Another of the remarkable, um, recent ‘achievements’ of EU bureaucrats was the antitrust action against Microsoft. This will lead to the sale in Europe of a version of Windows without Mediaplayer. The Guardian is now reporting that Brussels has “rejected out of hand Microsoft's initial suggestion of calling the "degraded" version of its operating system "Windows reduced media edition" - viewed as a serious deterrent to consumers.”

Of course it has. For such a name would be, well, honest. Microsoft should stick to its guns or, better, follow the advice of the folks over at EU Referendum. They think that Microsoft should simply label the degraded product the "EU version" with a prominent "ring of stars".

”As the EU is a by-word for corruption and inefficiency, such a version would readily fit with the EU brand image and happily remind the "citizens of Europe" of the benefits of EU membership.”

Ha ha ha.

MADD was an organization begun with the best of possible motives, but over the years its mission has quite clearly expanded to embrace a quasi-prohibitionist agenda. Now it turns out that this agenda has been bankrolled in part by GM, something of dubious benefit to GM’s shareholders and which reflects very poorly on the company’s own priorities.

Now, people are beginning to object. MADD at GM has been formed by an organization representing owners and operators of bars, taverns and liquor stores. Their website is well worth a visit, and notes this:

"As part of its agreement with MADD, General Motors has become a vocal opponent of any drinking before driving. Think about that before your next car or truck purchase."

Indeed. Friends don’t let their friends buy GM.

A professor in economics from the University of Iceland asks himself what exactly the EU is, and then answers his own question:

"It's a customs union. It protects itself from outsiders with walls of tariffs. It is in many ways very reactionary. Those who control everything, the Central European states France, Germany, Spain and Italy, are not the countries of the free market and have never been. Those are countries which have cetralised their economy very much. Their economy is in many ways incomplete with much rigidity in the labour market. They have a very complex and wide-ranging system of subsidies and grants. State interference in the economy is vast. And in many ways the European Union is driven by dreams of past greatness; dreams of keeping Europe as a superpower. The result of all this is that growth in the EU is rather small compared to America and Asia."

Wise words. For suggesting that the current evolution of the EU is not altogether a good thing, the good professor will now doubtless find himself described, much to his surprise, as a ‘neoconservative’. I know I was. Who knew?

Hat-tip North Sea Diaries

As usual, there’s plenty of good stuff over at the EU Referendum blog. Most interesting today, perhaps, is the discussion of comments from a minister in the German government that the draft EU constitution will be the launch pad for even deeper integration. True enough, but not very helpful for Tony Blair who is busy telling Brits that signing up for the constitution will represent the end-stage of the process of European integration.

It’s worth noting that one of the reasons for the bitterness of the EU debate in the UK is the sense among many Brits that they have been consistently lied to over the nature of what it is they have signed up for. At almost every stage of the EU process, going the whole way back to the accession debates in 1972, ‘pro-Europeans’ (inaccurate description, but it will have to do) have downplayed the possibility of any further integration.

And at almost every stage of the EU process they are later shown to have lied.

Recent claims that smoking bans have no negative effect on business are based on statistical manipulation so shabby that it makes the science of ‘passive smoking’ look reliable. Here’s one story (from New York State, rather than City) that points the other way.

“ITHACA -- For now, the smoking room in the Fraternal Order of the Eagles No. 1253 is two green metal chairs and a tin can that greet visitors outside the front door. Within weeks, though, the club will become the first establishment where smoking is permitted since the Tompkins County Legislature passed a law in August 2003 outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants. The Tompkins County Board of Health Tuesday approved its first waiver to the New York State Clean Indoor Air Act. The board ruled that the Eagles were able to show a loss of income since the smoking ban took effect, and were able to provide a separate room where smoking will be allowed. "They showed they had a significant decrease in income since the enactment of the ban," said John Andersson, director of environmental health services at the Tompkins County Health Department. "They clearly had a loss of income." According to figures submitted to the Health Department, the Eagles revenue dropped from $92,343 in 2003 to $57,327 in 2004. The revenue drop almost crippled the organization's ability to donate to charitable causes, members said. Donations went from $60,000 before the ban to $12,000 after it went into effect. “

Of course you can’t build a counter argument (so to speak) on the basis of just one bar, but this story is a reminder that the costs of smoking bans can run beyond the small things like, oh I don’t know, freedom, personal responsibility and the right of a proprietor to run his establishment in the way he sees fit.

Via Radley Balko.

