Friends in the Crowd
As Markian and I made our way of to find dinner it was fun to meet people I have met before. I believe it was three different young people who interned at the U.S.-Foundation and had traveled to Washington and had been guests in our home. I was introduced to a man - - a Ukrainian-American - - I have corresponded with by email.

Music into the Night
After dinner I returned to the Dnipro Hotel several blocks away from Independence Square. My room faces in the direction of the Square and I went to sleep listening to the on-going concert with the periodic chants of “Yu-shchen-ko, Yu-shchen-ko, Yu-shchen-ko…”
It is terribly cold in Kyiv, but the people are warm.

Robert Novak's latest column makes some interesting points. ("Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect. In a long political career that dates back to his election to Congress in 1962, he has not even been associated with the traditional conservative movement. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq, he was not aggressively pressing intervention by force of arms, but instead was shaping a military response to fit President Bush's command.") Novak takes the view, shared by my colleagues, that some neoconservatives (and, it might be added, some liberal hawks) have turned on Rumsfeld in order to blame the difficulties in Iraq on poor execution rather than on the war's being a bad idea to start with. That kind of impulse could well be at work in some people.

But I'm not persuaded by Novak's contention that Bill Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's ouster "was, in effect, a declaration of war by the neoconservatives against the secretary of defense." I'm not sure who "the neoconservatives" are, but presumably they include Midge Decter, David Frum, and John Podhoretz--all of whom think Rumsfeld should stay. Victor Davis Hanson might be described as a neocon, at least on foreign policy, and he wants Rumsfeld to stay, too. Once again, the word "neocon" just isn't all that helpful.

Luckily, no extended commentary is any longer necessary, for two reasons. 1) Your last comment is, as far as I can tell, utterly devoid of any argument. (The fact that you're getting many emails cheering you on (as am I) doesn't constitute an argument.) 2) I am beginning to wonder about your reading-comprehension skills.

To clear one thing up: I didn't suggest in any of my previous comments that you had shown disrespect to me. Nor do I think I have indulged in any "personal invective" (although I did characterize one of your lines of argument as senseless and another as boneheaded). If I've hurt your feelings, I'm very sorry. You are, as I said, a great American with whom I disagree on this matter--how much clearer could I have made that? Have a merry Christmas, and a happy new year.

Has anyone every really paid attention to the lyrics of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Here they are:

Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer had a very shiny nose. And if you ever saw him, you would even say it glows.

All of the other reindeer
used to laugh and call him names.
They never let poor Rudolph
join in any reindeer games.

Then one foggy Christmas Eve
Santa came to say:
"Rudolph with your nose so bright,
won't you guide my sleigh tonight?"

Then all the reindeer loved him
as they shouted out with glee,
Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer,
you'll go down in history!

Ok, so here we have little Rudolph with an unfortunate deformity. All of the other reindeer laughed and called him names, shunning him from the tightly-knit reindeer community -- right up until they have a use for the little mutants deformity! Then they suddenly declare they "love" him. Yeah, right. Just so long as his honker lights up the night sky!

"He is identical [to her dead cat of 17 years]," the woman told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "His personality is the same."

"Office Space" is great, but it has some horrible slow spots, especially at the beginning when Ron Livingston's character is first hypnotized and kind of out of it. Interestingly, the same thing happens in my all-time favorite comedy, Albert Brooks' "Modern Romance." The slow spot in that movie is caused not by hypnosis, but a Quaalude, which gives you a nice signpost for the era of the film. Anyway, it's a terribly funny (and kind of painful) movie, with an especially nice portrait of working Hollywood -- Brooks is a film editor working on a hilariously bad sci-fi epic starring George Kennedy.

As for books, "Confederacy of Dunces" is hands down number one, and "Portnoy's Complaint" is no slouch either.... In non-fiction, I nominate anything by Bill Bryson, especially "A Walk in the Woods," but not so much his "Short History of Nearly Everything," in which he seems obsessed with the many ways the universe can deal out instantaneous death. Which come to think of it, is pretty funny, too.

The discussions of the last few days have compelled me to write to you. First of all, thank you so much for The Corner. It's amazing the quantity and quality of the free content you provide.

I am about to turn 30. When I was a teenager, I spent most of my time smoking pot and listening to Iron Maiden albums in my Mom's basement. Believe it or not I had a subscription to National Review back then. I can't even remember how I became aware of it, but I used to read it each month. I always put it down having enjoyed it, but feeling a bit like the guy who laughs but didn't really get the joke. It was a bit over my head and I let the subscription run out.

Fast forward to today.... A few months ago I quit one of those Office Space jobs....OK, it wasn't that bad, they treated me well, and the money was good, but I was bored senseless with it. In my free time I discovered NRO and The Corner in the run-up to the election. One of the first things I read was John Miller's Powerslave article, and I was floored by the memories it brought back, not only of Mom's basement but of trying to explain to my friends what National Review was all about (what's wrong with you dude, my dad reads that...etc). I now check it so often that I just leave a tab open in Firefox with The Corner on it. I must check it 20 times a day, and there is almost always something new and worth reading.

Anyway, depending on how fast I can lose this remaining 10 pounds, I ship out for basic training at Fort Leanord Wood in about mid-February (21B-Combat Engineer). The Army needs help, I need a job, and if I let another few years slip by I'll be too old to serve at all. The Office Space job just sort of fell into my lap after college, I wish I had joined up then.

So there you have it...from teenage pothead headbanger, to respectable (hopefully) US Army Specialist, with National Review there on both ends. I have a hunch I'll be getting an NRO Digital subscription for Christmas, if not I'll be ordering it myself after the new year.

Thanks to Ramesh and Derb for being so damn smart, Jonah for being so funny, John Miller for being so cool, K-Lo for keeping it all running and everyone else for contributing.... OK, you are all smart, funny and cool....

Thanks for the best site on the web by a million miles,

Here's how Michael Kazin starts his article in Mother Jones: "Listening to the Democratic nominees during the 2004 presidential campaign, it often seemed as if they were ashamed to belong to their own political party. In his acceptance speech, John Kerry boasted that he 'broke with many in my own party' to support a balanced budget and ridiculed the idea of 'Democratic values' and 'Republican values.' John Edwards gave a rousing concession speech -- but didn’t even bother to invoke the party’s name. The other side never makes that mistake."

Never? Take a look at Bush's 2000 and 2004 convention speeches. The only references you will find to the Republican party come when Bush talks about how he has worked and will work with Republicans and Democrats. He doesn't invoke the party's name in any serious sense.

Sorry. All of you who disagree with me are objectively wrong. The argument is made -- and summarily dismissed -- that Aniston wasn't supposed to be comedic in office space. I think this is not true. She was supposed to be the "straight man" as it were. This is sometimes the hardest job in comedy, but it is still comedy. While easy on the eyes, she had no charm. She didn't resonate. She fills space. She is a prop.

