Hello Kathryn :

My name is [DELETED]. I read your article in today's Seattle Time .

Your article's headline was --- Bolton's not the problem , the U.N is the problem! Well , obviously you are one of the strong supporter of John Bolton! I'm sure IF that STUPID John Bolton read your article , he can really cry on your shoulders these days!

OK , Kathryn , let me suggest you something here -- since you are such fan of that extremely UGLY , extremely bullying and extremely STUPID John Bolton , maybe you should work with John Bolton for a few months , to see how much you two get along! It seems to me , you two may just make the perfect working couple! GOOD for you , my dear!

OK , here's my opinion about that John Bolton -- when I first saw John Bolton's picture , my first reaction was ---- GOSH , this guy is SO DAMN UGLY!!!!!! And he looks like A JERK!!!!!!!!! And the more I know about him , the more I think he's nothing but A JERK!!!!!!!!!

Oh , Yes , it seems to me , this John Bolton looks like a world-class JERK! He talks like a world-class BULLY! And he acts like a world-class FOOL!!!!!!!!! IF I have to use one word to describe John Bolton , in my very humble opinion , this guy is nothing but a piece of GABAGE!!!! And he's nothing but A JACK-ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes , Kathryn , I know it hurts your feelings , but that's just how I see this John Bolton --

He's nothing but a world-class LOSER , a piece of JUNK and A JACK-ASS!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing more and nothing less!!!!

But obviously President Bush and his team LOVE LOSERS and JUNK!!!!!!!!! I know President Bush always feel very good about himself , but Since the Iraq WAR has been such a BLOOD MESS and A REAL DISASTER , and since President Bush's job approval rating sank to his ALL TIME LOW in recent weeks , it seems to me , President Bush himself and his team are A LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's more -- it seems to me , President Bush is more like the gabage collecter these days! That's WHY he picked up that world-class JUNK John Bolton in the first place!!!!

As I told some friends of mine that , IF people look at Bush's administration , you just hard to find someone there who's nice , honest , decent and respectable!!!!!!

Yes , as the whole world can see , most of people in Bush's administration is BLOOD-thirsty and WAR-obsessed!!!!!!!!!! That was WHY they kick U,N aside and rush into the Iraq WAR over 2 years ago because they took the WAR damn tooooooooooooo easily and casually!!!!!!!!!!!! And that's just plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well , since John Bolton always hold such a deep contempt on U.N , and since he once said that , there's NO such thing as United Nation , I'm sure alot of people in both U.S and in the rest of the world must be wondering that --- WHY in the world this guy even wants to take that job and work in an organizition that shouldn't even exsits on this planet in the first place??????!!!!!!!!! I guess there are only two logical explanations to that question , first -- both President Bush and John Bolton are extremely STUPID and severely BRAIN-DAMAGED!!!!!!!!!!!! Second -- I don't think Bush and his team made their decision by mistake! It seems to me , they made their choice on purpuse!!!!!! Yes , I believe Bush and his team picked up John Bolton to be the ambassador to U.N simply because John Bolton has been extremely hawkish , and simply because John Bolton's A BULLY!!!!!!!! Oh , Yes , I believe by sending John Bolton to U.N , Bush and his team have a clear purpose --both Bush and John Bolton want to challenge the U.N! And they both want to show U.N and also the whole world -- WHO'S THE BOSS!!!!!!! And WHO'S RUNNING THE SHOW in today's world!!!!!!!!!!! That's WHY Bush and his team want to send that BULLY John Bolton to U.N! Because they need someone who can play NOT just tough but DIRTY!!!!! And most of ALL , they want to boss around NOT just the U.N but the whole world!!!!!!!!! Well , you know something , EVEN IF both Bush and John Bolton did got what they want someday , IF they think they can really control the U.N and also the whole world , they better think again!!!!!!! As we ALL know , over two years ago , when President Bush and U.S pushed really hard for that Iraq WAR , U.N said NO to U.S and to THE IRAQ WAR!!!!!!! So even if that world-class BULLY and JERK John Bolton did got that job , and IF U.S use ALL of these lies and ALL of these false and DEAD-WRONG intelligence to rush into another WAR again someday , I believe U.N and most of the countries in the world would still say NO to the WAR!!!!!!!!! However , on a second thought , I think maybe this BULLY and JERK John Bolton should get that job! Since he's such A JERK AND BULLY , especially since he represent Bush administration and the U.S,I think both U.N and the entire world should see in their own eyes that how extremely arrogant and how extremely STUPID both Bush and John Bolton really are!!!!!!!!!!