Your "Dead Zone" emailer is quite obviously a Corner newbie. Fridays, for whatever reason, are ALWAYS slow around there. I never questioned it; I just assumed slacking the day before a weekend was a blue-state thing. Sort of like how you whine about weather.

90 minutes??

Kathryn, that's about how long it's been since the last post in The Corner!!! I guess that shindig at WFB's must have been some blowout! Everyone hung over today or what? ;)

Chicago (AP) -- A man who says his former lover deceived him by getting pregnant using semen obtained through oral sex can sue for emotional distress — but not theft, an appeals court has ruled.

Dr. Richard O. Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" six years ago, but she says they had the baby through sexual intercourse.

A top aide to Al-Qaeda's frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been arrested along with a man who was Zarqawi's driver, the Iraqi government said Friday.

In an effort to halt blatantly partisan and personal attacks on many of the President’s nominees to the Federal Courts, the Judicial Confirmation Network is circulating a national petition and is partnering with more than seventy citizen and grassroots organizations across the country calling on Senators to bring the President’s judicial nominations to the floor for respectful debate and timely votes.

Passed on with no further comment - for now:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A consumer group sued the federal government Thursday, saying that salt is killing tens of thousands of Americans and that regulators have done too little to control salt in food."

Via Drudge

And he made clear that he is in no hurry to reconsider the appellate court nomination of William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, one of Bush's most controversial judicial choices.

On an otherwise quiet day on the Hill, 100 journalists and jostling photographers jammed the Senate TV studio yesterday for a sighting of that most exotic and endangered of species: a moderate in the United States Senate.

Schumer told reporters that Senate Democrats see no reason to back Myers and other nominees who were turned back last year "unless there's new and dramatic information. . . . I think the president nominating them [again] is, sort of, a poke in the eye." Of the nominees sent back by Bush, Schumer said, "I think [Myers] would have the easiest chance of all of them, and I don't think he has the votes yet, either."

Liberal groups also signaled no letup in their campaign against conservative judges. "Rather than starting a new Congress with judicial nominees commanding bipartisan support, they immediately renew the judicial wars with polarizing nominees who were blocked in the previous Congress," said Ralph G. Neas, head of People for the American Way.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat who scored a surprising win in 2002 but is a top GOP target next year, won't appear with Dean during his two-day visit. An aide noted that Sebelius remained neutral in the DNC race and backed Kerry in the presidential primary. Rep. Dennis Moore, the state's only congressional Democrat, is traveling out of the country and won't return until next week. A Moore spokeswoman declined to comment on Dean's trip. Aides to other Kansas Democrats, including state Sen. Janice Lee and Kansas City Mayor Carol Marinovich, also declined to comment on Dean's visit. Dean is likely to face a similar reception next week in Mississippi, where Rep. Gene Taylor, the state's only white Democrat in Congress, has been openly critical of his party's new chairman.

I had to read this one twice to make sure I'd got it right:

"Dear John---They are teaching Macbeth, at least in the 11th grade at our
son's school (private, Christian). But they do so using sock puppets. Our
son had to make Siward and Malcolm last night.

"I thought you might like to file this under your 'American Education Today'
miscellany. Good luck filling the holes in Nellie's and Danny's education;
my wife and I have to do our share."

Macbeth with sock puppets! "Before my body I throw my warlike shield!"
[Flip finger across palm]....

Why does this make me think of that Monty Python sketch: "Wuthering Heights
in semaphore"?

I just received my first issue of National Review. Although I have been reading Newsweek and Time for years and always end up throwing the darn things in despair, it is wonderful to finally have a lively, thoughtful, and intelligent magazine to read. I don't know why I waited so long. I think it's important to read what the liberals are reporting so I will continue reading the Newsweek and unoffensive liberal blogs. Speaking of which, thank you so much for the wonderful 2004 campaign and election coverage at NRO. I continue to visit your website several times a day.

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that The New York Times has a First Amendment privilege to protect the confidentiality of its sources by denying the government phone records in certain instances.

Noting that secrecy in government appears to be on the increase, Judge Robert W. Sweet refused in a 120-page ruling to toss out a lawsuit the newspaper filed last year to stop the Department of Justice from getting records of phone calls between two veteran journalists and sources.

re your comment:

"YOUNG ADULT USED TO MEAN 12 TO 18," HE SAID. "NOW IT'S FOR READERS AS OLD AS 25." [K. J. Lopez ]

I suspect this says more about the reading comprehension of 25-year-olds than it does about the maturity levels of 12-year-olds. ------

I think this betrays your (understandable) ignorance of why Young Adult publishing exists. It's a publishing category holdover from when libraries refused to put science fiction and fantasy on the "adult" shelves because librarians believed all science fiction and fantasy works were/are juvenile in nature. Many libraries still do this: I've been to libraries where unabridged versions of Heinlein’s "Stranger in a Strange Land" sit on the juvenile stands near Dr. Seuss's more advanced books.