If it were not so late in the day, I think it would be an interesting conversation for the Corner to discuss the most gifted straight men (and women) in film history. Bud Abbott has to be included on any list, of course. But I have to go Christmas present shopping, right now.

Michael Graham must have loved every job he ever had because anyone who's ever had a lousy job knows that "Office Space" is an outright hands-down masterpiece. Right up there with "The Searchers" and "Apocalypse Now," but you know, funnier.

It sounds like the contract was grossly under-utilized. The Army may have found another instrument to accomplish that work with a contractor they liked better. The contractor may have been losing money in Iraq and was sick of waiting for the Termination for Convenience (aka "T'ferC"). (Termination for Default wouldn't work unless the contractor was not performing- aka T'ferD).

Everyone's a Captain Kirk.
With orders to identify.
To clarify and classify.

Shannen - I have a -- not very original -- theory about Citizen Kane. I liked it more than you, but I think one of the things that hurts it is that all of the techniques that make it a great movie have been so completely absorbed into the medium that they don't seem that original now. This is a problem with many "firsts" they quickly seem antiquated precisely because of their influence. I've always thought the Beetles will eventually decline in esteem because of a similar phenomenon.

Meanwhile, you are objectively brilliant in noting that Office Space is an awesome movie. My one peeve, much like Andie MacDowell in both Groundhog Day (one the greatest films of the last 20 years) and Four Weddings and a Funeral (generally amusing), Jennifer Anisten brings the whole thing down because she is a terrible comedic actress on film (though pretty good on Friends).

My father -- who reads the Corner -- writes:

The best Romanian song is titled, very appropriately, "Romania." The version that everybody knows is by Lebedeff, the great Jewish Romanian singer (long dead). The lyrics consist primarily of one word, "Romania," although it does have breaks in it for rapid-fire segments (as in Largo al factotum in "Figaro"). It is very evocative and could compete with Ma Ia Huu (or whatever its name is).

I am the owner of "TVKlumea" a music television channel in Romania. Sitting home in Chicago and visiting my favorite web-site, I never dreamed I'd hear that infernal tune!

We premiered that song months and months ago and were amazed when it hit the charts in Western Europe, a first for a Romanian single....

Don't listen to the song anymore. Clearly it's part of an alien plot to take over planet Earth. Evidence that much of Europe is already lost to us can be found here. Sorry Derb, your family may need to be quarantined.

The all conquering transfixing power of this Romanian song is causing several readers (plus Derb) to shoot the messenger. I warned you people that it was dismayingly addictive. I'm thinking we should make the official theme music of the Corner and have it automatically play in the background when you load the page. I'd guess only one in seven Corner readers would punch me in the face on sight if I did this.

Still, I wonder if it will become the 99 Luftballoons or Der Kommisar of today's generation?

Kathryn...I have to second John's mention of The Brothers Karamazov because not only is it one of the greatest, most complex and profound novels I've ever read, but I owe my marriage to it.

One night my roommate and I went out to my favorite pub, and there was this gorgeous woman at the other end of the bar. I realized that if I did not hit on her, my life would forever be filled with doubt and regret. Unfortunately, she had recently decided to exile romance from her vocabulary for an indefinite period. I was, it would seem, doomed. But not deterred. In the course of my scrambling attempt to start and maintain a conversation, we established that we shared the same alma mater and the same major, and both had spent the summer after graduation living in London. The ice was thawing. But the wariness remained in her eyes. Then, thank God, one of us brought up literature. We immediately discovered that we were both in the middle of The Brothers Karamazov. Now, this did more than open up an immense topic of conversation. It thundered an alarm from heaven. What are the odds of meeting someone after midnight in a bar who graduated from the same college at the same university you did, has the same career and recreational interests, AND happens to be reading the same 150-year-old, 900-page Russian novel? Miniscule, I'd wager. Clearly Dostoyevsky was drawing us together for some higher purpose. It was fate. Definitely fate.

Are understandably blamed for Israel's actions, according to Tony Judt. Here's an outstanding retort by Steven Menashi.

Don't let it bug you. Half of that article is the reporter quoting left-leaning sources and inserting his own insinuations. The most important nugget of information is the statement from the Army. Contracts in perfect peacetime can go haywire for a variety of reasons, often on a personal level. You wouldn't believe how the plan is thrown out the window after first contact with the client and the contractor.

Lowry's forwarding of Casey's talking points was a smart thing to do: if fourteen or fifteen out of eighteen provinces are stable, making conclusions based on one contractor's decision is erroneous. Typical MSM scare.

I am a big fan of NRO and the Corner. I feel compelled to give you my two cents about your discussed move to a warmer, "red-state" clime.

I was born and raised on Long Island. Worked in NYC as a corporate attorney for the last 8 years. Freezing in the winter. Hot and soupy in the summer. The only respite from environmental discomfort came in the form of a few days in the spring and fall that were moderately warm (70s-low 80s), sunny and, most importantly, not humid.

After laying a two year seige to the lame southern california legal employment market, I finally found a suitable position and moved my family here in September. We now live in San Diego, where pretty much every day is sunny, 70s-80s, and low humidity. In other words, Heaven. I am now a laid back, southern California hippie (albeit a hippie who is a coporate attorney and realizes the benefits of lower taxes, restrained federal spending, strong law enforcement, private gun ownership rights, and strong national security/defense -- including blasting the beejeezes out of terrorists where ever they may be).

The best part is that San Diego is a red enclave in a blue state (something that I could not brag about on Long Island).

Also, my secretary is a professional surfer. How cool is that?

Good luck in your search!

I am a big fan of NRO and the Corner. I feel compelled to give you my two cents about your discussed move to a warmer, "red-state" clime.

I was born and raised on Long Island. Worked in NYC as a corporate attorney for the last 8 years. Freezing in the winter. Hot and soupy in the summer. The only respite from environmental discomfort came in the form of a few days in the spring and fall that were moderately warm (70s-low 80s), sunny and, most importantly, not humid.

After laying a two year seige to the lame southern california legal employment market, I finally found a suitable position and moved my family here in September. We now live in San Diego, where pretty much every day is sunny, 70s-80s, and low humidity. In other words, Heaven. I am now a laid back, southern California hippie (albeit a hippie who is a coporate attorney and realizes the benefits of lower taxes, restrained federal spending, strong law enforcement, private gun ownership rights, and strong national security/defense -- including blasting the beejeezes out of terrorists where ever they may be).

The best part is that San Diego is a red enclave in a blue state (something that I could not brag about on Long Island).

Also, my secretary is a professional surfer. How cool is that?

Good luck in your search!

