 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
THE RIGHT [Jonah Goldberg] I'm getting some irate email from people about my Hitchens post. I can understand. But let me just be very clear about how big a place I consider the Right. It's brimming with all sorts of people who aren't, technically speaking, conservatives. There are Postrellian dynamists and Randian atheists and squishy Republican moderates. There are Scoop Jackson Democrats and all manner of cynics. There are more than a dozen flavors of libertarian, though perhaps not all 31 flavors residing in one quarter or another of the RIght. Again, I agree that Hitchens has little place on the Right in terms of economics, but I think lots of people who are currently considered Rightists or even authentic conservatives shouldn't be considered either if you went just by their economic views. But, again, I can't remember the last time Hitchens wrote about economics. Posted 10:06 PM | [Link] CONNECT THE NUCLEAR DOTS [Jonah Goldberg] Turkish athorities intercepted 33 pounds of weapons grade uranium about 155 miles from the Iraqi border! Now, we are constantly being told that the US government, George Bush, the CIA etc screwed up by not connecting the dots leading to September 11. But the same people say there aren't enough dots for us to conclude Saddam needs toppling. Well, good God, connect this dot people. Prediction: some bozo will declare that since this uranium has been intercepted, we know that Saddam still doesn't have any and so that proves we don't need to get rid of him. Posted 12:53 PM | [Link] RIGHT TURNS ONLY [Jonah Goldberg] Andrew, I do hear what you’re saying. However, let me make the contrary case. When Chambers called himself "a man of the Right" he invoked what he called the Beaconsfield position. This was, as I’m sure you know, a reference to Disraeli’s understanding of conservatism as a means of "muddling through." The philosophical upshot of the Beaconsfield position is that times change and conservatives must deal with the reality we live with rather than the reality we imagine could be. I don’t entirely agree with the Beaconsfield position (which makes sense as I call myself a conservative), but it’s essential point is that technology and the material and social desires of a given community evolve in ways that make doctrinaire conservatism very difficult. Anyway, as I see it Hitchens has been muddling through so much he’s muddled his way out of the Left, which has refused to accept the changing times. So yeah, he may still have some affection for socialism, but he’s also already admitted that market-based economics have won the empirical and intellectual debate (it was in an interview with Reason I believe). And, more important, he almost never talks about socialism or economics. He’s a culture warrior, not a policy wonk. Also, there are plenty of conservatives, paleos and neos, who now embrace all sorts of former economic heresies, from social security to protectionism. No one thinks these conservatives aren’t on the Right. Hitchens has been stranded on the Right as the tide of post-modern, multicultural gobbledygook has carried the rest of his old movement further out to sea. So now Hitchens stands against virtually all of the PC junk. He rejects the silly games based upon the idea that words have no fixed meanings. Yes, he still believes – no doubt partly out of pride and nostalgia – some silly or even repugnant things about the Cold War and Communism. But the Cold War no longer defines who is on the Right (and, if I recall correctly, there were quite a few Right-wingers with serious problems with the Cold War to begin with). What defines the Right these days, increasingly, is a fundamental belief in the goodness of Western Civilization, a recognition of the threats posed to it, internally and externally, and a rejection of moral relativism in all its forms. He is no conservative. No one who hates religion as much as he does could be. But I do think these things put him on the leftward fringe of the Right. Posted 11:08 AM | [Link] JEW-HATRED, IN VERSE: [Rod Dreher] Here are some lines from a recent composition by Amiri Baraka, the poet laureate of the state of New Jersey: Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed/Who told 4,000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers/To stay home that day/Why did Sharon stay away? Baraka is an aging Sixties black radical. The governor of New Jersey says he doesn't have the power to fire this jerk. In fact, it is claimed that nobody has the power to fire him. I think it's just that no Jersey politician has the guts to take on black anti-Semitism. Read about the whole mess here. Posted 10:53 AM | [Link] NO RIGHT TURN [Andrew Stuttaford] Jonah, I suspect (no, I'm certain) that Christopher Hitchens would be appalled to see himself described as 'a man of the right'. Far better, perhaps, would be to make the (always flattering) comparison with George Orwell. It's possible to reject socialist cant without leaving the socialist camp. Orwell broke decisively with his fellow leftist intellectuals in his willingness to renounce (and denounce) Communism. Nevertheless, a quick glance at Orwell's views