 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
STANLEY KURTZ, PROPHET?: [Rod Dreher] In January, 2001, a vicious controversy erupted over Mary Eberstadt's "Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered" article in The Weekly Standard, in which she argued that teh gay-rights movement was succeeding in mainstreaming pederasty. NRO's own Stanley Kurtz wrote in response that the sort of thing Eberstadt documented, as well as various local skirmishes were preludes to a very nasty culture war to come. Wrote Kurtz, "In the next few years, this issue is bound to break open nationally. Hold on to your hats." You watch: should the coverage of this Catholic pederasty scandal turn to the presence of gays in the priesthood, and the sexual outlaw atmosphere in many seminaries, Mr. Kurtz's prediction may well come true. Posted 9:03 PM | [Link] THE MISSING LINK: [Rod Dreher] D'oh! I didn't provide a link in my item below to the full statement of pederast Bishop Anthony O'Connell. These weasel words should be chiseled on His Excellency's millstone. Posted 8:45 PM | [Link] QUEER LOGIC [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The producers of the Showtime series Queer as Folk, about a group of young Pittsburgh gays and their promiscuous lives, are getting grief from "the community" for a recent story line where Sharon Gless, who plays the mother of one of the young gay men and PFLAG den mother to them all--whose brother has AIDS--discourages her son from pursuing a sexual relationship with an HIV+ man. Hello?? It’s time to be upset when this show that displays irresponsible behavior week after week does something responsible? Posted 5:41 PM | [Link] COLUMBINE COVER UP [Dave Kopel] The Colorado house of representatives unexpectedly voted not to form a special commission to investigate the Columbine High School murders. The Friday vote came after heavy and secret lobbying by the Jefferson County government against any inquiry. At the least, preventing the inquiry prevents further examination of Jefferson County Sheriff John Stone's decision to prohibit officers from entering the school during the murders, even though open 911 lines showed that students were being killed in the library--where the 911 operator had ordered them to stay and awaiting police rescue. Likewise shielded from inquiry is Sheriff's Stone's attempts to cover up that decision, the cover-up of why a 1998 search warrant for Eric Harris's house was never executed, and conflicting statements about whether Columbine student Daniel Rohrbaugh was accidentally killed by a police bullet. Posted 5:38 PM | [Link] WATCHING WHAT THEY'RE WATCHING [Dave Kopel] Been following the government-controlled media of our Arab "allies"? Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Weisenthal Center has. He reports on the primetime series that ran on Abu Dhabi TV during Ramadan: Plots of Terror featured a famous comedian playing Ariel Sharon as a vampire who sells "Dracu-cola" made from Arab blood. The Sharon character loves to drink the blood of Arab children. While the series is presented as fiction, an Egyption film-maker is busy with the move he promises will be "the Arab world's answer to Schinder's List." The movie is based on a 1983 book by Syrian Defense Minster Mustafa Talas, The Matzo of Zion. According to the book, in 1840 the Jews of Damascus murdered two Christian children, and used their blood to make Passover matzoh. During the second half of Ramadan, a variety of Arab TV stations aired the 30-part series of Horseman without a Horse, a dramatic adaptation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion--a well-known forgery by the czarist secret police which alleged a secret Jewish plot to take over the world. Posted 5:32 PM | [Link] The Genesis Awards are given out by the Hollywood animal-rights community's leading organization, The Ark Trust. Obviously, I don't agree with everything they believe. For example, they are largely a vegan group and, well, I think bacon tastes good, especially on top of cow between two buns. Regardless, these folks were kind enough to give my "Canines to the Rescue" article from the 11/5/01 issue a commendation. This is essentially a consolation prize for runners-up for the actual Genesis Award. Anyway, it was nice of them to nominate me and nice of them to send me an invite to the ceremony. So, now you know too. Posted 2:35 PM | [Link] UNDERSTANDING CELIBACY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Just an aside on the priests scandals. Yesterday on NPR during a dismaying report--for what they reporting on, rather than how--I was heartened to hear the reporter actually say that celibacy was not to blame. They had a psychiatrist on who even backed up the contention. Now, it’d be nice if Catholics--especially those teaching future clergy and religious and laypeople--could get a good handle on that. Posted 1:01 PM | [Link] RECOMMENDED READING [Jonah Goldberg] Great article on unintended consequences. Posted 12:45 PM | [Link] UNBEARABLE FACTS[Kathryn Jean Lopez] The more the Yates trial goes on the more we all learn about the heartbreaking last minutes of those children’s lives. Yesterday at the trial, a psychiatrist recalled Yates talking about the struggle to kill the kids. Each one, except for 6-month-old Mary fought with their mother to survive. None, of course, did. Posted 12:29 PM | [Link] CLOSER TO HOME [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Melissa Gilbert has really won the Screen Actors Guild’s Nov. contested election against Valerie Harper, according to a retake. The first vote was thrown out amidst accusations of fraud. Where’s Alec? This is way more his scene. Posted 12:26 PM | [Link] THE BISHOP WHO LOVED TOO MUCH [Rod Dreher] I know, I know, I'm posting too much about the depraved Palm Beach bishop, but you've got to check out Bishop O'Connell's full statement to the press yesterday. It is a sickening masterpiece of evasion. In it, the despicable prelate blames his taking a previously abused boy to bed as "therapy" by blaming the 1970s -- you know, the Dark Ages, a time when a Catholic priest may have understandably concluded that it was okay to sleep with troubled boys as part of counseling. In fact, it seems to His Excellency that his greatest sin may have been wanting to help too much ("I've always been a do-gooder.") Oh, and it's the Pope's fault for making him bishop in the first place; O'Connell says he took his first bishopric, in Knoxville, knowing he was a pederast "out of obedience." Posted 11:50 AM | [Link] HATING ASHCROFT [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I didn’t watch much, but I caught a few minutes of an Emily List luncheon on CSPAN last night. In an introduction for Jean Carnahan, the crowd roared when it was mentioned that she voted against John Ashcroft for AG. It is amazing to behold how much he is hated. Has he really done that bad a job as AG? Of course not. But they’ll always hate him. Jay Nordlinger had a great piece delving into the phenomenon in the issue of NR we just finished. Posted 11:46 AM | [Link] BABY STEPS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Virginia becomes the first state to ban partial-birth abortion since the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law. Posted 11:05 AM | [Link] OH, THE STRESS[Kathryn Jean Lopez] Take this for what it is, a report in the Arab News dubbed as Saudi Arabi’s first English daily. On of Osama bin Laden’s wives tells a reporter: "He came home very late at night and relaxed for many hours, lying in bed. He did not like to talk with anybody. He used to take sleeping pills so he could forget his worries and the pressure of work." Posted 11:03 AM | [Link] THE RED ... WHAT?: [Rod Dreher] The Orange County chapter of the American Red Cross booted a youth group from an upcoming 9/11 commemorative performance -- because the group was going to mention God in a song. Posted 10:13 AM | [Link] TO INDICT MAKES RIGHT: [Rod Dreher] Writing in today's New York Times (link requires registration), columnist Bill Keller says it is time for state authorities to force the Catholic Church to clean up its act on child sex abuse by filing criminal charges against bishops who knew of these sordid crimes and covered them up. "The fear of God doesn't seem to be doing the trick," he notes. Posted 9:20 AM | [Link] IN DENIAL: [Rod Dreher] According to disgraced Bishop Anthony O'Connell of Palm Beach, there is another sex-abuse victim of his who may yet come forward. But fie and fiddlesticks on you if you think His Excellency has anything in common with that awful Fr. Geoghan in Boston. "There was nothing in the relationship [with the teen boy] that was anything more than touching," said the pervy prelate. "Depravity had nothing to do with it." Of course not, bishop dear, Your Excellencies are not that sort of person. Posted 8:41 AM | [Link]