If Muslim leaders want to be perceived by the broader community as men of good will and moderation, they need to make clear what they consider radical and extreme and treat it accordingly.

Pockets of Islamic radicalism exist in North Texas. We don't believe - and this is important to get straight - that they characterize most Muslims in the Dallas area. But these elements are here, and we cannot afford to ignore them. Neither can the Muslim community avoid the responsibility for policing itself.
As former FBI counterterrorism chief and Rowlett resident Oliver "Buck" Revell tells us, "If we continue to be deaf, dumb and blind to what's plainly in front of us, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I would have left the original post alone had it not been for the commentary provided by a reader.

The episode is "Homer the Heretic" from season 4. Homer stayed home on Sunday due to his growing disenchantment with church. Having his Best Day Ever is, to him, God's confirmation that he has done the right thing. He ultimately creates his own religion based on this positive reinforcement. In the end though, it is to his detriment, when he catches his house on fire and is saved by the ever-reverent Ned Flanders. Message: Tradition triumphs.

There is a similar message in the episode about the Movementarians. Punchline: "I should have stayed with the Promise Keepers."

P.S. In the Simpsons, whenever they depict God, he is the only being with four fingers and a thumb. I like that.

Big Fan.

Dear Kathryn: Just received this info on “Conspironut Web Sys”: “We have photos of Rumsfeld pouring chemicals into the Potomac, just above the location where these fish were found.... Will be faxing them from the Abilene Kinko’s to DR at Big Eye Net soonest.” Signed Attendee of Houston Livestock Show.

From a reader:

You mock, but this is profound. I've been searching for years for a graphic
or statistic that unambiguously demonstrates my contention that Western New
York is part of the Midwest, not the East Coast. Now, finally, I've found
it.

The Donovan writes:

I composed and signed every letter like that I had to send, thankfully not many. The higher you go, the greater the number, in events like this, where do you draw the line?

I somehow doubt that McNamara was personally signing similar letters. Or Stimson, either.

Let's face it - reality is, Rumsfeld doesn't know these casualties personally, as I knew mine.

Yes, the casualty level at this point, or any likely level in the immediate future, is in small enough numbers that he could, in fact, sign them all personally.

What's your cut-off point?

I understand your point - and if I were in Rumsfeld's shoes, I would be sorely tempted to sign them myself, if only to remind me of the cost of my decisions, good and bad. But that makes it even harder to back off, if later you find yourself wading knee-deep in blood in a Korea scenario, for example.

But does it bother me that he doesn't sign each one personally? No, not in the final analysis. It's just not his job. That was *my* job.

I had the same argument with my dad. He too wants a 24/7 Rummy.

I just don't buy it. If you think taking two minutes a day (at most) to sign letters to the families of the fallen is a needless distraction, fine. But if that's the case you should be more outraged when Rumsfeld goes out to dinner and has a long meal. And what about his visits to Walter Reed is that a waste of his time? You should also be cross with President Bush for taking the time out of his day to sign similar letters. Didn't Lincoln write countless letters by hand to families of the fallen while he was working to preserve the Union.

I'm open to more facts. It may be a snafu, where Rumsfeld simply inherited a policy or some such. Maybe he wanted his signature to look its best. Who knows? I also agree that the get-Rumsfeld crowd is using this to, uh, get Rumsfeld. And it would be tragic if this alone were used to topple him.

But I really don't think it's a trivial thing. An aide writes and prints the letter and Rumsfeld gets a stack every other day or so. He signs them between 9:00 AM and 9:02 AM. Done deal.

Egads!

Clinton has been out office for 4 years, the Twin Towers pulverized 3000 souls and yet even Conservatives can’t let go of the “it’s all about my feelings” ethos of the 90s.

Am I appalled that Rumsfeld might use an auto pen to sign letter of condolence to the next of kin? Absolutely not. I want him working full bore 24/7 to re-organize the Army and win the war in Iraq.

Let’s be honest here. How important is a form letter from the Secretary of Defense intoning, “On behalf of the President and………..” You know what the families crave, honest to goodness personal letters from the commanding officer of their loved one’s company and battalion. These are real people who knew the deceased. People who can honestly say, “I was there when John pulled one of his squad members out of the ambush”, or “Mary upheld the highest traditions of the Army”.

This is just another weak criticism of a man who has a difficult job. It appears that the only way his opponents can attack him is to nibble him to death.

What do people expect? For Rumsfeld to personally go to Kuwait and bolt armor on Humvees? Do they want him shed tears for the dead? As any veteran will tell you, there’s time enough for tears after the battle is won. Just months ago, some media morons were echoing this choice morsel, “Why doesn’t the President go to Dover and meet the coffins of the dead?” Isn’t this just too ludicrous for words?

The President and the Secretary of Defense owe a greater duty to the living than the dead. Even as late as the Vietnam era, the response of the American public was to suck it up and drive on. Eisenhower would probably agree with the statement that “every life is precious”, but that does not change the military and moral calculus on the beaches of Normandy. Sometimes soldiers die. The duty of the chain of command is to see to it that a soldier’s death is a positive contribution to a just and moral end, not an offering to Odin.

A friend of mine once passed along advice to me he got from a very prominent Washington super-lawyer: The only part of the day you have any control over is the morning.

It's true. By the afternoon, events control you. And, by evening the demon rum does (just kidding, I'm all about the crack). I can get more done between 6:00 AM and 9:00 (not counting taking out Cosmo) than I can from say 2:00 PM to 8:00 PM.

First let me deal with the commerce-clause side issue. I don't know what you're talking about. You treated the clause as a limitation on federal power; I pointed out that it is, on its own terms, clearly a limited grant of federal power. Surely you can see the difference. That is to say: If there were no commerce clause, there would be less legitimate scope for federal power, not more.

Back to the main discussion. Your argument that the filibuster of judges is unconstitutional, as it has developed, rests on three points. 1) The Constitution sets out a limited number of cases in which supermajorities are required, therefore making a procedural rule that creates a de facto supermajority requirement suspect. 2) Judicial nomination is an executive power, and the advice and consent clause occurs in the section of the Constitution dealing with the executive; so in this case we do not have a purely internal Senate rule. 3) The Senate has traditionally not filibustered judges.

If any of these arguments were sufficient to make the filibuster unconstitutional, the others would be superfluous. But really none of these arguments work separately, and they don't work together.

On point 1: Would you really argue that the Senate couldn't establish a rule that makes it harder to raise taxes? Over the last decade and a half, budget rules have created de facto supermajority requirements for tax increases. Do you really want to argue that they're unconstitutional? If we are to infer that all supermajority requirements that are not authorized by the Constitution are therefore prohibited by it, we would have to reach these absurd conclusions. So argument 1 doesn't work.