Having an abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early in a later pregnancy, according to research that will provoke fresh debate over the most controversial of all medical procedures.

French study of 2,837 births - the first to investigate the link between terminations and extremely premature births - found that mothers who had previously had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks' gestation. Many babies born this early die soon after birth, and a large number who survive suffer serious disability....A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which is the largest provider of abortions outside the NHS, said that women seeking terminations were not told of increased risks of premature births "because so far, they have not been established".

Over a half century ago, William F. Buckley Jr.’s God and Man at Yale asked whether the education provided at that university corresponded with the wishes of its alumni, to whom its administrators ultimately report. The answer at Dartmouth today, as it was at Yale then, is a resounding “no.” However, with Robinson and Zywicki’s upset win, the answer at one Ivy League institution could soon be “yes.”

If this letter by the shiite cleric Hadi Ma'ssumi published on the iran-chabar site is true then this is just mega explosive: http://www.iran-chabar.de/1384/02/20/masoomi840220.htm

The letter to Rafsanjani is written by a Karaj based cleric. He says in the letter that he is ill and near death, so presumably that is what has given him the extra ordinary courage needed to write this letter.

If this letter was from an exiled opposition, it would not have been so controversial but to read this sort of thing from a Shiite cleric is truly remarkable.

In the letter, the cleric Hadi Ma'ssumi starts from the beginning of Islam in Iran. How the religion was forced upon Iranians, how the invading Arabs raped the Iranian women, massacred the population, looted our wealth, tried to run the windmills with the blood of Iranians and how they burned all our books and destroyed so much of our knowledge.

He then starts scrutinising 26 years of Rafsanjani's unrelentless power. He reminds Rafsanjani of what went on in Iran's political prisons in the 80s. How young virgin girls were raped before their executions using Koranic justifications - virgin girls go to heaven no matter what, so young female political activists were raped to ensure they didn't go to heaven - how thousands suffered torture and the massacre of Iranian political prisoners in 1988.

The many extra-judicial killings of Iranian dissidents both inside Iran and outside Iran. "Ayatollah Rafsnajani, you know how murder, kidnapping and torture has become synonymous with your name" Ma'assumi writes in his letter.

Hadi Ma'ssumi asks about Rafsanjani's close relationship with the likes of Saeed Emami, responsible for murder of dissidents inside Iran and Vahid Gorji who is responsible for many assassinations of Iranian exiles outside Iran.

Ma'ssumi recalls how Rafsanjani unnecassarily prolonged the war with Iraq, casuing the death and injuries to millions and how he himself hugely profitted from the war instead.

Ma'ssumi asks Rafsanjani to comment on the imprisonment of many of Iran's dissidents today. What he thinks of stoning, public flogging, cutting limbs and forcing women to wear the veil.

He asks Rafsanjani why women in Iran are forced to wear the veil in summer heat and yet Rafsanjani's daughter Faezeh dresses up in skimpy clothing when she travels through European cities of Paris, London and Geneva.

Even perhaps all this is not that controversial, there are after all many Iranian clerics who oppose the Islamic Republic and the rule of mullahs. But just read this below. This is an exact translation of one paragraph of an elderly Shiite cleric's statement on his death bed:

"You know like I do what lies behind this religion (Islam), after all this crime carried out against Iranians. lets do one good thing and tell the people what is behind this religion. Lets tell everyonel that this religion is neither "martyr generating", nor pro-science nor pro the people, this religion tells the elite that it is for the plebs and it tells the plebs that it is for the elite, it tells the elite that all its silly laws are for the stupid plebs, in fact this religion is "ignorance generator". It has come about to humiliate people. As you (Rafsanjani) once told me, it is one religion for the elite and another for the plebs. You rightly regard yourself, the supreme leader and your Guardian Council as the elite, and the "martyr generating" nation of Iran are the plebs. Now for the sake of God tell the truth to the people that there is nothing in this religion but stupidity and ignorance, other than silly laws about what is considered clean and what is untouchable, what is allowed and what is not allowed, believe me that God and the people will then forgive you, although I know you are conscious enough NOT to believe in God!"