BISHOP REAX: [Rod Dreher] Man, my mail is smoking. You guys are incredibly angry and disgusted over the pederast Bishop of Palm Beach, and cynical about whether the Vatican cares at all. I'll let this, from a parish priest, speak for all of you who have written so far: "The problem with the Church today isn't so much priests as it is the bishops. If the bishops would clean up their act, from the bedroom, to the seminary, to the pulpit, to the altar, the bad priests would be taken care of either by conversion, conviction or laicization. Rome, are you listening? Stop letting the homosexual bishops and their friends pick our new bishops!" Posted 10:29 PM | [Link] DON'T GO THERE [Andrew Stuttaford] Kathryn, one thing to note on that Kristof piece in the New York Times. He included some suicide statistics, something that may not have been too wise for someone trying to make the gun-control case. Mr. Kristof notes that in Japan "there were only 28 gun deaths (murders and suicides combined) in 1999." He later goes on to explain that "it is pointless to deny the link between more handguns and increased murder and suicide." Well, let's just take a closer look at the Japanese suicide statistics They are rather more grisly than Mr. Kristof would have us believe. In fact, over 30,000 Japanese killed themselves in 1999 in one way or another, a slightly higher total than the 29,199 suicides that year in the gun totin' US, a country with a population more than twice the size. Oops. Posted 9:59 PM | [Link] FREE CAREY! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Drew Carey is mad, and with good reason. Earlier this week ABC reportedly threatened to halt production of The Drew Carey Show if changes weren’t made to an episode that was taped yesterday. The problem? Drew and his goofy friends were going to get jobs as airport-security screeners! A network source told the Los Angeles Times that censors were concerned it might be irresponsible to make all airport security look incompetent. But don’t they do that all on their own? Posted 7:04 PM | [Link] BEWARE, THAT CHICK’S ARMED! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] "So while we don't know whether more Americans will be killed by anthrax, we can be quite confident that plenty of us will be killed by these additional handguns.” That’s Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times Friday writing about his trip to Mt. Holyoke College, where coeds have taken up arms, forming a chapter of the Second Amendment Sisters. Posted 6:56 PM | [Link] BISHOP, PART 2: [Rod Dreher] Second, O'Connell was rector of the seminary in Hannibal, Mo., when he entered into this three-year abusive relationship with this kid. This homosexual ephebophile made decisions about who entered the seminary, who taught at it and who graduated from it. Who did this corrupt gatekeeper allow to be ordained -- and who did he keep out? The Rev. Donald Cozzens, in his "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," reports that "roughly 90 percent of priest abusers targeted teenage boys as their victims." This matters. Posted 6:41 PM | [Link] NOW, A BISHOP: [Rod Dreher] Bishop Anthony O'Connell of Palm Beach, Fla., resigned today after admitting that 25 years ago, he molested a teenage Missouri seminarian for three years. This is the second Palm Beach bishop in a row to resign after admitting sex abuse of minors. O'Connell came in after J. Keith Symons, molester of five altar boys, quit in disgrace. A couple of things come to mind, aside from the humiliation and fury Catholics must feel at the vile corruption of our leadership. First, O'Connell was bishop of Knoxville prior to his Palm Beach assignment, and accepted the episcopate knowing what he'd done. The settlement with his Missouri victim was in 1996; surely others in the hierarchy -- St. Louis Archbishop Justin Rigali, perhaps? -- must have known about this at least at the time of the settlement, yet allowed him to remain in the hierarchy. Did they tell Rome? How many people in positions of responsibility knew about this man's past, yet approved him anyway? Posted 6:35 PM | [Link] EQUALITY IN AIRPORT SECURITY [Andrew Stuttaford] John, Just read your post on "Mineta's Finest." This should be no surprise. We have seen from the way that screening is organized that Norman Mineta apparently believes that all people are equally likely to be Islamic terrorists. On the same principle all people are, I suppose, equally suited to work in airport security. Posted 6:10 PM | [Link] HERTZBERG'S SELF-DELUSION II [Ramesh Ponnuru] Hertzberg magnifies Brock’s role in Troopergate by ignoring the fact that the Los Angeles Times released a more careful version of the story simultaneously. Hertzberg writes, “Eventually, almost everything in the story would end up discredited.” Right. Clinton using the prerogatives of high office to facilitate his philandering? Clearly ridiculous. Posted 6:07 PM | [Link] HERTZBERG'S SELF-DELUSION [Ramesh Ponnuru] Hendrik Hertzberg must be the most naďve political journalist alive. His review of David Brock’s new book in The New Yorker takes Brock’s every claim at face value. (He also takes every quote of Grover Norquist that sounds scary to liberals at face value, not realizing that Grover is trying to sound scary to liberals. It’s part of his radical shtick.) Hertzberg believes that the conservative movement can be compared, with a few qualifications, to the American Communist Party. Of all the charges that Brock makes against conservatives, and that liberals use him to make, one is undeniable: A lot of conservatives believed in Brock and what he said because they wanted to believe. Hertzberg is doing the same thing—but, given what we now know about Brock, with less excuse. Posted 6:05 PM | [Link] MINETA'S FINEST [John Derbyshire] There is a news story in today's New York Post about a stickup-hostage situation out here in Long Island. Four bandits held up a Staples store at gunpoint, locked employees in a store-room etc. etc. Fortunately there was no massacre this time; thank to an employee with a cell phone, the bandits were all arrested. So was my attention when I got to this paragraph near the end, describing the background of two of the bandits: "Brown and Grant live together and are security guards at Kennedy Airport, a job for which they had passed background checks, officials said." Posted 4:53 PM | [Link] OOPS [Ramesh Ponnuru] Krugman wrote a good steel column today. I thought his column ran on the weekend. Dumb mistake on my part not to check Posted 4:51 PM | [Link] "WHAT BUSTER WANTS, BUSTER GETS" [Rich Lowry] Sounds like a military doctrine to me! That's how a Pentagon official describes in the Washington Post this morning the attitude toward the U.S. commander in Shanikot, the wonderfully named Army Maj. Gen. Buster Hagenbeck. Posted 4:47 PM | [Link] ONLY IN CALIFORNIA [Rod Dreher] The police and fire departments of Sausalito desperately need new headquarters. The cops have been working out of mobile homes since a 1995 flood. But voters there have nixed the proposed building--in part because they didn't like its feng shui. Posted 4:46 PM | [Link] FREE PRESS [Andrew Stuttaford] Over in the U.K., the Daily Telegraph reports that the controversy over suppression of "pro-American" views in Leftist intellectual circles continues, much of it revolving around the London Review of Books. Now that we know what that magazine will not publish, it is instructive to see again what its editor did think fit to print in the aftermath of 9/11. Here is Mary Beard, a member of Cambridge's classics faculty: "...the United States had it coming...World bullies, even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price." If you want to find out more about Mary Beard, check out the entry on her faculty's website. Ms. Beard is, apparently "a radical interpreter and critic of Roman culture in its widest sense." It is the use of that smug, complacent "radical" that tells you all that you need to know. Posted 4:43 PM | [Link] THOSE BRILLIANT EUROS [Andrew Stuttaford] High taxes and an arrogant bureaucracy are bad for business, not that the EU Commission seems to care. Here is another example of Brussels at work. Posted 4:35 PM | [Link] PURE FICTION [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Speaking of Alec Baldwin, he was supposed to be a stud on Friends last night. Sure. Posted 4:34 PM | [Link] WHY AGAIN IS HE STILL HERE? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Alec Baldwin compares Sept. 11 to Election 2000. Posted 4:31 PM | [Link] DO THEY CARE, TOO? [Andrew Stuttaford] Rod, In your recent post on the possible selection of Mecca as a retaliatory target, you mention, quite correctly, that such step would leave "every Muslim on the planet enraged." Are similar concerns, I wonder, being expressed in the Islamic world? Are there any prominent Muslims calling for restraint in order to avoid "enraging" the West? I would like to think so. Posted 4:30 PM | [Link] SAY IT AIN’T SO! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Sure, it was International Women’s Day in Afghanistan, too on March 8 there, but some women were…wearing burkas. Whatever have we been fighting for? Posted 4:29 PM | [Link] JUST IN CASE YOU FORGOT [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Today is International Women’s Day. For other important dates you may have missed on your calendar, see this chick calendar. Posted 4:26 PM | [Link] IT BEGINS [Jonah Goldberg] While the Moose bleats about us "kennel-fed" conservatives and brays ever-louder about the authenticity of his brand of "conservatism," one of his chief allies is calling it quits and going home to his natural party. Today’s "Washington Wire" in the Wall Street Journal reports that John Weaver, McCain’s top strategist in the 2000 presidential race, has defected to the Democrats. He says the GOP is now the party of "the corporate sky-box elite." (Rich, do you think John McCain’s Global Crossing schmundo was the last straw?) Anyway, I would love to hear the Moose explain this "digitus impudicus" [see below] to his fellow Republicans in his next column. Posted 11:32 AM | [Link] GREAT NEWS! [Jonah Goldberg] The House just passed the stimulus package – immediately after Greenspan says the recovery is "well underway"! Maybe we can declare war on al-Quaeda the day after we execute Bin Laden? Posted 11:31 AM | [Link] CALLING PAUL KRUGMAN [Ramesh Ponnuru] Professional anti-conservatives--e.g., the editors of The New Republic, the Moose when he’s in a bad mood--are making the weird claim that the Right has gone too easy on Bush on steel tariffs. TNR, for example, faults the Wall Street Journal for running only a small editorial against Bush’s decision. Never mind that the lead article on the editorial page the same day was an attack on Bush’s sell-out to what the author called “Big Steal.” Or that the Journal had run a veritable campaign against tariffs in the run-up to the decision. TNR also ignores George Will, who wrote a withering column against the decision and was, last I checked, an important conservative voice. (NR editorializes against the decision in our new issue, too.) . . . Anyway, Virginia Postrel’s post on a similar topic (it's titled "Meta Analysis") raises an interesting question: Where’s Paul Krugman when you need him? He actually knows a thing or two about trade policy. He didn’t write anything on steel during the run-up to Bush’s decision, but maybe he will now. It’ll be one Krugman screed against Bush that I won’t mind. Posted 11:27 AM | [Link] AMENDING BARONE [Ramesh Ponnuru] Michael Barone--who would be hard to dispense with--has a column for U.S. News analyzing two Senate votes from the last decade: one to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, and another to allow limits on campaign spending. Only nine senators, he finds, voted to keep the First Amendment as is. But Barone's conclusions are actually too soft on the Senate. Among his nine First Amendment heroes are Russ Feingold--but Feingold, like John McCain, voted against the campaign-spending amendment because they didn't want to admit that the campaign-finance regulations they want violate the Constitution as is. Others presumably voted against the amendment for the same reason. But voting for an honest amendment would have been better than trying to amend the Constitution by statute. Posted 11:13 AM | [Link] SAID ENOUGH [Stanley Kurtz] These are tough times for Edward Said. His latest piece, out in the Egyptian weekly, Al Ahram, is filled with complaints against America, the war, President Bush, and American intellectuals. (Said really, really likes Congressman Dennis Kucinich, though.) Said spends a lot of time chastising the scholars who signed the recent statement in support of the war sponsored by the Institute for American Values. The main problem with the statement, says Said, is that intellectuals, by definition, ought to oppose “power” (i.e. America), not support it. That sort of definition of “intellectual” amounts to an unbreakable political bias–the opposite of real intelligence. Besides, now that America’s foes are pursuing the great equalizer--weapons of mass destruction--Said might spare a few choice words for the folks pushing to be powerful enough to nuke New York. Posted 11:11 AM | [Link] BACK UP [NRO Staff] Sorry for the long gap in posts. There were some technical problems last night and this morning. We seem to be smooth sailing now. Posted 11:09 AM | [Link] AN OP-ED IS BORN [John J. Miller] My article on vanishing languages appears it today's Wall Street Journal. Loyal readers of The Corner have heard of this before; I posted a short item on it last month. My views haven't really changed, but I know an awful lot more about the issue. Posted 11:08 AM | [Link] RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM WATCH [Rod Dreher] You knew it would come to this. The Massachusetts state attorney general will push for sweeping powers to monitor the Roman Catholic Church's recruitment and training of priests, the Boston Globe reports. The idea is to make sure potential child molesters don't get into the priesthood. What a sick feeling this gives one. There seems hardly any question that such a proposal for state regulation of religion would be flat-out unconstitutional. But the fact that the A.G. feels secure enough to bring something like this up in heavily Catholic Massachusetts tells us how severely the malfeasance of Bernard Cardinal Law and his cronies have damaged the Church. What will it take for Rome to understand that it has to send a new team to Boston at once, to begin rebuilding the Church? Posted 11:05 AM | [Link] DEMS & THE WAR [Stanley Kurtz] Senate Democrats, still smarting from public anger at their criticism of the war, cannot even come to agreement on a simple resolution of support--which they now claim they want to pass. I won’t pretend it isn’t fun to see the Democrats squirm. But deep down it scares me. I know that my life, and literally millions of other American lives, are directly endangered. If the Democrats can’t fall in when things are going so well--before we’ve even entered Iraq--what will happen when the going gets genuinely tough? I said yesterday that the Democrats would find it very difficult to get traction against this war. I believe that, and I think that they are damaging themselves more and more every day that this nonsense continues. Nevertheless, I can’t take lightly the fact of lukewarm Democratic support for a war of American survival. We cannot afford this kind of division. For their own sakes, and for the sake of the country, I hope the Democrats drop this terrible idea of using the war against the president and make their political stand on other issues. Posted 11:03 AM | [Link]
THE VIRGIN SUICIDES [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The real reason I brought up the Playboy virgin story is its roundup: All those religious types are nuts. "To see more of America’s warped notions on the value of virginity, one has only to read an abstinence education textbook." Author James R. Petersen concludes: "When will sex be delivered from the clutches of religion? When will religion embrace sexual equality instead of some ancient notion of male honor?" Posted 7:40 PM | [Link] RICH’S VIRGINS/SKIP IF YOU’VE HEARD THIS ONE ALREADY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] In this month’s Playboy (don’t ask), an article addresses the virgin heaven thing: "Bin Laden wakes up in paradise to find himself surrounded by 72 of the most delectable nymphets in all eternity. With an astonished look, he says to Allah, ‘What do you mean, they have to remain virgins.’" Posted 7:38 PM | [Link] For those who often ask me how a guy who spent so much of his youth reading comic books and watching TV can occasionally sound well-educated, I refer you to the following not untypical email from my Dad: "In cleaning out my desk, I came across an article in the 1983 journal "Medicine & Law," by Ralph Slovenko, Prof. of Law & Psychiatry at Wayne State University, who is also a fountain of esoterica, in which he quoted a Michigan Appeals Court Judge (ruling on whether the use of obscenities in anger - as is the case with deathbed statements - can be an exception to the rules of hearsay), who was a Latinist and said that "the finger" (as exemplified in the famous photo of Nelson Rockefeller confronting a student mob) was called in Roman times "digitus impudicus," and that it was employed by Diogenes as an affront to Demosthenes. I thought you should have this in your repertoire." Posted 5:26 PM | [Link] QUESTIONING AUTHORITY: [Rod Dreher] That 0.3 percent figure for the number of pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood you hear bandied about is an estimate by Fr. Canice Connors, the former president of the St. Luke's Institute, a treatment center for sexually disturbed priests. In Catholic World Report editor Phil Lawler's report on the Boston scandal (no link available), we learn that Fr. Connors had this to say in his 1995 evaluation of serial pedophile Fr. John Geoghan: "[T]here are no particular recommendations concerning his spiritual life since he is involved in spiritual direction and seems to have a good prayer life." Posted 5:10 PM | [Link] ON RETALIATION: [Rod Dreher] It seems to me, Rich, that if an American city is nuked by terrorists, we have no choice but to respond in kind -- or we invite more of the same. But any response is fraught with crippling complications. I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus. As for Mecca, well, it would feel good, but we'd have every Muslim on the planet enraged unto ages of ages, and Rome would be the next target on the terrorist nuke list (ironically, Jerusalem probably has the best chance of surviving because it is sacred to all three monotheistic faiths). It occurs to me that it is insane that we're even having this conversation. It occurs to me that given the events of 9/11, and the determination and capabilities of our enemies, it is even more insane not to. God help us all. Posted 5:01 PM | [Link] QUESTION I, FOLLOW-UP: [Rich Lowry] Lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca. Moderates opt for something more along these lines: “Baghdad and Tehran would be the likeliest sites for a first strike. If we have clean enough bombs to assure a pinpoint damage area, Gaza City and Ramallah would also be on list. Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli and Riyadh should be put on alert that any signs of support for the attacks in their cities will bring immediate annihilation.” Then there are those who think we really can't do too much differently than what were doing now (my original proposition). Posted 4:37 PM | [Link] MORE QUESTION I: [Rich Lowry] This is a tough one, and I don’t know quite what to think. Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal. Religions have suffered such catastrophic setbacks before. As for the Saudis, my only thought is that if we're going to hold them responsible for terrorism, we had better start doing it now, not after an even more catastrophic attack. And, as a general matter, the time for seriousness—including figuring out what we would do in retaliation, so maybe it can have some slight deterrent effect--is now rather than after thousands and thousands more American casualties. Posted 4:36 PM | [Link] QUESTION II, FOLLOW-UP: [Rich Lowry] Of course, this whole “virgin” thing is more complex than I may have portrayed it. I’m told this is a good explanation. Posted 4:35 PM | [Link] QUESTION II, CONT.: [Rich Lowry] Of course, the Onion had a good take. Posted 4:33 PM | [Link] PRAYER: [Rich Lowry] An email: “My favorite prayer was that of Captain Jack Hayes, Texas Rangers, during the Mexican War: `Oh Lord, we are about to join battle with vastly superior numbers of the enemy, and, Heavenly Father, we would like for you to be on our side and help us; but if you can't do it, for Christ's sake don't go over to the enemy, but just lie low and keep dark, and you'll see one of the damndest fights you ever saw in all your born days. Amen.’” Posted 4:31 PM | [Link] CNN & JESSE: [Rod Dreher] Drudge is hyping a CNN memo allegedly telling staffers to be careful reporting on Ken Timmerman's new Jesse Jackson scandal book, because Timmerman is supposedly a right-wing hit man. This wouldn't surprise me if it were true, but in fairness, Timmerman was on "Crossfire" last night, in the second half of the show. Here's the transcript. It's worth reading to observe how some Jesse Jackson hack on the panel embarrassed himself to defend the Holy One. Posted 4:31 PM | [Link] CASE DISMISSED: [Rod Dreher] A Boston judge today dismissed rape charges against pedophile ex-priest John Geoghan, saying the indictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired. Geoghan faces a third criminal trial on child sex-abuse charges. Posted 4:15 PM | [Link] BELTWAY SUCK-UP WATCH: [Rod Dreher] Newt Gingrich writes to the New York Times to say that "American civil society would truly suffer a loss" if ABC cancels "Nightline." Apres Ted, le deluge? Please. Look, I watch "Nightline" more nights than most, and would hate to see it go. But it's hard to deny that the program's reason for being has largely evaporated, owing to the omnipresence of cable news. Do we really have to pretend that losing "Nightline" would be a sucker-punch to the body politic? What's next, Tom Daschle opining in the Post that if ABC shows Koppel the door, the terrorists will have won? Posted 4:10 PM | [Link] NOT BUYING [Stanley Kurtz] Voluntary veiling as the Stockholm syndrome? Personally, Andrew, I don’t buy it. My take on veiling can be found in the pieces linked to my post earlier today. Of course, the argument from false consciousness is what Catherine MacKinnon and her friends invoke to explain why so many American women reject feminist dictates. Westerners are perfectly free to criticize female circumcision. What worries me is that our entirely justified anger at the Muslim world may be pushing us toward a massive, unworkable, and counterproductive plan of social engineering, after our victory is complete. I think we need to balance righteous anger and firmness of purpose with wisdom and caution about the limits of our ability to transform the Muslim world. The fact that the mainstream media so badly bungled their account of veiling--essentially by constructing a feminist fairy tale--is a warning sign. We’re prone to speak and act too soon on the problems of Muslim society, without first understanding what they really are. Posted 3:00 PM | [Link] RE: PRIESTS VS. HIERARCHY: [Rod Dreher] (K-Lo, he started it!) Interesting insight your correspondent had, Derb. I'd say it's generally true that believing Catholics adore the Pope, but don't care much for their priest, and even less for their bishop. But it's easy to overgeneralize about this (I, for one, love my parish priest -- but he's the first one in my nine years as a Catholic). To the contrary, though, there's that current case of the smalltown parish in Maine whose priest had to admit recently that years earlier, he'd "transgressed the personal boundaries of" a teenage boy, or somesuch psychobabble. The parish has to vote on whether to keep him, and it sounds like they're going to stick by the guy. If gay priests (those that reject Rome's teaching on both celibacy and sexuality, I mean) take up Andrew Sullivan's call to out themselves and challenge their parishioners to back them, I'd wager many more parishes would stick by Father Flapdoodle than not, if only because Catholicism in America has generally become Oprah-fied. It's pretty much about "spirituality" and feeling good about yourself, I'm afraid. Posted 2:30 PM | [Link] GOVERNING CHINA [John Derbyshire] China's parliament is in session. For a glimpse of the stress and responsibility involved in being a legislator for 1.3 billion people, see this. Posted 2:25 PM | [Link] HANDLING THE GITMO GUYS [Andrew Stuttaford] In a recent piece, Rich Lowry referred to reports that the U.S. might release some of the Guantanamo prisoners. This is not something that should be on anyone's agenda. The exact legal status of the Camp X-Ray inmates continues, of course, to be debated, but, for practical purposes, they are either POWs, war criminals, or both. POWs should be freed at the end of a war, not before. Those in Guantanamo who only fall into that (relatively benign) category should therefore expect their release when the jihad against the West is called off. Call it an incentive. Freeing those prisoners who are judged to be war criminals is, of course, an entirely different question, and one that should not be asked for many, many decades, if ever. Posted 2:15 PM | [Link] KUDOS TO KEEFER [Ramesh Ponnuru] After I posted an item criticizing a reference to me in a Spinsanity.org post by Bryan Keefer, Keefer reread his piece, concluded the reference had taken my words out of context, corrected it, and apologized. Awfully gracious of him. I should also note that when I said that Spinsanity tilted mildly to the Left, I did not mean to imply that they ignore deceptive spin from liberals and Democrats--they have run several excellent pieces that debunk such spin. Now if I could just get them to spell my first name right. . . Posted 1:39 PM | [Link] PRIESTS VS. HIERARCHY [John Derbyshire] In a recent post (it's the sixth item here) I worried about what will happen if my pastor (Episcopalian) moves on--who would we get as a replacement? I noted: "The Episcopalian church at large ... is in a sorry state, the playground of all kinds of cranks, freaks, and ideologues." A reader e-mailed in to say that in fact the Catholic church was in the opposite state to the Episcopalian. We Episcopalians, she noted, mainly detest our faddish hierarchy but are devoted to our pastors (as I am to mine). Catholics, far more often, love the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger etc., but can't stand Father Flapdoodle down at the local St. Pat's. Posted 1:25 PM | [Link] YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE: [NRO Staff] Lately we've been getting reports of painfully slow load times for NRO pages, which we believe is due to a faulty connection to our web host. If you are experiencing this, your help in notifying us would be appreciated. Please e-mail abailey@nationalreview.com. If you have no idea what this post means, don't give it another thought. Posted 12:48 PM | [Link] WE WERE SOLDIERS: [Rich Lowry] Saw it last night. Wouldn't exactly recommend it. It is always