Point 2: So are we then to retreat to the more limited position that the Senate can't adopt a procedural rule that sets up a de facto supermajority requirement when it touches on a presidential power? That is an awfully specific, and convenient, rule to infer from, well, nothing. (Is there, incidentally, a de facto supermajority requirement at all in the sense required by your argument? On your argument and mine, 51 senators could change the rules if they felt like it. If they retain the ability to confirm nominees they approve, what remains of your argument?)

Point 3: Your latest post claims that for 200 years, most senators understood the filibustering of judges to be unconstitutional. You haven't come close to proving that. All you've shown is that they have not usually filibustered judges--they may very well have thought they had a theoretical right to do so, but declined to exercise it. Or maybe they had no view one way or the other.

And I'd just like to say this very strongly to the outside world: whatever people's feelings or beliefs about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the wisdom of that, there surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror. On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want to have the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy, and on the other side people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq...

The reason people are dying is because of the terrorism and the intimidation and the people who are deliberately killing anyone trying to make this country better. Now what should our response be as an international community? Our response should be to stand alongside the democrats - the people who've got the courage to see this thing through - and help them see it through. I've got no doubt at all that that is the right thing for us to do...

The danger that people feel here is coming from terrorists and insurgents who are trying to destroy the possibility of this country becoming a democracy. Now where do we stand in that fight? We stand on the side of the democrats against the terrorists. And so when people say to me, 'Well look at the difficulties, look at the challenges,' I say, 'Well, what's the source of that challenge?' The source of that challenge is a wicked, destructive attempt to stop this man, this lady, all these people from Iraq, who want to decide their own future in a democratic way, having that opportunity. And where should the rest of the world stand? To say, 'Well, that's your problem, go and look after it,' or, 'You're better off with Saddam Hussein running the country' - as if the only choice they should have in the world is a choice between a brutal dictator killing hundreds of thousands of people or terrorists and insurgents. There is another choice for Iraq - the choice is democracy, the choice is freedom - and our job is to help them get there because that's what they want. Sometimes when I see some of the reporting of what's happening in Iraq in the rest of the world, I just feel that people should understand how precious what has been created here is.

There surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror.

If Iraq becomes a stable, democratic country and we defeat the terrorism here - which is the same kind of terrorism that we face the world over - if we defeat it here we deal it a blow worldwide.

If Iraq is a stable and democratic country, that's good for the Middle East and what is good for the Middle East is actually good for the world, including Britain. That's why it is important for us too.

I would love to hear that one of you guys won this prize. From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jimmy Walter has spent more than $3 million promoting a conspiracy theory the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were "an inside job" and he is offering more cash to anyone who proves him wrong. The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says.

"Of course, we expect no winners," Walter, 57, heir to an $11 million fortune from his father's home-building business, said in a telephone interview from California on Wednesday. He accuses figures in government, the military and business of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Walter said a panel of expert engineers would judge submissions from the students.

Next month, he also launches a nationwide contest seeking alternative theories from college and high school students about why New York's World Trade Center collapsed. The contest offers $10,000 to the best alternative theory, with 100 runner-up awards of $1,000. Winners will be chosen next June.

The World Trade Center's twin towers were destroyed after hijackers from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda militant group slammed two commercial airliners into them. The attack in New York killed 2,749 people.

Various official investigations give no credence to Walter's theory. A Sept. 11 commission spokesman said its policy was not to comment on criticism of the report.

Walter insists there had to be explosives planted in the twin towers to cause them to fall as they did, and also rejects the official explanation for the damage done at the Pentagon (news - web sites).

"We have all the proof," said Walter, citing videotapes and testimony from witnesses.

"It wasn't 19 screw-ups from Saudi Arabia who couldn't pass flight school who defeated the United States with a set of box cutters," he said. He dismissed the official Sept. 11 commission report, saying, "I don't trust any of these 'facts."'

Remember a couple years ago when shark attacks became a huge media story even though there was no statistically significant rise in shark attacks?

I can't shake the feeling that something similar is going on with all of these stories about the "disappearance" of Christmas and the dangers of saying Holiday instead of Christmas.

Now, I am completely in the Krauthammer camp in that I think it's silly to try to secularize Christmas. By all means, call them Christmas trees. Say Merry Christmas. I can handle it, so can everyone else who doesn't have serious self-esteem issues.

But where the similarity to the shark thing comes in is that this is a really old story. People talk about this every year. The purging of nativity scenes -- and outrage over same -- has been going on for decades. Maybe I missed a particularly outrageous incident this year, but I don't think so. Rather, I think the tide is going the other way. Schwarzennegger renamed the state "Holiday Tree" to "Christmas Tree" to cheers. Could it be that we've reached a tipping point where we start complaining about something just as it's starting to recede? This happens a lot. In America, for example, we didn't complain about child labor until it was almost gone. I don't think we're there yet, but I think the semi-crisis hubub over the disappearance of Christmas might actually signal its return.

I might write a syndicated column about this so if I'm crazy someone should tell me soon.

WASHINGTON – The Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO) announced today that it has reached an agreement with Microsoft Corp. to acquire Slate , the online magazine.

Donald E. Graham, chairman and chief executive officer of The Washington Post Company, said: “Slate has been a pioneer in internet publishing, and it is a fine magazine. Founder Michael Kinsley, editor Jacob Weisberg, and Microsoft deserve great credit for creating Slate. We couldn’t be more enthusiastic about this acquisition.”

Jacob Weisberg will remain editor of Slate. Weisberg said: “I couldn't be more excited about this move. Microsoft has been a wonderful home for us since 1996. It’s clear, though, that The Washington Post Company is the best place for Slate to continue to grow and develop.”..

An email: "I had a hard time understanding your post at 1215 this morning. Under *which* circumstances would you find racial preferences acceptable? It's clear that racial preferences hurt *all* blacks, as described by Thomas Sowell and others. It's that underqualified candidates regardless of their race are more likely to fail in such a situation. And they do. Just look at California's higher ed system after AA was 'abolished'. Blacks became more successful.

"The costs are also borne by graduates of Ivy League institutions through grade inflation--a direct result of race-based preferences. It's one of the reasons I'd have a hard time sending my son to one of these schools; I'd like to get my money's worth. Having my child be in the fat part of the bell curve and receive an A for it is a disservice to him and provides little incentive for smart students to try harder to earn the grade. . . ."

RP's response: I agree, in part, with some of these arguments. I don't believe that racial preferences are an important part of the grade-inflation story. Nor do I believe that preferences, on net, hurt all blacks (or all Hispanics)--indeed, the contention strikes me as silly. The idea that they hurt many students by mismatching them to campuses strikes me as an excellent reason for colleges and universities not to have them. There are others: For example, universities and colleges that engage in preferential programs constantly find themselves lying about it. (Some of these lies have infected the public debate about them, alas: Witness Ross Douthat's treatment of a thumb on the scales giving a guy 0.2 extra GPA points as the paradigmatic case of university affirmative action.) But these do not strike me as reasons for the government to ban preferences.