British columnist David Aaronovitch on being a leftie who supported the war:

“Since I decided, in January 2003, that if Iraq was invaded I would not oppose it, I have had the almost astral experience of finding myself excommunicated from the movement, sometimes by fellow journalists who I know do not possess a political bone in their entire bodies.All of a sudden I began to experience the left from the outside. And the first thing that struck me was its capacity for smug certainty and uniformity of response. Look at the cartoonists, whose work trumps debate. You may have Blair the poodle, Blair with blood-stained hands, Blair the liar, Bush the absurd chimp, but never, ever, Galloway the consort of tyrants or Kennedy the comforter of "insurgents”.

‘Excommunicated’ is the right word indeed.

Via Andrew Sullivan a fascinating article by Mark Lilla from the New York Times. I certainly don’t agree with everything Lilla has to say – far from it, but this passage (also highlighted by Sullivan) is worth repeating here:

“The leading thinkers of the British and American Enlightenments hoped that life in a modern democratic order would shift the focus of Christianity from a faith-based reality to a reality-based faith. American religion is moving in the opposite direction today, back toward the ecstatic, literalist and credulous spirit of the Great Awakenings. Its most disturbing manifestations are not political, at least not yet. They are cultural. The fascination with the ''end times,'' the belief in personal (and self-serving) miracles, the ignorance of basic science and history, the demonization of popular culture, the censoring of textbooks, the separatist instincts of the home-schooling movement -- all these developments are far more worrying in the long term than the loss of a few Congressional seats.”

Of course, it’s worth making the point (Lilla doesn't) that home schooling is often itself a reaction (and a very understandable reaction at that) to the other rising superstition of our time – you might call it, in fact, “ectstatic, literalist and credulous” – the multiculturalist mush and leftist slush that has invaded America’s education system and done so much to trash the study of history, of science and, yes, censor textbooks.

In fact there’s a nice little example of the way in which liberalism has swapped reason for dreams, fantasy and paranoia in a book review from today’s Financial Times. No link available so this one-fingered typist will transcribe it. It’s an (unsigned) review of a book called The Last Crusade: The Influence of the Christian Right on American foreign policy by Barbara Victor. Here goes:

“Victor analyses the accession of the religious right from relative obscurity to the forefront of US politics. She charts the gradual erosion of secular democracy, as politicians respond to the zeitgeist, channeling anxiety and popular desire for revenge into biblical patriotism. Saturated with religious influence, America has borne witness to the accession of a potentially dangerous “theocracy”…..

Its no good, I can’t go on.

Look, I share Derb’s profound skepticism about some aspects of the religious right (and accept the label – if not the spelling – as one of Jonah’s ‘skepticons’), but this sort of talk is, I’m afraid, simply nuts.

James Wolcott has described Saddam groupie – and British MP - George Galloway as “a hero of our time.”

Take a look at this, this, this and this over at Harry’s Place and see if you agree.

…the ‘oui’ camp moves slightly ahead. Writing in the Daily Telegraph Charles Moore explains why:

“Nowadays no important French politician (unless you count the cunning but grotesque Jean-Marie Le Pen) dares side with the nation against its rulers. The power of the elites is so great, the intermeshing of education and money and jobs and media and Brussels and Paris is so complete, that to question the system is to exclude yourself from power. This unanimity gives the "yes" campaign obvious advantages. They can control the money - Figaro calculated last month that the government had already spent 420 million euros on trying to secure a "yes" vote. They can control the media - all the main newspapers say "oui" and the state broadcasting service openly expresses the same view; the airtime given to "yes" has been 63 per cent, that to "no" 37 per cent, and that does not include three television hours of Chirac in favour of "yes" (after which the "no" standing rose in the polls). They can offer last-minute inducements - a promised reduction of VAT on restaurant meals is delightfully blatant. One half expects President Chirac to copy François Mitterrand, who announced his prostate cancer just in time to win the knife-edge vote in the Maastricht referendum.”

Actually, when it comes to the disclosure of Mitterand’s cancer, Moore is, I suspect, being a little unfair. If you want a better explanation as to how the Maastricht vote (a referendum on an earlier round of EU ‘reform’) was won, it’s better to look to that sudden – and rather mysterious - rush of last-minute votes from France’s overseas departments…

Moore also adds this:

”It has often been pointed out that the reason why many French dislike the constitution is the opposite from the "no" camp here in Britain. The French, it is said, hate the thing because it imposes "Anglo-Saxon" free-market ideas on them and undermines their "social protection", whereas British nay-sayers want to be free of all those social chapters and maximum working weeks. True, in part, but not contradictory. What voters resent, in both cases, is being forbidden by people they did not and cannot choose from organising themselves as they would prefer. Jean may want to knock off on Friday morning while Jack may want to work all Sunday: both agree that they should be able to make up their own minds about it.”