Anyway, young adult was a way to get science fiction and fantasy out of the juvenile shelves and into another category somewhere between juvenile and adult. Ursula K. LeGuin's first three Earthsea books were marketed as "young adult." The latest three Earthsea were marketed as "adult" because 20 years later publishers and libraries finally realized that science fiction can be aimed at adults. The Young Adult market now contains many non-fantastical works, but it’s really a label reflected more of compromise than content.

(Hartford-WTNH, Feb. 23, 2005 7:35 PM ) _ At the Connecticut capitol, a powerful legislative committee has just approved civil unions for the state.

I'm heading to NYC for the NR swank bash at WFB's will be on the train for the next few hours. Keep hope alive.

Interesting point from a reader:

Dear Jonah:

I can’t speak for all gays, but I have some familiarity with what I would call the ‘theological left (Catholic version)’, and I can tell you that most gays in this group support abortion because they are heavily invested in the divorce between intercourse and procreation. If the primary goal of intercourse is the production of children, as traditional Catholic theology insists, then both abortion and gay sex are wrong. But if sex is about the expression of love between two people, then homosexual intercourse is not only licit, it is a positive moral good. That pesky little fetus that is sometimes the product of intercourse is in fact a nuisance, not a blessing…

Of course, I’m painting with a very broad brush, but essentially, that is the thought process underlying support for abortion in one group of gays I am familiar with.

The problem is further compounded by its media which gives out only filtered news preventing the people at the grassroots level from gaining an insight into the real issues. “When I was in the US some years ago, I was shocked to find that the people there were having AM/FM radios and not the short-wave radio. That means they are only interested in knowing things concerning them and have no interest in the world beyond.”

Many Democrats believe that it will be impossible to stop her from securing the party nomination in 2008. The Crystal Ball disagrees for one very important reason: Senator Clinton is likely to win the general election only if 2008 turns out to be a strong Democratic year when any major Democrat would have prevailed. Despite her attempts to moderate, Senator Clinton is firmly fixed in the public's mind as a Northeastern liberal from a deep blue state--rather reminiscent of another recent nominee from Massachusetts. Those Arkansas days are far behind her, and few in the Razorback State believe she could carry the only Southern state where it is plausible she might have a chance.

Why is Clinton's ideology seen as so rigidly left, given the fact that National Journal's voting studies show her to be more moderately liberal than commonly thought? Bluntly put, Senator Clinton will never escape the stifling confines of her husband's controversial administration. A feminist in the 1992 campaign who wasn't going to stay home and "bake cookies," and who was sold as a co-president, she will always be associated with the "Hillary Care" health plan that failed disastrously, the scandals that plagued the Clinton administration from start to finish (Whitewater, Vince Foster's suicide, the missing billing records, the last-minute pardons), and the searing Monica Lewinsky impeachment debacle that raised uncomfortable questions about the Clintons' marital arrangement.

Assuming the marriage is now stable, the unavoidable fact is that Bill Clinton would be moving back into the White House with a President Hillary Clinton. Surveys have consistently shown that both Clintons still bear many scars from their time at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and what has been forgotten about their many controversies will be re-investigated and refreshed during the course of a long 2008 campaign. Only a decisive rejection of the Bush regime and GOP actions in Congress could convince the electorate to overlook its raw feelings about the Clintons and to revisit that chapter of American history--one that was closed with considerable, widespread relief in early 2001.

You've got to find email like this at least a bit interesting:

I am a gay conservative living in the liberal bastion of New York City (Chelsea, for that matter). I have always wondered how being pro-choice is a matter in which gay rights groups needed to be involved. Certainly, the thinking within the community cannot be monolothic. I often began asking if they believed that it was morally correct to abort babies because of their gender. I would bring up South Korea and China, where women often will abort their child because the child is female. The response would always be that although it is unseemly, it is a matter of choice. I would then follow it up with the gay gene hypothesis - namely, if there is a gay gene and it is determined, would it still be a matter of choice for a woman to abort a child knowing the child would be gay. I would then ask if the pro-choicer believed that most women would give birth to a child knowing that the child would grow up to be gay. The answer is obvious; many would not. Thank you for putting this in the corner today. The pro-abortion stance of the left and the Democratic party is one of the reasons that I am as staunch a Republican as I am. Although gay marriage is an issue that deserves discussion, it pales in comparison to the gruesome death that unborn gay and lesbian children currently endure (and would endure in far greater numbers if a gay gene were discovered). Great post.