Jonah's hypothetical question is an interesting one: What would we think of not having a law that allowed colleges to discriminate against blacks? If people were free to denounce these colleges, to boycott them, and to refuse to hire their graduates, perhaps it would not be such a terrible thing to have one or two little obscure places indulging in this discrimination without being punished by the state. On this view, a ban on anti-black discrimination may have been necessary to help change a culture strongly influenced by state-enforced segregation, but could become less necessary once the culture changed. But given that the culture has, thankfully, changed, it strikes me as an awfully academic question.

Mark: I still don't see how anyone can make the argument that filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional with a straight face. It is true that the Constitution sets up supermajority requirements in some instances and does not do so for judges. But it hardly follows from this fact that the Constitution bars a supermajority requirement for ending debate over judges. On its face, the advice and consent clause appears to be silent about the matter. The Constitution is also silent about whether judges should normally have to win the approval of the Senate judiciary committee, but nobody argues that this part of the process is therefore unconstitutional. If someone were arguing that the Constitution required supermajorities and filibusters--and it should be noted that Tom Daschle did make this ludicrous argument--then you would have a fine refutation of them. But I'm not arguing that. I think the general practice of not filibustering judges was obviously constitutional, and that there may be very good reasons for adhering to it. But I don't see that it is unconstitutional to depart from it, either.

Your analogy to the commerce clause is inapposite. In truth, that clause does not forbid Congress "from passing laws regulating waterflow in toilets." It is other provisions of the Constitution, such as the Tenth Amendment, that do that, along with the lack of any authorization in the Constitution for such a congressional power. In the case of the filibuster, we have no provision that is the equivalent of the Tenth Amendment, and we have no default rule that Congress can't set its own rules.

Interesting email from a reader:

In my entering class at the University of Michigan (fall 1986), the disparity was a little greater than you suggest. The student newspaper got the statistics and published them. For whites, the average GPA was a 3.57, with the average LSAT at 42 (which meant 95th percentile). For blacks, the average GPA was a 3.1, with the average LSAT score at 35 or so (about 55th percentile).

The University reacted appropriately and promptly stopped maintaining
these statistics although similar statistics was then prepared as part
of the U of M Law School case. My reading of them was that the
admission criteria resulted in a similar disparity in achievement.

One of the odd things about law schools and big law firms is that big
law firms would much rather hire someone in the top 5% of their class at
a second tier school instead of hiring someone in the bottom half of
their class at a top ten school. I fell into the latter category.
Nonetheless, the rationale for doing so is basically sound as (1) big
law firms have no intention of making every associate into a partner and
(2) big law firms want the associates that will bill as much as
possible. If you are in the top 5% at a second tier law school, that
probably means that you worked harder than at least 90% of your class.
Getting into a big law firm initially makes a tremendous difference in
the rest of your career.

Anyway, recognizing that there are exceptions to all rules, it is still
a fact that a black student with substantially lower GPA and LSAT scores
than almost all of his classmates probably cannot make up the difference
by studying harder and will likely end up in the lower part of his
class. If his GPA and LSAT scores were in a range that were more or
less average for his law school, then he could study harder, get into
the big law firm and work his way up from there. Getting the
substantial break that you get from affirmative action makes this much
less likely.

As far as whether schools should be able to use affirmative action, my
thought is the private colleges and universities should be free to do
whatever they want, and the market will take care of the rest. Public
colleges and universities should be prohibited from doing so, either
under the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (I agree with
Ramesh about the relative strength of this argument relative to the
Constitutional issues) or under state law.

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran's decision to keep preparing raw uranium for enrichment, a step on the way to making nuclear weapons, breaks the spirit though not the letter of its pledge to freeze all such activity, diplomats said on Tuesday.

K-Lo,

I've been reading an acting manual (The Power of the Actor: The Chubbuck Technique by Ivana Chubbuck [New York: Gotham Books, 2004]). Two passages of interest:

1. (page 12) ... Keeping it simple, we came up with the overall objective "to protect my unborn child." ... (it doesn't get any more primal than protecting your unborn child). [parentheses in the original]

2. (page 83) She needed an inner object that would duplicate the severe trauma of a mother violently losing her baby. We'd worked together for many years and I knew that she'd had an abortion. This experience caused her such acute distress that it produced out-of-control shaking and weeping whenever she talked about it. I suggested she use the abortion as the inner object for the scene. She did and out poured all of her rage, sadness, terror and horrific guilt that most women feel when they have had to abort their unborn child. Although sometimes necessary, an abortion can be the cause of great strife. And, whether in your opinion this is politically true or not, it can also make most women and men feel like they have murdered their own child. ["inner object" is a Chubbuckian term of art]

Ms. Chubbuck also says that actors must be not judge their characters' behavior -- that everyone justifies everything they do, no matter how horrible. (Perhaps she's read Paul's letter to the Romans?) But she has also observed the real behavior and real emotions of real men and women (even Hollywood actors can be real!), and she clearly knows that the emotional reality of abortion is at odds with fashionable political opinion.

Merry Christmas!

The three of us will never quit fighting for freedom and democracy along with our brothers and sisters in Iraq and the rest of the world and now we're doing this with more confidence and faith in a better future as we knew that Americans supported freedom in Iraq but we had no idea how great this support is and how committed the American people are for the success in Iraq until we saw it in our trip.

Thank you again.

We will never disappoint you because basically we're fighting for our dream.

From a reader:

The national scandal is -- colleges around the country don't model themselves after the mediocre. The affirmative action race-based student admitted to Harvard would have gotten into the University of Georgia on his own merit. Georgia, modeling on the elites, is then going to go after a student, affirmative action-wise, who could have gotten into Kennesaw State, which in turn will get pummeled for either (A) not having enough minority students, or (B) having too many minority students flunk out.

Ramesh - But your position is also that universities should be free not to use racial or gender preferences as well, right? Or to use any kind it wants, right? In other words if a school wants to be all white or all Asian or all black or all male, that doesn't "bother" you either, correct? I put the quotation marks around bother because I think you might oppose such policies personally, but wouldn't want to see them codified into law.