Read the whole thing.

Interesting report in the FT today of comments from Vicente Fox, a man who seems to believe that he has a right to legislate America’s border control:

“Mexico has reacted furiously to a bill signed into law by the US this week that would fund a border wall and prevent illegal Mexican migrants from obtaining US driving licences. President Vicente Fox said he would lodge a diplomatic complaint, and was considering complaints to multilateral bodies if Mexico could not unable to resolve the problem bilaterally.”

To borrow a phrase from the much unmissed Teresa Heinz Kerry, President Bush should tell Fox to shove it.

I’m not holding my breath.

The London Times today has a report on that recent TV survey (discussed a day or so ago on the always ahead-of-its-time Corner) showing that the ‘no’ side was pulling ahead in the Dutch referendum on the draft EU ‘constitution’. Meanwhile, the Dutch PM (no hero, despite his uncanny resemblance to Harry Potter) is saying that a no vote will “harm the reputation of the Netherlands internationally”.

That’s nonsense, but more importantly it doesn’t matter.

The Dutch people would vote according to their interests – and only their interests. The demands of some imagined ‘international community’, in reality the international bureaucratic class, are an impertinence and should be an irrelevance.

And there's more here from the Daily Telegraph:

"A staff member of the finance ministry asked not to be named as he admitted that he would be voting No. "There should have been a referendum on the euro, there should be a referendum on Turkish entry," he said. "I'm voting against the constitution because politicians cannot tell me why I should be voting for it."

Of course, they cannot. Admitting that the purpose of this constitution (so beloved, apparently by Condi Rice) is the overthrow of what little remains of national sovereignty in favour of a corrupt - and unaccountable - elite.

That's not really a vote winner, is it?

UPDATE

Arjan at Zacht Ei tells it how it is:

“True, rejecting the constitution won't bring back the guilder. But we were cheated back then. First, by allowing Greece into the Economical and Monetary Union while their economy didn't meet the criteria. Second, by diluting the guilder to 90 percent of its real value only to please Germany.We were robbed. And you simply don't make new deals with people who've cheated you in the past without them having made amends or even having offered an apology. In other words, saying that this referendum isn't about the euro is the same as a salesman telling you there's nothing wrong with his camper vans, while you are still paying off the garage bills for the crappy car he sold you back in 1999.”

Zo is dat.

Because I'm so cool, I watched a big chunk of some Senate hearings on Social Security on C-Span last night. It seemed to be a Democratic deal -- there were no Republican Senators asking questions when I tuned in and the panel seemed to be wildly overstocked with opponents. There was a woman who barely said a word (so I don't know if she's pro or con). And there was an economist from Yale, the Brookings gu, Peter Orszag, and Brad Delong the blogger and economist. The only outspoken witness in favor was my old friend Derrick Max. I thought Derrick did a great job, especially given the odds. But I have to say that I thought the liberals made some very strong arguments, including DeLong (who, to date, has never had a kind word for yours truly). I'm still in favor of reforming the system and I'm still in favor of private accounts, but I thought the arguments were pretty persuasive that there are serious downsides to the idea too. I'd get into specifics, but that would give Ramesh all weekend to sharpen his scalpel. So, I'll keep pondering and start in again on Monday.

Interesting piece in the Times today on the rift among Greens over nuclear power. Here's the opener:

WASHINGTON, May 14 - Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming.

Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups. In the past few months, articles in publications like Technology Review, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Wired magazine have openly espoused nuclear power, angering other environmental advocates who maintain an unyielding stance against it.

Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and the author of "Environmental Heresies," an article in the May issue of Technology Review, explained the shift as a direct consequence of the growing anxiety about global warming and its links to the use of fossil fuel.

"It's not that something new and important and good had happened with nuclear, it's that something new and important and bad has happened with climate change," Mr. Brand said in an interview.

For many longtime advocates of environmental causes, such talk is nothing short of betrayal. Because of safety fears that reached a peak during the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and unresolved questions of how to dispose of nuclear waste, environmentalists have waged unrelenting campaigns against plants from Shoreham on Long Island to Diablo Canyon near the California coast.