straining for that "big movie moment," so is almost always cliched and sometimes ridiculous. Plus, it's just too graphically violent --there are things in it that no one should want to see. Posted 12:42 PM | [Link] ON THE OTHER HAND...: [Rich Lowry] It's refreshing to have a Vietnam movie without Jim Morrison on the soundtrack, and one that doesn't run down the war as a hopeless, ignoble waste. The battle scenes are gripping. Watching the Huey helicopters do their thing is fascinating. And the movie includes the most positive depictions of prayer you'll ever see from Hollywood. A sample from the Mel Gibson/Hal Moore character: "And, oh Lord? As for our enemy, please ignore their heathen prayers and let us blast those bastards all to hell." Posted 12:40 PM | [Link] SO, IN SUM...: [Rich Lowry] ... I prefer Black Hawk Down, although Stephen Hunter, the brilliant, brilliant reviewer for the Washington Post may have it right about We Were Soldiers: "It may be something like the worst great war movie ever made." Posted 12:39 PM | [Link] QUESTION I: [Rich Lowry] Had interesting discussion with fellow NRO-nik Andrew Stuttafford last night. Here's the question: How would the U.S. respond if al Qaeda succeeded in detonating a nuke in a major American city? This is the disturbing thing: I'm not really sure what we could do any differently from what we're doing now. What would we do? Nuke Riyadh? Baghdad? A real conundrum--let me know if you have any bright ideas about it... Posted 12:32 PM | [Link] QUESTION II: [Rich Lowry] Here's a real ignorant one: What are those 72 virgins (or white raisins) that suicide bombers supposedly enjoy in heaven? Do they have souls? Are they just special one-time creations by God for this purpose? Do they stay virgins even after suicide bombers have their way with them? Or do they become non-virgins and subsequently get provided for the enjoyment of Muslims who don't blow themselves up? And, why is heaven about sex? It seems weird to live a pure life here on earth so you can party like R. Kelly in heaven. And, isn't all of this just clearly theologically sophomoric? A little like telling Jonah that if he does something we want him to do, he'll be provided with 50,000 cases of Bud and an eternity's worth of pepperoni sticks in heaven? Just wondering... Posted 12:31 PM | [Link] THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE [Andrew Stuttaford] Stanley is, of course, quite correct to say that many Muslim women are not pining to tear off their veils. That raises interesting questions as to when piety ends and the Stockholm syndrome begins, but it is, obviously, entirely up to these ladies to decide what they want to wear. Of itself, however, this should not be enough to end debate on this question. To take an extreme, but not entirely unrelated, case, should we in the West refrain from criticizing traditional female genital mutilation in sub-Saharan Africa merely because the practice appears to have some support among women in that region? Posted 11:19 AM | [Link] WINNING STRATS [Dave Kopel] One of the very best sources for military news and analysis is the StrategyPage. Wednesday's issue featured a very detailed description of the battle of Gardez, as well as a look at the weapon that is transforming land warfare as profoundly as did tanks and machine-guns. It's the one-ton high-explosive smart bomb, used with great effect by our Air Force on entrenched Taliban. The Air Force bombs take over the ground-bombardment function once performed by battleships firing 16-inch artillery. It turns out that the bombs, when dropped from a plane rather than fired through an artillery barrel, need a lot less metal to hold them together. They are also vastly more accurate than battleship guns ever were. Never in the history of warfare has a weapon as powerful as the one-ton bomb been usable with the precision necessary for close air support of friendly ground troops. Our advanced, free, and innovative civilization happens to be the only one on this with such a weapon. Things aren't looking good for the dark ages terrorists. Posted 11:18 AM | [Link] BRAND NAMES [Dave Kopel] Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin are almost certainly telling the truth when they say that their plagiarism was unintentional. But, explains Rocky Mountain News columnist Paul Campos, this fact is the key to the phoniness of books bearing those authors' names. Campos writes: "Any halfway serious writer is no more likely to mistake somebody else's prose for his own than he is to confuse somebody else's children for those he has raised himself. Thus, unintentional plagiarism is likely to arise in one particular situation: When the supposed 'author' of the text in question is to a significant extent the author in name only." In other words, it appears that Ambrose and Goodwin, like the late James Minchner, are not really complete authors, but rather consolidators of work performed by research assistants, which is then published under the name of the so-called "author." Back in 5th grade, one of my classmates refused to believe the English teacher who claimed that some of the "Mickey Spillane" detective books were not actually written by Mr. Spillane. Have serious historians descended to the level of becoming brand names for the work of others? Posted 11:16 AM | [Link] ˇVIVA LAS VEGAS! [Jonah Goldberg] It looks like I’m heading to Nevada next week to work on two stories. The first is that big hole in the ground they want to put all that glow-in-the-dark-stuff into. I think they call the place Yucky mountain. As you can see, I need to do more research. The second is an article I’d like to do on Las Vegas abandoning it’s "family-friendly" policy and going back to its sin-city ways. This is a difficult story for a happily married man to cover, but I think I’m up to the task. If anybody has specific recommendations of places I should go, people I should see, things I should read, shots I should get (just kidding honey), please let me know. Posted 9:42 AM | [Link] TRAGIC TRUTH [Kathryn J. Lopez] Babies conceived through in vitro fertilization have twice the risk of often-times fatal birth and health problems according to a new study in the latest New England Journal of Medicine. Posted 9:39 AM | [Link] UNVEILING THE TRUTH [Stanley Kurtz] Maybe mainstream news organizations are finally beginning to understand that most Muslim women are not pining to tear off their veils. Check out this report from ABC News. For more on the veil, consult my first foray into the topic, and my follow-up. Posted 8:55 AM | [Link] NOT ONLY EVIL, BUT STUPID TOO: [Rod Dreher] Here's a wonderful story about a U.S. Army captain who taught smarty-pants al-Qaeda fighters a lesson they won't soon forget ... because they're dead. Posted 8:39 AM | [Link] PLAY'S THE THING: [John J. Miller] My wife and I went to a production of The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster at the Shakespeare Theater last night. Webster was a contemporary of Shakespeare's and is generally ranked at the top of the second tier of great English dramatists. I don't think I've ever seen a higher body count in a single play; just about everybody gets knocked off in this dark tragedy. Now I know why T.S. Eliot said Webster "saw the skull beneath the skin." (It's also the bawdiest tragedy I've ever seen--those Elizabethans were a randy lot.) One of the pleasures of going to the Shakespeare Theater is the audience reaction whenever someone on stage makes a crack about politicians or lawyers. My favorite from last night: "Places in the court are but like bed in the hospital, where this man's head lies at that man's foot, and so lower and lower." Posted 8:08 AM | [Link] A TOUCH OF EVIL: [Rod Dreher] Here's a shocking confession by an ephebophile who helps run a (non-pornographic) website called "Christian Boylovers Forum." Don't worry, this essay is not sexually graphic at all, but is nevertheless an astoundingly creepy document in which a teacher at a conservative Christian school pseudonymously justifies his sick desires as holy and compassionate. Part of what's so unnerving about this piece is how close this perv has gotten to children in a religious setting, and how unsuspecting the Christians who run his school apparently are. Posted 7:46 AM | [Link] A WORD ABOUT RAY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] What NRO contributing editor Mark Levin said in a USA Today op-ed over a year ago about Robert Ray’s handing of the investigation of the Clinton administration holds true today, now that we have Ray’s final report: Ray failed the country.” Levin wrote: In his own statement, Ray said: "I took an oath of office to conclude this investigation in a prompt, responsible and cost-effective manner." Wrong. He swore to defend the Constitution and uphold the law. Ray did neither. Posted 7:36 AM | [Link] KATE, MAKE SURE YOUR WOMEN PAY THEIR BILLS [Kathryn J. Lopez] When the United Nations Development Fund for Women forgot to pay their domain bill, their website was taken over by porn. Posted 6:33 AM | [Link] NEEDING TRANSLATION [John Derbyshire] Can anybody tell me why the Cuban newspaper has the name "Granma"? I'm guessing this is not the Spanish for "grandma"; but then what is it the Spanish for? My Collins Pocket Dictionary of Spanish has no entry between "granjeria" (advantage, profit) and "grano" (corn, pimple). Posted 5:39 AM | [Link] UNANSWERED QUESTION [Richard Brookhiser] So DC mayor Anthony Williams will guarantee a "safe environment" for the heavyweight championship prize fight. Who is going to fight Lennox Lewis then? Posted 5:28 AM | [Link] AHEM [Kathryn J. Lopez] The prime directive from the NRO Corner Authority is that the words "prime directive" better never appear here again. Posted 5:28 AM | [Link]