I think Ross Douthat's point is a good one, as far as it goes. He writes:

POINTLESS PREFERENCES: So the affirmative-action-at-elite-schools debate is a "sideshow," because it has no serious impact on how race, and more importantly class, are lived in America. This suggests, first of all, that liberals should stop racing to the barricades every time somebody hints that racial preferences might not be a good idea -- at least if they really want to reduce racial inequality, rather than just feel good about how diverse the Brown student body looks in its Yearbook photo shoots. But it also suggests that there might be more profitable ways for the Right to spend its time than railing against the injustice of Stanford Law daring to pick a black kid with a 3.6 GPA instead of a white kid with a 3.8. Sure, it's unjust . . . but it's also not that important. And pointing out how unimportant it is, and how ineffective such programs are, might be a better way to the hearts and minds of minority voters than just repeating the "color-blind society" mantra and waiting for Sandra Day O'Connor to retire.

Again, that's all fair enough. And maybe the right should point out affirmative action's ineffectiveness more. Though I suspect that would result in the left saying "try harder!" However, I still think both Ross and Reihan are minimizing the larger role these decisions have in a society like ours. For example, admission to an elite school -- particularly for those kids who are dying to go to elite schools (and their parents) -- is seen as a golden ticket to a golden life (everyone get the Willy Wonka song stuck in your heads: "I've got a golden ticket..."). They don't think it is a lottery ticket because they've self-geeked themselves for much of their high school career to earn that ticket. When the moment comes, they find out that kids who may not have worked as hard and who did less well gets his ticket because they're black or Hmong or, because, he's white. That strikes me as a fairly powerful teaching moment.

(Note: I am not persuaded that only very well-qualified blacks are being chosen at elite universities. And, since this system works its way down past the mid-list schools, the dynamic is nearly universal)

Moreover, the students who make it in to these schools, black and white, may be a minority but they are the minority we call "the elite" in this country by and large (indeed, elites by definition, are always minorities). They bring the diversity-mongering ethos with them everywhere. And, as Reihan noted, this elite is disproportionately represented in "the upper echelons of journalism, academia, appellate law, and possibly medicine." I might throw in engineering and several other sciences, but the point remains that these groups have great influence and impact beyond the fairly sterile subject of incomes.

We are building a culture as much as an economy, and I think the former is at least as important as the latter. Healthy cultures can survive bad economies better than healthy economies can survive bad cultures. The racial spoils system -- at the center of which are today's universities -- is, I believe, bad for the culture. It breeds resentment and condescension. It rewards the wrong values and punishes the right ones. I'm as willing to tolerate a little injustice for the greater good as the next guy. But usually these sorts of injustices are invisible and therefore accepted as "the way things are." When they emerge from the hidden law and are exposed as injustices, and celebrated as injustices, the injustice is no longer small it is systemic.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said: "It appears the far right is massing troops on the border of Roe v. Wade."

K-Lo - as unimportant as this is in the large scheme, I feel compelled to defend Mr. Simpson's reputation. He's slow, boorish, and generally inept, but he loves his family dearly.

His best day starts with him sleeping in on Sunday, cooking himself Moon Waffles (key step - wrap whole stick of butter in waffle before consuming like a burrito), and watching the most exciting play in football history, a triple-reverse double-lateral kickoff return (if memory serves me correctly). That's when he spikes his beer and finds the penny. It's the capper, not the cause, of the Best Day Ever.

Anyway, that's been burdening my brain cells for years. Thanks for letting me share.

are an affirmative distraction if the goal is to help poor blacks--on that much, I gather that Jonah and Reihan (and Ross and I) agree. I take Jonah's point to be that racial preferences at elite universities are nonetheless not a small matter from other perspectives. For example, if the goal is to create a multiracial elite, then they are not trivial. Nor are they trivial in terms of how race and class "are lived in America."

I'm closer to Ross and Reihan than I am to the mainstream Right on this issue. I think elite universities should be free to follow racial preference if they wish--and if it is illegal under current law, as can be reasonably argued, the law should be changed. But the regulations, litigation, and policies that make up our preference regime have costs, even if they are not borne by Harvard (or Princeton) graduates. And if the real point of racial preferences is not to help poor blacks, and they are not its real political constituency, then it is awfully naive to suggest that pointing out how "unimportant" and "ineffective" they are at helping poor blacks is a pretty naive way for opponents to go about ending them.

I had to read this post by Reihan Salam -- one of Andrew Sullivan's guest bloggers -- a couple times to get what he was saying. It's been a long day and me stupid. But, without reading all of his links, Salam seems to be saying that the demand for racial quotas at universities is rooted in the liberal elite's vanity more than anything else. They've internalized the notion that only "diverse" institutions are legitimate and therefore they want the institutions which conferred power and prestige upon them to be diverse, i.e. legitimate. He goes on to say that the real issue should be to raise incomes of American blacks. But that would require elite liberals to drop their vanity and work on hard questions rather than defending the status quo, which is so much more rewarding.

It's an interesting point of view, though I don't buy it, or at least not completely. I suppose I agree that serious progressives should be more worried about the broader condition of the poor and of poor blacks. But I don't think you can call the fight for how our leading civilizing, culture-transferring and, yes, wealth conferring institutions pick and choose their students a "sideshow." Besides, without knowing specifically how he plans to raise "incomes" for the more deserving (according to him), I think as a general proposition the world of higher education is hardly a sideshow to that project either. But, again, it's been a long day.

From an email:

"1.) By making the implicit liability in Social Security explicit, policymakers are more likely to reduce spending below what it would otherwise be (and raise tax revenue compared to where it would otherwise be), thereby raising national saving. This argument assumes policymakers react more to explicit debt than implicit debt, which is probable, although not certain. Admittedly, the cause of the increase in national saving is one step removed from SS reform itself.

"2.) Social security makes it difficult for many people to own equity securities, in particular people at the lower end of the income spectrum. Reform could overcome the effect of the liquidity constraint and transactions costs faced by such investors, allowing them to more closely approach the optimal portfolio they ought to hold for retirement purposes. In turn, by getting them to hold more equity than the current system, these individuals will tend to vote for better policymakers, who would likely pursue policies enhancing national savings.

"3.) Personal accounts are a sweetner/smokescreen necessary to do what really needs to be done, which is reduce benefits via price indexation (or increasing the retirement age). In an ideal world, policymakers could just reduce benefits without resorting to such tactics, but democracy is messy and we let too many people vote and so such tactics have to be adopted from time to time to get the right policy. Reducing benefits will not only increase national saving by increasing government saving; it will increase personal saving as individuals try to offset the reduction in benefits."

It always amazes me what turns out to be a major nerve cluster amindst the readership. Quite a few emails like this:

At long last you've posted on a topic I actually know about. I have a huge chip on my shoulder about being called "Dave". It's not my name. It's David, thankyouverymuch. There's something presumptuous when I'm introduced to someone and they immediately decide they don't like my name and use an alternate.