John - Whenever you read Wolcott writing about the Corner, picture a kid sitting alone in the high school cafeteria, eating his brown bag lunch while muttering constantly about how those kids at the other table are all a bunch of losers who really shouldn't be having a good time because they aren't as cool as they think they are. Perhaps alone among all leftwing bloggers, he's the only one who I honestly believe is truly, completely, and unalterably wracked with jealousy. Virtually, all of his posts about us -- and conservatives generally -- are substance-free (or boringly hackneyed). All, of them are the kind of jabs one expects to hear from a male hairdresser about the more successful competition across the street. And they always recycle the same jokes, over and over again.

For example, he's now made I think a half-dozen fat jokes about me (I don't read him regularly, but from the emails I get that sounds about right). That's fine, I suppose. Though since I've been making fat jokes about myself for several years now, it's hardly what one might call original. Plagiarizing someone else's self-deprecating remarks is bad enough. But it's particularly ill-advised given this.

This morning I heard David Keane of the American Conservative Union say that an attack on Tom Delay's ethics was an attack on conservatives everywhere and upon everything they stand for.

Now, the substance of the matter notwithstanding, I just want those of you who are worried about such things to know that I don't feel like I'm being attacked personally when Tom Delay is being attacked.

It was fun flexing our muscles last night.

Once upon a time, Republicans could run their smear campaigns with impunity. Now, we will go after those who plan those smears, those who abet them, and those who disseminate them.

We will be quick, ruthless, and diligent. We won't show mercy, because we haven't gotten any. We will play their game, and play it better. And we will prevail.

A Final Push -- $1M Buy From PFAW Targeting Specter, Murkowski And The Maineiacs

People for the American Way (PfAW) is launching new ads for "the endgame of the filibuster fight" -- spending $1M next week, starting 5/15 am. 3 new TV spots "appeal directly to" senators in PA, AK and ME. Also, TV ads will be running "heavily" on nat'l cable news, in DC and a range of other target states. This is a part of a $5M+ campaign that PfAW has been running for months.

"Courage and Leadership," running in PA:

ANNCR: "The Constitution is under attack by the Radical Right. They want to trigger the nuclear option, destroy the 200-year-old filibuster, sweep away our constitutional checks and balances. The last defense against this attack? Senator Arlen Specter. Courage and leadership are defined by a few key moments in history. Senator Specter, this is your moment. Preserve checks and balances. Protect the Constitution. Save the filibuster."..

one of the Washington Post's most tedious Style section writers, trashes Yale historian Donald Kagan today. I don't know Kagan and have read none of his books, but familiarity with his work isn't necessary to see what rotten about Kennicott's piece.

The trouble starts in the first paragraph: "It's hard to imagine a more successful or celebrated historian, and yet, just as he has for decades, Kagan still sounds peevish. Will he ever get over the audacity of other professors, who think the ancient Greeks and Western civilization are not the only things worth studying, to confront the old, settled way of doing things?"

My reactions: 1) What's a conservative in the academy got to be peevish about? Gee, it's just a huge mystery. What could it be? 2) Will liberals ever get over the idea that people who object to their various innovations are just opposed to new things? Some people object when old, settled ways of doing things are "confronted" stupidly.

Kennicott: "[Kagan] got laughs for little digs at the relativists (who believe that other societies may have equally legitimate values and truths) and the multiculturalists (who think the traditional canon is not so weak as to bear with a little expansion)."

Bull. Those are deliberately euphemistic descriptions of relativism and multiculturalism, and I cannot imagine that they're what Kagan has in mind when he's talking about relativism and multiculturalism. Kennicott is writing up a speech. Just as with a book review, a non-hack writer has to present his subject's case before rebutting it--rather than just describing it in a distorted, self-refuting way.

The conclusion, if you can believe it, is even worse.

Your red army post reminded me of the fact that Marshal Zhukov really was a kiss up/kick down kinda guy.

Just read VDH's excellent piece on WWII revisionism. Also finally talked to my Dad about the Yalta stuff (Yalta came up a lot in the Goldberg household when I was a kid. Me: "Can I have five dollars for the movies?" Dad: "Okay, but if it weren't for Yalta, you could have ten.").

Anyway, Pops is not a huge believer in the invincible Red Army view being bandied around these days. And without getting into all of those bells and whistles, I did have one question. Has anyone ever come with a hard number for how many Red Army soldiers died at the hands of the Communist Party? It's a well established fact that on the Eastern front (which I guess was the Russian Western front), the Russians shot their own soldiers at alarming rates when they wouldn't fight, particularly at Stalingrad). Indeed, if they even strategically retreated they could be sure they'd be executed.