AU CONTRAIRE ANDREW [Jonah Goldberg] Andrew – Very interesting that you don’t like the Prime Directive, and that you claim conservative principles as your guide. I would argue that the Prime Directive is a very conservative institution. It encapsulates the law of unintended consequences perfectly, defying the liberal faith that we can draw straight-line projections from our actions. There’s a very Jeffersonian skepticism toward our ability to "fix," or even fully understand, other cultures at the core of the PD. That said, I agree with you that it shouldn’t be an immutable law. Kirk obeyed the Prime Directive, presumably, on many occasions. But he did not make it into a pair of ideological handcuffs. Rather, when circumstances called for it, he broke one an abstract rule in order to ensure a concrete moral outcome. Sometimes one must recognize that the Prime Directive is a ass, to paraphrase Dickens. This is the very heart of conservatism, properly understood; the practice of "muddling through," as Disraeli noted. So let’s downgrade the Prime Directive to simply one of many directives and leave it there. Posted 5:59 PM | [Link] LOGROLLING IN OUR TIME: [Rod Dreher] Ya gots to read the G-File today. Jonah describes the Arab countries as "undemocratic stagnating cultures led by tyrants who drink daily from a heady cocktail of brutality, corruption and crapulence." Now that's punditry, boyo. Posted 5:54 PM | [Link] WILL HE EVER GO AWAY? [John J. Miller] Jonah, maybe you should think twice about buying a home in the District. Former mayor Marion Barry says he's running for city council. Posted 5:45 PM | [Link] BATTLE LINES, FINAL: [Rod Dreher] What to make of all this? First of all, Andrew Sullivan is brilliant and persuasive on many things, and in my view a good man. But he will never be able to square active homosexuality with Catholic moral teaching. Furthermore, the idea that the Catholic hierarchy is deliberately putting out this story is absurd. Frustrated orthodox Catholic priests have been telling me for years how unwilling see-no-evil bishops are to challenge the gay subculture that runs many archdioceses -- and how they themselves don't dare speak out, for fear of being ruined. We have solid evidence that many seminaries systematically exclude candidates who don't favor women priests or accept homosexuality as legitimate. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that some seminaries are not much better than gay brothels. I've talked to enough priests personally to know that the problem is large, and undeniable. And I hear every day from faithful Catholics who are confused and angry about parish life. Just today, a New York cop friend told me he walked out of his parish with his family this weekend because the swishy priest kept talking about "God, Our Lover." Andrew is upset about this because he wants an American Church that will approve of gay marriage and the like, as he does; others of us are upset because we want an American Church that will be authentically Catholic. I can agree with Andrew on this statement, though: "This is a watershed moment." Yes, absolutely. It is time for an end to secrecy and cowardice on all sides. Gay priests should come out, and so should priests who are opposed to their agenda, and the laity should face the truth squarely. This has to get settled. The lies, denials and cover-ups are ruining us all. Posted 5:25 PM | [Link] BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN, II: [Rod Dreher] Enter Andrew Sullivan, who cracked hard on this issue in his blogging today. Andrew, who is a sexually active gay man and a churchgoing Catholic, has written angrily about this issue. He says the Herald column is part of a "deliberate" strategy by the Church to smear gay priests to distract from the bishops' own failure to protect children from predators. He decried papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls' weekend comments saying that gays should not be ordained, and questioning the validity of holy orders taken by gay men (a foolish statement for Navarro-Valls to have made, by the way, and not representative of the Church's teaching on the priesthood). Andrew writes, "A civil war could soon break out in the American priesthood," and calls on gay priests to come out to their congregations, and for "decent American Catholics" to back their priests against the hierarchy. "This is a watershed moment," Andrew writes. Posted 5:01 PM | [Link] BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN, PART I: [Rod Dreher] I promised K-Lo I'd try to go a day without blogging something about pederasty and the priesthood, but attention must be paid. There was a tremendously important column in today's Boston Herald, in which an anonymous Boston priest characterized the clerical pederasty problem as primarily one of gays in the priesthood. You should read the whole thing, but in brief, the priest says (accurately) that very few of these cases have to do with pedophilia, which is a compulsive sexual attraction to children. They are almost all cases of ephebophilia, which is sexual attraction to adolescents -- and almost exclusively a gay male phenomenon. The distinction is crucial because it brings up a big problem with active gays in the Catholic priesthood -- and this, says the priest, is something the bishops are keen to ignore. This priest complained about the gay subculture in clerical ranks, especially in seminaries, and said straight priests loyal to Church teaching are sick of being tarred with their taint, and are considering taking a public stand against them. Posted 4:40 PM | [Link] KIRKIAN PRINCIPLES [Andrew Stuttaford] As Kirk once said, "Prime Directive? What Prime Directive?" The Prime Directive is only of interest as a prime example--of Western moral relativism and post-colonial guilt. The Corner should have nothing to do with it. Conservatives would do better to study the wise teachings set out in the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Posted 3:47 PM | [Link] A CLASSIC [John Derbyshire] This is from last May, and I'm wondering how I missed it. The title of the piece is: "Toward a Gay Foreign Policy," and the author is not kidding. Posted 3:36 PM | [Link] GOOD QUESTION [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Just why is Alec Baldwin still in the U.S.? Jeb Bush asks. Posted 3:23 PM | [Link] FUNNY MONEY [Melissa Seckora] A follow-up on a post from yesterday: Michael Bellesiles was awarded his $30,000 grant from the Newberry Library in March 2001 for the current academic year. A panel of Newberry-selected scholars chose Bellesiles for the taxpayer-funded grant (from the National Endowment for the Humanities). According to a Newberry spokesman there are no plans to revoke the award: "It's too late, you can't revoke a grant in the middle. And there's no decision from Emory." It’s not too late, however, to be more selective when giving out federal cash. Posted 3:16 PM | [Link] JUSTICE UNCLE TOM, AGAIN [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The law school at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is hosting Clarence Thomas today. So, of course, all the black professors on the faculty (5 of 33) are boycotting. In a letter explaining their protest they wrote: “He not only engages in acts that harm other African-Americans like himself, but also gives aid, comfort, and racial legitimacy to acts and doctrines of others that harm African-Americans unlike himself--that is, those who have not yet reaped the benefits of civil rights laws, including affirmative action, and who have not yet received the benefits of the white-conservative sponsorships that now empower him." Although Justices Scalia and O’Connor have recently spoke at the school, there was, of course, no similar protest for either. Thomas, after all, "is not just another Supreme Court justice with whom we disagree." Thomas dares to be conservative while black. Posted 2:44 PM | [Link] POINTERS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Jonah, dear. If you really want to drive me to drink, make it Star Wars next time so Rich can misunderstand and go on endlessly about missile defense, too. Remind us that there is a pedophile priest and a Moose in the Ewok village, and I'll just send you the tab. Posted 2:09 PM | [Link] RAYMOND KEATING RESPONDS [Jonah Goldberg] I appreciate Jonah Goldberg’s comments on my "Star Trek and Moral Clarity" article for TechCentralStation.com. After