I know, it's silly. Maybe it's all due to a friend who signed my high school yearbook over 20 years ago, "Dear Dave... well you're really not a Dave. Daves are balding, wear bermuda shorts, and sweat a lot..." That kind of imagery sticks with you through the years!

In college, I was so adamant about it, some took to just calling me "Id". That had its own ramifications, but at least it emphasized the fact that I get to define my own name, my own identity. Yes, I know: silly, again.

Regards,
davID [last name withheld]

This is very cool. But what I really await is the Steve Sailer, David Brooks brigades to tell us what this map tells us about the culture war!

KJL: Sorry that you are suffering from Global Cooling. Here in Southern California, on the last day of Fall, it's bright and sunny, "severe clear" as we like to say, winds are calm, and the outside air temperature at 1140 PST is 77.4*F.... And that's with the sensor in the shade under the eves of the roof. You should consider relocating....

Specter
Hatch
Grassley
Kyl
Dewine

Sessions Graham
Cornyn
Brownback
Coburn

From a reader named Dave:

Jonah,

I feel I must, as a fellow "Dave", speak for Dave Barry. It is Dave, not David. There is a great deal of difference between a Dave and a David. Michelangelo's Dave... I don't think so. Dave Broder? Dave Brooks? They all fit as poorly as David Barry. Dave Barry is a Dave, not a David.

Despite Wonkette's snarkette, I have no desire to replace Tucker Carlson as the host of Crossfire. I once thought it would be a great job, but A) I don't like the shout-show format very much anymore and B) I really, really, don't like hosting in such a format. At least when you're a guest you get to say what you think, no matter how asinine or loaded the questions may be. When you're the host you have to play a role and I've lost much of my appetite for playing other peoples' roles -- whether they're assigned by producers or lazily ascribed by buzz merchants like Wonkette. I don't think there's any shame in taking the GOP's position against all comers. But it's just not my bag. Besides, most of the interesting arguments these days are within intellectual camps (libertarians versus conservatives, leftists versus liberals) and not between them.

During the election cycle I passed on guest-hosting Crossfire several times largely for these reasons. I think Begala and Carville are good at what they do, but what they do is not particularly enlightening or entertaining. And their presence puts Carlson and Novak at a disadvantage because Carlson and Novak are not lobbyists for a political party so much as defenders of a political philosophy (a big difference). The old Crossfire -- with Kinsley, Braden, Buchanan, Novak -- could be annoying but it often paid tribute to intellectual honesty. Now, it's got a Oprah-style studio audience which wants Jerry Springer confrontations for the sophomore and sophomoric political partisan. I think Tucker's PBS show is really pretty good, but PBS could still use -- and really needs -- a new Firingline (I've given up any hope that broadcast would do such a thing). No offense to Peter Robinson's outstanding show "Uncommon Knowledge" or the show I used to produce, Ben Wattenberg's "Think Tank" (both of which take ideas and arguments very seriously), but I really think a formal or quasi formal debate show would be great. I also would love to do a Kudlow and Kramer type show with a smart honest liberal where conservatives aren't supposed to be ashamed to agree with liberals about anything and terrified to admit they got something wrong -- and vice versa.

Sometimes I think that when I'm done with the book, I might try to get back into the TV producing business to do something like that. Or maybe I'll turn back to my true love, erotic marzipan sculpture. Who knows?

I'm a physician and I consider myself "to the right of Attila the Hun" on life issues. I also don't have much respect for modern, big media "journalism." But I think that it is neither illogical nor anti-life to refer to an unborn child as a fetus and a child after delivery as a baby. I think that's pretty standard medical jargon, and though it's been hijacked by many in the pro-death camp, it remains servicable.

He wants a dog:

I'm trying to convince my wife that we need a dog. I grew up with dogs, and am comfortable with their ways. If we're visiting someone's home, and I suddenly experience a sensation of humid warmth, and I look down and see that my right arm has disappeared up to the elbow inside the mouth of a dog the size of a medium horse, I am not alarmed. I know that this is simply how a large, friendly dog says: ''Greetings! You have a pleasing salty taste!''

I respond by telling the dog that he is a GOOD BOY and pounding him with hearty blows, blows that would flatten a cat like a hairy pancake, but which only make the dog like me more. He likes me so much that he goes and gets his Special Toy. This is something that used to be a recognizable object -- a stuffed animal, a basketball, a Federal Express driver -- but has long since been converted, through countless hours of hard work on the dog's part, into a random wad of filth held together by 73 gallons of congealed dog spit.

There's more.

I watched most of this weird movie on HBO this weekend -- I missed the begining -- and I really, really liked it. It's quirky and depressing but Phillip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant in it.

One of the things I like about Hoffman is that he doesn't play himself in every movie. Pacino is now always Pacino. Gay pacino, mobster pacino, cop Pacino. Dustin Hoffman is the same to me. Maybe, there are just some actors whose quirks and ticks add up over time until you can't completely see past the actor playing the role. I fear De Niro is moving that way too. Once you can be imitated by a comedian you're in trouble. It doesn't mean you're a bad actor, but the distraction has its effect.

Dr. Joel Frader, a bioethics professor at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, said he has a great concern about euthanasia.

"The big worry I have is that lives are being ended because of judgments about the moral worth of the individual, as opposed to the experience of the individual," he said. "If what's happening in the Netherlands indicates an intolerance of difference and disability, I think we have a serious moral problem."

Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, says hazards abound in infant euthanasia. Like Merkens, Caplan worries about the possibility of unexpected recovery.

"Kids fool you," he said. Sometimes infants have a poorly understood condition called "failure to thrive," which can end in death.

"It's a common policy in neonatal intensive care units," Caplan said, "that you pull the technology off a child and, if the child hangs in there, you put it back."

Sometimes with treatment, the child will survive. But if euthanasia were available, the child might not get a second chance.

"You'd have a death," Caplan said. "There's no room for error in euthanasia. But babies prove you wrong more often than any other patient."

Her greatest regret is the abortion after her "awful" first sexual encounter. Her mom was so angry she sent her to the abortion clinic on her own.

Later, she had three miscarriages before giving birth to her three kids.

"In life . . . you pay somewhere down the line."

Authorities said Montgomery, 36, confessed to strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett of Skidmore, Mo., on Thursday, cutting out the fetus and taking the baby back to Kansas.

From our friends at the Public Interest:

The Public Interest is looking for an assistant editor -- someone with a keen interest in public policy and neoconservatism, and with first-rate writing skills. The assistant editor works closely with our printer and subscription agency and is responsible for some computer and clerical tasks. The job is perfect for a recent college grad who wants a start in political journalism, or some public-policy experience before moving onto graduate or law school. Interested candidates should send cover letter, resume, writing samples, and references to Adam Wolfson, The Public Interest, 1112 16th Street, NW, #140, Washington, DC 20036. Thank you for spreading the word.