I bring it up for a couple reasons. First, it runs a bit counter to the purist Russian sacrifice version of history. Many died miserably at the hands of their officers or the Commissars. Second, this undermines the notion that the Red Army was as formidible as everyone suggests in their determination to defend FDR. VDH notes that the Russians were not nearly as impressive militarily as the Anglo-Americans, who: "waged a global war well beyond the capability of the Soviet Union. They invaded North Africa, took Sicily, and landed in Italy, in addition to fighting a massive land war in central Europe. We had fewer casualties than did the Russians because we fought more wisely, were better equipped, and were not surprised to the same degree by a treacherous former ally that we had supplied."

I completely understand Rick's point about the desire of conservatives -- including myself -- to Monday-morning-quarterback the decisions made at Yalta. But, my chief objection is the one I inherited from my Dad and it remains intact. For fifty years we were told that not only was Yalta necessary, but it was good and to question it was nothing but mildly anti-American fever-swamp stuff. We've seen this propagandistic mindset crop up for the last week. Josh Marshall, who once criticized Yalta, now insists it's outrageous to do so. Jacob Heilbrunn is utterly contemptuous of second-guessing Yalta.

I think the argument that the players at the time perceived Yalta as necessary is defensible (though forcibly sending all of those people home to be slaughtered is not). But I think the insistence that we must translate that sense of necessity into moral celebration is repugnant. Since when do liberals consider realism morally superior?

Here's an example of what I'm getting at. The senior George Bush sold out the Iraqi Shia and Kurds after the first Gulf War. I am sure he and his administration thought it was necessary. That has never stopped me -- or any of these now self-righteous liberals -- from saying that was morally outrageous and counterproductive in the long run. Why we can't have the same sort of discussion about Yalta is beyond me. Unless, of course, some people think consigning Eastern Europe to slavery for nearly half a century wasn't counterproductive or morally distasteful. If you want to say we had to sign Yalta, fine. But why do we have to like it?

HERAT PROVINCE, Afghanistan, May 12, 2005 - Changes are taking place on the borders of Afghanistan, and one man is leading the way.

Afghan Col. Safe Aube, commander of the Transitional Afghan Border Security Force, and 229 border-security volunteers from across the country are replacing the existing border police forces in Islam Quala, on Afghanistan's border with Iran in Herat province.

"The mission is to replace the existing border police with my men so that those men can be retrained to enforce the rule of law," said Aube. "Once the men are trained, they will return, and we will then move on to the next border site and do the same thing."

This pilot program is planned for 13 other border locations around the country. The hope is to put an end to corruption and increase revenue through proper taxes instituted at the borders.

U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.

I got some grief from some liberal emailers for only posting that "hooey" email earlier. So let me post now what I think is a thoughtful one:

Jonah,

I was extremely impressed by your piece "What Is a 'Conservative'?" As a liberal, though, I have a worry about your argument.

Towards the piece's end, you write this:

"Christianity, as I understand it, holds that the perfect world is the next one, not this one. We can do what we can where we can here, but we're never going to change the fact that we're fallen, imperfect creatures. There's also the whole render-unto-Caesar bit. And, of course, the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes we are born in sin, not born perfect before bourgeoisie culture corrupts us into drones for the capitalist state."

This passage expresses your endorsement of the belief that since "nine out of ten" proposals for social change will inevitably lead to disaster given our imperfect natures, we had better be, well, conservative. Call this claim "benign pessimism."

But here's the problem: liberals needn't--and shouldn't, for precisely the reasons you give--reject benign pessimism. It's been a long, long time since liberals believed, with Mill, Dewey, and the other thinkers you cite, that human nature is perfectible. Indeed, Schlesinger's _The Vital Center_, the great statement of mid-twentieth century liberalism, swore off precisely that belief. And John Rawls's entire political philosophy--I'm thinking of _Political Liberalism_, in particular--is an attempt to square the liberal commitment to pluralism and tolerance with the fact of our fallen natures.