on, say, the economy (governmental control, widespread nationalization and so on) reveal a man who remained firmly on the left. So it is with Hitchens. The extreme multiculturalist piety of today's left is in many ways analogous to the Stalinist faith of its predecessors both in its self-righteousness and, ultimately, its masochism. Breaking with it should not be taken to imply that Hitchens will signing up for the GOP any time soon. A quick glance at, for example, Martin Amis' Koba The Dread (and Hitchens' shifty response to it), reveal Christopher Hitchens to be a man still firmly possessed by the delusions of his leftist intellectual heritage. Even if you take his attacks on Clinton (best summarized in that marvelous polemic No-One Left To Lie To) they are essentially a critique from the left (Clinton betrayed the hopes of 1992) rather than the right. My guess is that in viewing the increasing rift with a number of his former comrades, Hitchens would argue that it is they, not he, who have split with the traditions of the left. Posted 6:55 AM | [Link] THREE YEARS LATE (2) [Andrew Stuttaford] Rod, I'm afraid that I didn't notice how old that BBC report was either. In a way, that almost makes the story worse. Sapped by multiculturalism, the West has become so passive in the face of such threats that indignation fades and the outrage is forgotten. In the years that followed the fatwa against McNally, 'judge' Omar Bakri Muhammad continued to subsist on hatred and welfare, emerging into fresh notoriety in the aftermath of 9/11 with allegations that he had encouraged Britons to fight for the Taliban. Here's what Memri had to say about him last year. Posted 6:52 AM | [Link]
REVISITING FR. JUDGE: [Rod Dreher] The NYTimes has a piece today examining the legacy of Fr. Mychal Judge, who famously died at Ground Zero. So many people wish to claim him as an icon, a bandwagon the Franciscan Order is not joining, out of concern that it will diminish his humanity. One interesting point in the story is that he did not die giving last rites to a firefighter, as popular legend had it -- and when this is pointed out to one of his admirers, she says that it's better for people to believe the lie, because they need something to believe in. This must be exactly what the Franciscans are trying, wisely, to avoid. The truth is he died when he was struck by a piece of falling debris when the south tower collapsed. The fact that he was down there, in the thick of things, when no one would have complained had he been on the perimeter, makes his demise a heroic one, if you ask me. One other thing: there's a controversy over whether or not Fr. Judge was gay. Fr. Neuhaus at First Things appears to have accepted the view of Judge friend Dennis Lynch, who says he was not. But as the Times reports, Thomas Von Essen, the former fire commissioner, says Fr. Judge came out to him years ago. Not that that has anything to do with the manner in which Fr. Judge gave his life. Posted 5:37 PM | [Link] THE FALLACI AFFAIR: [Rod Dreher] The October issue of Commentary arrived today, and I've got to tell you, Christopher Caldwell's review article of Oriana Fallaci's forthcoming book The Rage and the Pride is worth the price of the magazine. The book, already a controversial mega-seller in Europe, is a longer version of the Italian journalist's lengthy essay about Islam and the threat she believes it poses to the West. It was written immediately after the 9/11 attacks. The book's basic view is this: 1) there is no substantive difference between Islamic radicalism and Islam itself; 2) the West is engaged in a war with Islam, including Muslims living among us, for its own survival; and 3) that too many in the West refuse to recognize this, and remain passive in the face of forces that wish to destroy our civilization. The European intelligentsia went berserk at this, and dismissed her as a fascist and a racist. A French court will, disgracefully enough, take up the case next month of whether or not the book will be permanently banned in France, under anti-racism laws. Caldwell's discussion of the book and the controversy is so rich as to defy a proper summation. He is not an uncritical admirer of the book, observing that Fallaci's overheated rhetoric at times undermines her case. Nevertheless, he concludes, "Fallaci is far more right than wrong." He points out that for all the politically correct bluster over the accusations she makes against Islam, few critics bothered to investigate her truth claims. Wishing them to be untrue, it seems, is a sufficient response. "Nothing anyone has said in this entire debate, in newspapers, in universities, in courtrooms, has directly challenged Fallaci's point that Islam itself is, if not identical to Islamism, at least its reliable ally," Caldwell writes. Why is all this important? Writes Caldwell: "At stake is whether an international terrorist movement that has declared war on the West will be able to provoke the West to disarm itself, whether through the maleficence of its agents and their sympathizers of through the naivete and kindliness of Westerners themselves. The Fallaci case is an episode -- the most important one so far -- in this agitation