But Artificial Life has already run into delays in introducing Vivienne to men in Asia and Europe. It originally hoped to have her flirting on cellphone screens by last Christmas.

The problems have ranged from the cosmetic--Vivienne is being reprogrammed not to bare her navel or display body piercings in conservative Muslim countries like Malaysia--to the technological.

It's been something of a minor talking point on the right that should the "gay gene" ever be found, homosexuals would become pro-life in a flash. I've been hearing this for years. And for the record, I've never heard anyone on the right say that if the gay gene were found that conservatives would become pro-choice.

Anyway, Rush Limbaugh was discussing the first point recently on his show and now a Republican lawmaker in Maine has introduced legislation to protect fetuses from orientation-selection abortions. Gay Patriot has more. This is probably just a small harbringer of all sorts of political shifts the biotech revolution will introduce. It will be very interesting to see how right and left are defined in the world of liberation biology.

Of course, it's just that attitude that almost cost Specter the chairmanship in November. His post-election comments that a Supreme Court nominee who opposed abortion rights was not likely to win Senate confirmation was reported as a warning to the president, and the groups that had hoped to unseat the moderate Specter in favor of a more conservative Republican then mobilized in an effort to deny him the chairmanship. Or, as Specter not so diplomatically put it, "the far right was ready to pounce on me if I'd done nothing but said the Lord's Prayer, and that was a crevice and they went after it."

Very useful, if number-heavy, Foreign Affairs article on why America isn't about to fold like a cheap hooker who got hit in the stomach by a fat guy with sores on his face.

[Okay, I promise that is the first and last reference to "Friends" for the year.]

The Palestinian legislature has allegedly purged the Arafat loyalists and cronies.

From a reader in the military:

I happened to see this at the local Hajii shop here at the FOB Freedom CMOC the other night. It was in Arabic, of course, so the Iraqis translated for me. They were pretty excited and happily fired-up about this guy getting captured. The locals accept it as common knowledge that the Syrians are the primary source of the terrorist activity around Mosul and in Iraq in general.

From my new "CMU Guy":

Jonah,

I'm a Junior at CMU, so here's what I know-

Basically, no one thought bringing the Shabazz guy to campus was a
good idea. There's a discussion board (electronic, that is) where
people argue over stuff like that, and once everyone had seen what the
guy has actually said on his own website, there was no one, right,
left, or far left, who uttered a peep in this guy's defense, which is
obviously a good thing.

The Hillel article implies that the University brought the Shabazz guy
in. Not really true. They are bringing Norman Finkelstein, but Shabazz
was brought by a student organization. "Who payed for it?" is somewhat
complicated. Student groups get money from whatever they fundraise
plus some money from the student government, which gets its money from
a fee every student has to pay them if they want to be in any student
group. The student government has total control over this money, and
it demands all kinds of bizarre accounting to try to separate what
student government pays for and what groups pay for through
fundraising. The university administration has no say anywhere in this
system. I don't know how the fundraising/student government money
works for the group in question, so its possible that the student body
as a whole theoretically footed the bill, that the organization payed
for it out of its own, non-student government pocket, or most likely
some combination.

CMU did "play host" to Shabazz, and the administration sent out a mass
email today about their speaker ploicy and Shabazz in particular. I'll
quote the whole thing below, but the bottom line is, they think
Shabazz is a pretty loathsome guy and would never have brought him
themselves, but they didn't ban him because they have a policy of not
banning anyone brought by a student group. I personally think this is
a pretty reasonable policy.

Now, I didn't actually see the guy as I was at CPAC that weekend (and
I'm evil whitey, so apparently I couldn't have seen him anyway). so
I'm taking Hillel's description of the event at face-value. From what
I've heard, the bit about them basically keeping whitey out of the
auditorium is true. I don't know about the rest of it, but I'll go dig
up the campus newspaper and find some people who were there. If it's
exactly as written , the CMU police really should be ashamed.