To conclude, I have two points. First, the "liberalism" you set up in your piece as a foil to conservatism is a straw man. No one has believed that form of liberalism for over half a century. Second, and more substantively, benign pessimism doesn't argue for conservatism; it argues instead for a sober, careful liberalism--Schlesinger's vital center. The fact that we must take care to rock the boat only when doing so is absolutely necessary goes no way towards showing that government doesn't have a legitimate role to play in ensuring equal opportunity for all citizens. Benign pessimism isn't an argument against public education, social insurance, progressive taxation, labor unions, civil rights, etc.

Your brand of conservatism, whether you care to see it or not, will lead only to plutocracy. Perhaps such a prospect doesn't frighten you, as your sanguine attitude towards "hierarchy" suggests. But it does frighten the liberal. But that liberal doesn't want a "perfect society." Benign pessimism teaches us that nothing of the sort can be had. The liberal simply wants a fair society.

Me:There are some interesting points here. Let me respond to two. I agree that there are liberal intellectuals who understand that humans are not perfectable creatures. But in a very important sense I'm not sure that matters as much as the reader does. The piece I wrote in the current issue of the magazine addresses some of this in more detail, but I think modern liberalism has very little use for formal philosophy. I'm hardly alone on this point, as a slew of prominent liberals -- from Martin Peretz, to EJ Dionne to Michael Tomasky -- have made this point in recent months or recent years (if this is a controversial point to folks out there, I'd be glad to defend it further).

I think liberalism today is much more of an agglomeration of emotional states, unarticulated convictions, and religious impulses. And at the psychological and sociological level liberalism operates like a religion which believes in the perfectability of man even if many of its smarter practitioners will deny it when pressed (just as many very religious Christians, Muslims or Jews might stray from dogma if interrogated). When one looks at what offends liberal sensibilities, what arouses liberal passions, what drives liberal activism it is hard not to come to something like this conclusion (at least for me). And when you look at the sub-ideologies of the left -- feminism, environmentalism, etc -- it becomes even more difficult to avoid such conclusions. I really don't believe I've set up a strawman version of liberalism.

As for my second point, I guess I don't see why my version of conservatism is destined to become a justification for plutocracy, but depending on what you mean by plutocracy, I'm not so afraid of it either. We have in a very real sense a plutocracy now. We had a plutocracy yesterday. And will, in all likelihood, have a plutocracy tomorrow. Now, I don't mean that literally, but only a fool would deny that rich people don't run the country more than your average poor person. The Senate, after all, is the world's most exclusive millionaire's club. It is the nature of rich people to go into government in democracies and in non-democracies being in government makes you rich. Even in the warped economic systems we call Communist that is and was true -- it's not like the politburo lived shabbily. It's true in the social democracies. It's true everywhere. The hope is that in a healthy society the wealthier people appreciate their privileges and accomplishments and understand that they need to set an example. I like elitism, and I think social stratification is inevitable. But that doesn't mean I have to approve of every elite or think that every member of the top strata deserves to be there (again: the Politiburo was not my kind of elite).

This is in part what I mean about being willing to tolerate contradictions. We in America are an egalitarian society and we are a society of inidividual opportunity. Both are good things, but they conflict with each other at some point. As a conservative, I like that we're all equal before the law, but it doesn't bother me in the least that we're unequal economically. In short, it's not my version of conservatism which results in "plutocracy" it's human nature. My version of conservatism merely recognizes that fact.

By rough count I've gotten forty emails from evangelical Christians -- including pastors and activists -- and not one of them says last night's "Law and Order" passes even the most rudimentary smell test. Not one reader says they ever even heard of evangelicals making such an argument. Not one said there's room in current theological teachings or precedent in recent politics to make such a case. Sure, it makes sense to go easier on a guy who shows remorse and repentance, but nothing like what they showed last night makes sense to anybody.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down Thursday Nebraska's constitutional provision prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions.

1. This at the very least slows things down. He was reported to the full Senate without a recommendation. Under those circumstances, how can further hearings/debate be refused?

2. Midwestern isolationism isn't what it used to be. Voinovich, like Hagel, talks about foreign policy very much the way modern liberal multilateralists do. Robert Novak opposed the Iraq war but supported Bolton, seeing both issues through a nationalist prism. It turns out that there is no real constituency behind that point of view.

3. It's long struck me what shallow roots Bush's foreign policy and the principles underlying it have in the Republican party. How committed are the 2008 hopefuls to that policy and those principles? Giuliani and McCain seem genuinely supportive. The rest of the lot seem to be go with the prevailing Republican winds.

Do you think Senator V. realizes that his absence from such important hearings last month would get him fired from a major corporation?