for intellectual disarmament." Posted 5:11 PM | [Link] THREE YEARS LATE: [Rod Dreher] Jacob T. Levy points out that a story from the British press I linked to the other day, reporting a fatwa issued against the gay playwright Terrence McNally, is three years old. My bad; it was presented to me as new news, and I should have checked the date on the story. If you follow the link to Jacob's blog (scroll down a bit), you'll find some encouraging news about the way a more broadly-based Muslim organization in Britain condemned the fatwa and the radical sheik who issued it. Posted 3:44 PM | [Link] FASCINATING LETTER [Jonah Goldberg] I just received this in response to my column about Germany from last week. Dear Mr. Goldberg, Posted 3:08 PM | [Link] THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP, ALL RIGHT [Roger Clegg] The left hates it when conservatives equate affirmative action with discrimination in the bad old days. But consider Maryland gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s ringing defense of, apparently, both in last night’s debate: “Well, let me tell you, slavery was based on race. Lynching was based on race. Discrimination is based on race. Jim Crow was based on race. And affirmative action should be based on race.” Posted 3:04 PM | [Link] AND... [Jonah Goldberg] Here's the column in which Chris Hitchens declares he'd rather defend Western Civilization than denounce John Ashcroft. Posted 2:58 PM | [Link] WFB IN THE NYRB [Jonah Goldberg] In case you missed it, here's the glowing essay on our maximum leader in the New York Review of Books. Posted 2:56 PM | [Link] NO COUP [Andrew Stuttaford] Mike, I don't think that Blair is - yet - in serious trouble (although an anti-war demonstration here in London tomorrow will doubtless add to talk of a divided Labour party). What finished Mrs. Thatcher in 1990 was the perception amongst Tory MPs that the Conservative party was facing defeat at the next election, and that, after more than a decade in power, Maggie had become a political liability. The rationale for betrayal was purely a matter of political survival. In the Britain of 2002, the situation is very different. In contrast to Mrs. T in 1990, Prime Minister Blair leads a party that has every reason to feel confident about its electoral prospects : there is almost no chance of a Labour defeat the next time that the UK goes to the polls, and, unlike Mrs. Thatcher all those years ago, Mr. Blair remains reasonably popular in the country as a whole. In other words, Labour MPs currently have few worries about suddenly finding themselves unemployed. If, on the other hand, the UK and the US were to invade Iraq without UN 'authorization' and if that invasion were to go badly, everything would change. The Labour Party would find itself in deep political trouble and Blair would almost certainly find himself on the wrong end of a parliamentary coup. Posted 2:46 PM | [Link] THE DEMOCRATIC FOG OF WAR [Jonah Goldberg] My column is up. On re-reading, I guess the second half is better than the first. But I report, you decide. Posted 2:40 PM | [Link] POST SADDAM IRAQ = ONE GIANT JORDAN? [Jonah Goldberg] Very interesting hypothetical over at Stratfor.com about incorporating most of Iraq into one giant Hasheemite Kingdom. Thanks to Instapundit for the link (and for beating the drums about this for a while). Posted 2:37 PM | [Link] YEAH, RIGHT.... [Jonah Goldberg] Civilian trials won't turn into a circus.. Posted 2:18 PM | [Link] A COUP AGAINST BLAIR? [ Mike Potemra] The New Republic says it could happen. It would be a disaster-whoever would replace "Tony the Tiger" (to use Kathryn's phrase) would almost certainly be an opponent of U.S. foreign policy and the Iraq war, and a hard socialist in domestic policy. Posted 1:36 PM | [Link] HITCHENS AND THE RIGHT [Jonah Goldberg] Apparently Christopher Hitchens is leaving the Nation. There's some interesting stuff about it over at Andrew Sullivan Land, including an interesting little gaffe from an AP story which labled Hitchens a "conservative." Now Hitchens isn't a conservative, but I've long wanted to write a piece about how I think Hitch is a man of the Right. This is a distinction always lost on the mainstream press -- and many conservatives. Whittaker Chambers, for the record, rejected the lable "conservative" in favor of "Man of the Right" (which I've written about many times before, one example). Hitchens is a recovering socialist, sure, and he's had lots of nasty things to say about America in the past. But the fact is that, culturally, Hitchens doesn't fit on the Left of today. Even if he won't admit it, he rejects the multiculturalism of the left, refuses to to put the "movement" before the facts or what's right (as he sees them), and he seems to passionately believe that the Canon is not merely useful but essential to understanding the world. These, and other assumptions, put him at odds with the cultural left in almost every way. Posted 12:30 PM | [Link] BIDEN ON ANONYMOUS ACCUSATIONS [Jonathan Adler] A former colleague passed along then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden's comments on anonymous accusations against judicial nominees from October 8, 1991: "But