I do think the Hillel article is being more than a bit overblown about
Jews being particularly put-upon at CMU. I'm not one myself (although
I'm pretty philo-semitic), but this doesn't fit with what I know about
CMU. I know the president of the CMU Hillel chapter, and I'll ask her
about it in case I've completely missed the boat and get back to you
with an update. The article doesn't mention it, but the night before
the Shabazz speech, A group called "Tartans4Israel" hosted a
speaker/panel event called "IDF: Breaking the Myth," in which the
speaker, a former IDF officer, talked about how the IDF actually
works, its rules of engagement, etc. They asked the College
Republicans to co-sponsor it (I'm an officer in the CR's), which we
agreed to do. I didn't personally get to go (as I was traveling to
CPAC that night), but it's definitely the type of event needed on more
campuses.

You can use my name if you like, but I think it be much cooler to be
your "CMU Guy"

Two emails:

If conservatives were calling for Larry Summers to resign – or apologize, or both - because he publicly expressed an opinion about Social Security that they disagree with, then Mr. Iglesias would have a point.

And..

Ask Yglesias if he pays attention to John Mccain when Mccain is talking about Iraq or abortion or any other issue Mccain might still be conservative on.

From a reader

So, the World Council of Churches wants us to divest from companies that profit from Israel’s “control” of Gaza and the West Bank eh? I eagerly await their call to divest from Red China for it’s conquest of Tibet, Iran for it’s oppression and murder of dissidents (and hanging of school girls), European companies pursuing oil leases in genocidal Sudan….etc, etc. Surely these actions will be announced soon!

Cynically yours,

An alleged Syrian officer confesses Since this appeared on a US-backed Iraqi TV station, I really, really hope it pans out as authentic. Here's the opener:

BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 23, 2005 — Iraqi state television aired a video Wednesday showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer who said he trained Iraqi insurgents to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.

The video also showed an Iraqi who said the insurgents practiced beheading animals to train for decapitating hostages.

Syrian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the claims.

Clarification: Contrary to some tendentious email, let me be clear what I meant. I hope that this story doesn't turn out to be fake in the sense that I would hate for America's credibility on Syria's threat to be undermined.

Indeed, as the pope's weakness becomes more pronounced, critics wonder if the Vatican's bureaucrats will be doing his bidding, or making up their own policies in their own interests. After all, if John Paul dies or resigns, their own power in the church hierarchy is likely to evaporate. Hence the suspicion with which some theologians view the new doctrines about sustaining terminal patients through extraordinary means. "The right-to-life types want to renounce brain death and keep everyone going forever," says John Paris, a Jesuit theologian at Boston College who has been writing about end-of-life issues for 30 years. "It seems that Lenin's mausoleum will be the model for the future. The entire enterprise is mischief-making at the Vatican."

"I must lead her with suffering," he said. "The pope must suffer so that every family and the world should see that there is, I would say, a higher gospel: the gospel of suffering, with which one must prepare the future."

From a reader:

personally I think if K.LO is going to carry on about Romney and 2008 elections, just three months after the last presidential election, you should be free to carry on about a litany of forbidden subjects, Star Trek, FF, your liking the new Battlestar Gallatica series (despite making starbuck a woman), etc.

Matt Yglesiaswrites:

STRANGE NEW RESPECT. Now that Larry Summers is suddenly garnering strange new respect from conservatives, I can't help but wonder if his new friends on the right will start paying attention to his views in his actual areas of expertise. Social Security, for example. It seems to me that when he talks about that stuff, the wingnuts don't much care for him. But he really is an economist and not a biologist. Just saying.

Despite the cutsey tone -- or maybe because of it -- this strikes me as profoundly lame. If Summers agreed with the privatization crowd, he would be treated as the right's pet Harvard hack and conservative support would be written off as Popular-Frontism. But since Summers opposes privatization, Yglesias insinuates, conservatives must be hypocrites for coming to his defense. Yglesias surely knows how cheap and lame this point would be if put in the form of serious argument, so he does it with a light touch, perhaps to make it sound more clever than it really is.

Ramesh - Just to add a few more: I seem to recall deep skepticism about the Depertment of Homeland Security, the new Director of National Intelligence, Bush's faith-based initiative and the entire rhetorical construct of compassionate conservatism appearing in articles by you, Rich, Kate O'Beirne, myself and others appearing many times in both the print NR and NRO.

In fact, it would be very helpful if Sager could back up his sweeping claims with some examples of what he is talking about. If his interpretation of NR's position on big government is so penetratingly accurate perhaps he could provide some quotes from NR's in-house writers and editors lauding big government conservatism.