all, I think it is safe to say that Mr. Goldberg sits on the High Command of conservative Trek experts (though a small body, no doubt). However, I would like to point out that as a conservative myself, I understand the shortfalls of human nature, and therefore do not expect moral clarity from mankind at all times—or unfortunately anything close to such frequency. But to point out and critique where moral idiocy takes hold—as was the case in the "Enterprise" episode I highlighted—is a very appropriate thing to do from a conservative perspective. Posted 12:07 PM | [Link] DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR AL QAEDA? [Andrew Stuttaford] The Navy SEAL who fell from his helicopter during the recent fighting in Afghanistan apparently survived his fall only to be captured by al Qaeda. He was, reportedly, then murdered. No word yet on whether the U.N., the EU, Human Rights Watch, etc. will be investigating al Qaeda's treatment of its prisoners, but I'm not holding my breath. Posted 11:33 AM | [Link] BLOGGING REVOLUTION [Stanley Kurtz] Any college students out there in blogland? Here’s an idea. Two important scandals at Berkeley have just drawn national attention, at least in the conservative press--the male-sexuality course featuring live (possibly gay) sex and a party game with genital photographs, and the theft of a campus conservative paper (probably because of a story exposing reverse racism by a college Hispanic organization). I’ve written on both scandals here on The Corner, and thereby played some small roll in spreading the story, but it’s really Kevin Deenihan’s CalStuff blog that enabled the rest of us to spread the story. What if we had at least one good conservative blog at every college that now has a campus conservative newspaper? Right now, there are a tremendous number of PC outrages on campuses across the country that no one ever finds out about. It’s increasingly clear that one of the best things about the Internet is the end-run it allows us to make around the iron control of the liberal media. With conservative blogs on campuses across the country able to link quickly to national blogs and to campus newspapers alike, we could break through the barrier of politically correct campus censorship and rapidly expose any number of scandals. The general public would quickly start to act as a counterweight to the campus Left. Look at Berkeley. As a result of all the blogging, the campus conservative paper has collected thousands of dollars in contributions, reprinted its stolen press run, and spread knowledge of reverse racism on campus nationally. Let a hundred bloggers bloom! Posted 11:32 AM | [Link] P.C. ARMY DEFEATED [Roger Clegg] On Monday this week, District of Columbia federal trial judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that the Army’s officer promotion policy unconstitutionally discriminates against white males in favor of minorities and women. The Justice Department and Army attorneys are now deciding whether to appeal. Here’s hoping they decide instead to follow Judge Lamberth’s careful opinion. While the military is often cited as an affirmative-action success story, this week’s ruling documents beyond any doubt that the Army gives minorities and women preferential treatment, and that it has no persuasive justification for such discrimination. (A 1998 study published by the Center for Equal Opportunity had shown racial discrimination in the admission policies at West Point and Annapolis.) Judge Lamberth’s decision is important because employment preferences have received relatively little attention lately—in comparison to discrimination in university admissions, government contracting, and voter redistricting—but are equally untenable, and because if there is any institution in which personnel decisions must be based on ability to get the job done and not political correctness, it’s the military. Posted 11:31 AM | [Link] MORE TREK [Jonah] An excerpt from another reader's email seems to clear the air: "...In the episode in question, the dominant intelligent species on a planet is dying out as a result of natural processes and a less-advanced intelligent species looks like it will eventually take their place. Captain Archer is orginally in favor of assisting the dominant species with genetic modifications to prevent their extinction, but the ships (alien) doctor persuades him otherwise by observing "It is fortunate for you that no alien race came along 35,000 years ago to give the Neanderthals a genetic advantage". The Captain then decides that 'we are not out here to play God'." Oh, and by the way. Yes, I am posting this Trek stuff because I know it will annoy Kathryn to no end. Posted 11:25 AM | [Link] MAYBE I WAS RIGHT [Jonah Goldberg] Several trekkies and trekkers have written me to say that that episode of Enterprise was a plot device for the Prime Directive. Here's the best comment so far: "The episode of Enterprise you mentioned was a set up for the creation of the Prime Directive so often adhered to by Picard in the later series. The desire to not interfere was not to protect "evolution", but due to fear that intervention (by giving the medicine to the ailing aliens) could in fact cause more damage than it solved. Archer actually said a hackneyed version of the Prime Directive at the end (he may have even called it by name) - in the end, that was the whole purpose of this episode. Thus, I think your comments about mankind learning from its mistakes in this series are probably right on." Posted 11:19 AM | [Link] NAPOLEONIC WARS: [John J. Miller] A year and a half ago, I wrote one of the first stories on the controversy over Patrick Tierney's discredited book Darkness in El Dorado, plus a follow-up. Tierney tried to portray the celebrated anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon as a fraud and a murderer; the book received enormous attention, including an excerpt in The New Yorker. (At least Dirt Bike had the good sense to ignore it.) Tierney has since been battered by accusations (from me and many others) of sloppiness, deception, and score settling. I'm happy to report that the discrediting continues, with the latest broadside coming from Northwestern University professor Bill Irons, who shows how Tierney completely misrepresents a story about Chagnon's dogs. Posted 11:10 AM | [Link] RE: HARDBALL FIREWORKS: [Rod Dreher] Hey, Rich, I have been to Israel and the West Bank, and I agree with you. There's nothing like listening to educated Palestinians tell you that the Holocaust never happened, or that it was a minor thing compared to what the Israelis are doing to them, to educate naive Americans on the intractable psychological realities of the Middle East. I will never, ever forget the American clergyman who had been serving Palestinian communities for a decade, and who told me he'll never get the Arab mindset. He said it's driven by conspiracy theory, and the utter conviction that everything bad that happens to Arabs is somebody else's fault (usually that of Jews and Americans). The current conspiracy theory in his parish was that Arafat is secretly a Jew, he said, because at the time Arafat was saying nice things about the Israelis. "Next week they'll believe something entirely different, with equal fervor," the clergyman said. "Arafat and his mafia are robbing these people blind, and they refuse to see it." Posted 10:58 AM | [Link] HARDBALL FIREWORKS: [Rich Lowry] Had an acrimonious exchange with Chris Matthews last night. We were discussing why the Arabs hate America. Chris thinks it’s our failure to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace. I think it goes much deeper. I was trying to explain this, when Chris started badgering me at the end about whether I had ever visited the Middle East (I haven’t, and don’t think the Saudis in particular will be inviting me any time soon). This was a rather cheap form of argument, to say the least, especially considering that Chris’s producers had invited me on without ascertaining whether I had been to Egypt or Syria lately. Anyway, if you thought that was fun, you should have heard the off-air shouting match afterwards! Thanks for the all the nice e-mails, and, as usual, for the hate mail: “I assume you are Jewish. The National Review suffers because of idiots like you.” Posted 10:43 AM | [Link] JONAH'S BIRTHDAY CONTEST [Kathryn Jean Lopez] So today's Jonah's birthday. Happy birthday! (Click here for fireworks.) This is so typical for an online operation: While Jonah and I see each other in person maybe twice a year at most, I typically communicate with him more than I do with most of the folks sitting near me at NR World Headquarters. Which, as you might imagine, is a riot and an honor. So I need your help. I never plan ahead, so haven't gotten the G-Man a gift. Any cyber, NRO-cool ideas are welcome—just so long as I do not have to leave my desk or spend money (but you of course should feel free to spend money on a NR subscription. Click here to get the magazine Jonah Goldberg calls his "favorite." All subscriptions filed today will earn Jonah brownie points with "the