O'REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.

This is the most distrubing video of the year. You do need to have the volume up. No profanity except for one flash of a dude flipping the bird. But you should click on this now before their server crashes. Note: it is oddly compelling.

Kathryn - That reader's claim is true. It was very weird. The mail truck showed up yesterday and a cameraman came out and started filming Cosmo going postal at the postal guy. I think it is fair to say that if Cosmo were Czar, mail would be banned. At first I assume it was the Post Office (finally) documenting Cosmo's harassment. Cosmo doesn't bite them he just yells and freaks out from behind the fence. But it turned out it was some light-hearted local Fox News thing about Sunday mail delivery. I was tempted to tell them who Cosmo was, i.e. the "It" Dog of the American Right. But I decided I didn't want to get into all of that.

The best day of Homer's life was when he found a penny on the floor of the TV room, beating previous title holders such as marrying Marge and prancing around an overturned beer truck.

In her study, 27% of children described pretend pals their parents didn't know about, she says. If they know, reactions vary widely. "We've seen everything from parents who are excited and proud, even kind of implying, 'My child has a better friend than your child,' to a fundamentalist Christian who brought a Bible to the lab and said she was praying every day for the devil to leave her child," Taylor says.

Mr. Yushchenko, who typically ends his speeches with "Glory to Ukraine, Glory to the Ukrainian People, and Glory to the Lord, Our God," is a devout Orthodox Christian from northeastern Ukraine who regularly takes confession and communion. His faith is reinforced by his American-born wife, Katya Chumachenko, who last week told the Chicago Tribune: "We're strong believers in God, and we strongly believe that God has a place for each one of us in this world, and that he has put us in this place for a reason."

Such sentiments echo the way that President Bush has spoken of his own faith. And like Mr. Bush, Mr. Yushchenko is careful to sound an ecumenical tone in his public remarks. At a Dec. 6 interfaith gathering, Mr. Yushchenko observed that "the spiritual harmony that rules among religious leaders on the platform is an image of the spiritual harmony present in Independence Square."

O'REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.

O'REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.

O'REILLY: Period.

BUSH: Yes.

One of the first, perhaps the first country to worry about the health effects of smoking was early Twentieth Century Germany. So, for example, the ‘science’ of passive smoking first emerged under the Nazis. You can find more, much more, on this in Robert Proctor’s excellent book, The Nazi War on Cancer.

This rather, um, awkward fact is now discussed in a new article in the British Medical Journal. Predictably (the BMJ is a reliable cheerleader for the anti-tobacco crusade), the author finds it “paradoxical” that these notions should have been developed under a totalitarian state. As Jacob Sullum points out over at Reason’s blog, there is nothing paradoxical about it:

“In fact, the Nazis' focus on the threats that risky habits pose to "public health" makes perfect sense in light of their collectivist ideology. "Brother national socialist," said one bit of Nazi propaganda, "do you know that your Führer is against smoking and thinks that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and missions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"

Always kindly, Jacob is a pains to stress that this does not mean that “today's "public health" paternalists are Nazis.” True enough, although it must be admitted that the motives of these “public health paternalists” are disgusting – and so are their methods. As we’ve discussed here before, if we're looking for an appropriate label, ‘Health mullahs’ will do. Jacob does, however, go on to say this:

“There is an unmistakable totalitarian logic to the notion that the government has a responsibility to promote "public health" by preventing us from engaging in activities that might lead to disease or injury. The implication is that we all have a duty to the collective to be as healthy as we can be, an idea the Nazis embraced but one that Americans ought to find troubling.”

He’s right. They should.

Look at it another way. When Nurse Bloomberg stops New Yorkers from smoking in bars he is saying, in some sense, that he owns them.

I hope New York is comfortable with that.

Reason’s Ronald Bailey thinks so. If he’s right (let’s hope), good riddance.

And this point is worth noting for all those who like to stress America’s supposed isolation on this issue:

“The conventional wisdom that it's the United States against the rest of the world in climate change diplomacy has been turned on its head. Instead it turns out that it is the Europeans who are isolated. China, India, and most of the rest of the developing countries have joined forces with the United States to completely reject the idea of future binding GHG emission limits. At the conference here, Italy shocked its fellow European Union members when it called for an end to the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.”

Kyoto was junk science and malign politics.

We should dance on its grave.

Actually, you can trademark almost anything, including common words. It is not, however, the same thing as a copyright or a patent. They create more absolute rights than a trademark. Trademarks can be anything from weak, limited only to their use for the same product, to strong, applying to use for almost any product. These things depend on the length of your usage of the mark and how well known it is. The more descriptive the mark, the weaker it is. Barnie’s could not use it for a twenty ounce coffee but Budweiser might be able to use it for a twenty ounce can of beer. Certainly anybody not using it in a beverage business could use it. Bell labs uses it for an archival server, for instance.

From another reader:

Mr.Goldberg

The flaw in you correspondent's thinking is when he says "I don't
think the state has (or should have) the right to kill those who
are not a threat. And an incarcerated person is no longer a
threat." A visit to the Big House might persuade him
differently. Are the lives of prison guards or check kiters less
valuable in his world view?

In any event, the case against incarceration was demonstrated by
Ruben "Hurricane" Carter. A jury found him guilty of multiple
murder. Bob Dylan wrote a song about him so Carter got another
trial and a second jury found him guilty of multiple murder.
Then some left wing judicial activists, inspired by Bob Dylan's
song gamed the legal system to get Carter released.

The moral of the story is that in a democracy such as ours, you
cannot count on maintaining political will to do the right thing
over the long term so you have to do what you can in the short
term. In other words, if Ruben Carter had been executed, left
wing activists could not have gotten him free to roam the streets
today. Or as Side Show Bob said to Bart Simpson, "You can't keep
a Democrat out of the White House forever."

A reader invokes Gandalf:

Jonah,

It may be a little late to chime in on this, but I'm just now catching up on the weekend's Corner posts. To be opposed to the death penalty, it is not necessary to assert the criminal's right to life. Gandalf articulated this very well, speaking to Frodo about Gollum: "Many live that deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." (FOTR, Bk1, Ch 2)

Seriously, I oppose the death penalty not because I think murderers have the right to live, but because I don't think the state has (or should have) the right to kill those who are not a threat. And an incarcerated person is no longer a threat. Indeed, what I find so abhorrent about the anti-death-penalty activists on the left is their insistence on lionizing the condemned murders. Not only does the felon deserve no such treatment, but it is a slap in the face of the families of the victims and there is nothing intellectually or morally redeeming about this tactic. But I can maintain contempt for the murderer while still believing that the state exceeds it rights when it kills the felon post-arrest.

Still looking forward to your book...