suits.") We’ll announce the winning suggestion later today. Posted 10:42 AM | [Link] COUNTING THE NEOCONS [Jonah Goldberg] NR alum Neil Seeman has a nice piece on the "neoconservative conspiracy" on NRO today. Some friends of mine and I have been chuckling about this topic for years. Here’s my basic theory. Any non-liberal who lefties feel compelled to take seriously are called "neoconservatives." If you read the academic press, virtually everyone from old-fashioned liberals on rightward are called "neoconservatives." There are at least three reasons for this. First, lefties consider it a barbaric and vicious insult to call someone a "conservative," so they add the "neo" to soften the blow. Second, for similar reasons, the Lefties could never admit they took an actual conservative seriously. If someone to their right is intelligent or incisive, they must be a neoconservative, because plain old conservatives eat babies and lynch black people. Third, these lefties have no idea what the word means. Now, as for those on the right, they have a completely different approach. But one thing is clear: they think any conservative taken seriously by liberals must be corrupted and inauthentic and therefore must be a "neoconservative." What’s funny about all this is that the actual Ur-neocons don’t think anybody beyond their immediate and tiny circle qualify as neocons. This can all get very silly, but the simple truth is that the word is almost meaningless today. Some people think Neocons are just foreign policy hawks. Others think they’re sociologists with an eye toward realism. Some use the term to describe any ex-liberal. While others think they’re Jewish conservatives. And some just think they’re four or five guys from City College. And all of them are right. Posted 10:40 AM | [Link] DEAD MEN, LIVING CAUSE: [John J. Miller] Nobody likes to see American soldiers lose their lives, but Ralph Peters makes the important point that casualties mean the military is doing its job. During the Clinton years, of course, the military often wasn't allowed to do its job, and our enemies knew it. A friend has sent me the text of a speech Osama bin Laden gave in 1996: "When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat, and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. ... The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear." The best way to honor the people lowered into patriot graves is to continuing fighting their cause. Posted 10:10 AM | [Link] STAR TREK STUFF [Jonah Goldberg] Interesting piece by Raymond Keating on the moral myopia of the new Star Trek series, "Enterprise." I didn't see the episode he’s denouncing, but apparently the Captain of the Enterprise recently allowed a bunch of humanoids to die because evolution would create a better race down the road. Sounds repugnant enough. But I would offer one point (which I doubt occurred to the producers themselves, so I am not trying to absolve them). It seems to me that the new Enterprise series, taking place during the infancy of humanity’s space-exploration of the galaxy, is supposed to show humans making mistakes. That’s one reason Picard is such a goody-goody; he represents the accumulated wisdom of humanity's Hayekian trial-and-error. And, that’s why the Vulcans are so paternalistic in Enterprise. Keating wants humanity to have "moral clarity" at every stage of development – something we know to be an unrealistic -- and un-conservative -- demand. If the producers were planning on making this Archer’s decision a moral outrage down the road, I’d be impressed. But I’m not holding my breath. Posted 10:03 AM | [Link] MEDIA NONSENSE [Stanley Kurtz] Here’s a ridiculous take on the media-bias question from that paragon of objectivity, PBS. The Nightly News Hour hired Andrew Tyndall, a professional television-news monitor, to examine the content of CNN, FOX NEWS, and MSNBC. According to Tyndall, Fox is biased because Brit Hume’s panel of experts has three members from “explicitly right-wing publications” and three from “mainstream publications,” but none from “explicitly left-wing publications.” I see. Juan Williams and Mara Liason are objective mainstream journalists. Kinda like Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, I guess. Funny thing is, I’ve actually seen criticisms of O’Reilly for putting on “explicitly left-wing” guests, instead of more reasonable “mainstream” liberals, just to make the Left look bad. So FOX can’t win. The real problem is the media’s inability to acknowledge the fact that “mainstream” journalists are in fact liberal. Hume’s panels are vastly more “fair and balanced” than his accusers at PBS. Posted 9:23 AM | [Link] JUST DREAMING [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The DACOWITS firings are wonderful news. But why can’t we just ditch the whole thing? Doesn’t it continue to say to women in the military that they are second-class citizens by having this special-needs committee? Posted 7:50 AM | [Link] BYE-BYE DACOWITS [Stanley Kurtz] With a major assist from the war itself, the Bush administration has finally shown the courage to face down screaming feminists that previous presidencies (including his father’s) could not. Check out this detailed account of the gutting of DACOWITS, the Pentagon office that’s been undermining our military readiness in the name of feminist social engineering, for years. This is an epic moment of failure in the feminist quest for androgyny. And in this war setting, I doubt that feminists will be able mount a significant protest. If they do, it will probably only hurt them and help Bush. There is no doubt that from the lionization of our heroic firemen (“firefighters” has been losing ground) to the use of special forces and marine troops (who train without women and maintain traditional standards) this war has been a disaster for feminism. Hey, not only have the Bushies stood athwart history and yelled, “Stop!” they’ve committed the greatest feminist sin of all: “turning back the clock.” For once, it just might be giving honest time. Posted 7:49 AM | [Link] SPINSANITY [Ramesh Ponnuru] While we’re on the subject of the legitimacy of criticism and counter-criticism, I may as well comment on Spinsanity, a website that claims to expose manipulative rhetoric, slippery arguments, and deception in public debate. Much of the time they do this job well, albeit with a mildly left-wing spin of their own (it’s no surprise that Salon has made Spinsanity posts a regular feature). But on the topic of wartime dissent they’ve indulged in some manipulation of their own. Compare this article of mine to Bryan Keefer’s characterization of it midway through this Spinsanity piece. Posted 7:02 AM | [Link] DOUBLE STANDARDS [Ramesh Ponnuru] For that matter, why is it perfectly fine for the Democrats to express differences of opinion with the administration on the war but terrible for Republicans to say that their differences will be an issue in the fall elections? If Democrats can criticize the administration, surely Republicans can respond. True, this may inhibit Democrats since the vast majority of Americans are likely to side with the GOP. But there’s no rule of political propriety that says you can’t speak your mind just because your position is popular. Posted 7:00 AM | [Link] PATRIOT GAMES [Ramesh Ponnuru] Republicans are being too hard on Tom Daschle: On that, all the liberal pundits and, of course, Daschle himself are in agreement. They protest bitterly that Republicans should not be questioning Daschle’s patriotism. They say Daschle’s words are being distorted to suggest that he criticized the president when he did no such thing. Let’s assume they’re right about that last point. Aren’t they guilty of some distortion of their own in their characterization of what Republicans have said? I haven’t heard any Republican question Daschle’s patriotism. Yet here are the first words of Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s report in the New York Times: “With Republicans accusing him of being unpatriotic, Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, renewed his questions today. . .” There are no quotes in the article to support that characterization. Posted 7:00 AM | [Link] CLONE THE SWEDES [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Christopher Reeve testified on Capitol Hill yesterday on cloning. He argued in favor of so-called therapeutic cloning, arguing that to ban it would be to fall behind to countries like Sweden, Israel and England, who are moving ahead with the research. He said, "They are not rogue nations." Of course, it is precisely because so many think it’s ok that in needs to be banned, and quickly. Posted 5:53 AM | [Link] AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL [Kathryn Jean Lopez] There's something satisfying about seeing a guy who thinks he is above us all here in civil society just plain lose. And the primary results for Gary Condit didn't come in close, either. Sweet. Posted 5:40 AM | [Link] SERIOUSLY, THOUGH [Kathryn Jean Lopez] There are huge pro | ||||||||||||||||||||
<% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>