let me conclude by suggesting once again, the nominee has the right to be confronted by his accuser. So any accusation against any nominee before any committee which I chair, that is not able to be made public to the nominee, will not be made known to the Senate unless the individual wishes to do it all by themselves. Then it's known to the nominee. This is not a star chamber." Posted 12:04 PM | [Link] GOTCHA! [Sarah Maserati] Daniel Henninger makes an obvious, but still an important and great point in his WSJ column today about the congressional intelligence hearings and the 20/20 hindsight of those Democratic congressmen: "Let's see if I understand this correctly. We all now think that we could have known that al-Qaeda was going to drive civilian airliners into American buildings or some such, and we probably knew enough to prevent these deaths from happening. But the same people who say the danger was obvious also say and write that we don't yet know enough about Iraq's military capabilities or intention to act pre-emptively against Saddam Hussein." Posted 11:59 AM | [Link] NOT A PARODY [Jonah Goldberg] Ramsey Clark's letter to the UN. Posted 11:16 AM | [Link] HIRING CLERKS [Jonathan Adler] Miguel Estrada is accused of blocking liberal candidates for clerkships with Justice Anthony Kennedy. While no one doubts Estrada is a conservative, I am somewhat skeptical. First, it is uncontroverted that Miguel Estrada has supported the applications of at least a few liberal candidates. Second, there is a big difference between evaluating clerkship candidates based upon their judicial philosophy and evaluating them on their politics. I have known many politically liberal law clerks who nonetheless embraced a "conservative" judicial philosophy. I should also add that having been on both sides of the clerkship interview process -- albeit not at the Supreme Court -- I am very suspicious about the charges. Much is said in the process to gauge the reaction of candidate and plumb their legal reasoning skills that could be construed as the imposition of an ideological litmus test. For instance, it is not uncommon for current clerks or other screeners to engage in Socratic questioning of applicants which would create the impression that the questioner is hostile to the applicants positions. But it ain't necessarily so. Posted 11:06 AM | [Link] EVEN MORE SHAME [Jonathan Adler] Jonah, it's even worse than that. In June 2001, Senator Schumer wrote an op-ed for the NYT on judicial nominations in which he decried "gotcha" politics because such tactics have "warped the confirmation process and harmed the Senate's reputation." No matter. Rather than forthrightly claim he doesn't want a conservative Hispanic on the D.C. Circuit, Schumer attacks him with anonymous, uncorroborated charges about off-hand comments Estrada may have made about clerkship candidates. Senator Biden, for all his faults, would never have allowed such a practice when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Posted 11:06 AM | [Link] CAMPUS WATCH PROGRESS [Stanley Kurtz] Today’s New York Times has an important article about the controversy over Campus Watch. Campus Watch is the website, established by Daniel Pipes, that I defended earlier this week in “Balancing the Academy.” Campus Watch lists the work of a number of Middle East specialists whose views on the region need and deserve to be challenged. It seems that several professors in other fields, led by postmodern feminist Judith Butler, have written to Campus Watch and asked to be included among those listed. This is seen as an act of “solidarity” with those supposedly under pressure from Pipe’s “McCarthyism.” Of course, as I’ve already noted, no one complained about McCarthyism when Pipes himself, and many other prominent non-leftists scholars were named, falsely accused of racism for exploring connections between Islam and terrorism, and singled out for attack on political grounds. Instead of condemning these attacks as McCarthyism, the professors making them were given tenure as a reward. But it’s evident from the piece in today’s Times that the campaign to expose the biases of Middle East Studies that began with the publication of Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand is now making real progress. Best of all, it its effects are beginning to spread to the academy as a whole. Posted 10:42 AM | [Link] PAYING FOR ILLEGAL HOSPITAL BILLS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Border-area hospitals ask for federal help. Posted 9:45 AM | [Link] KINSLEY ON IRAQ [Stanley Kurtz] Michael Kinsley is a very bright and reasonable liberal, not a left-wing ideologue. That is why I find his extraordinary op-ed today so disturbing. What bothers me most about it is his notion that we don’t have enough information to decide whether to invade Iraq. For Kinsley, the fact that Tony Blair’s dossier on Saddam Hussein contained no new information means that we haven’t been given adequate facts. Kinsley seems honestly to believe that the administration has no rationale for making war on Saddam Hussein. He expresses a sense of genuine confusion about the reasons for this war that many good liberals share. There is no doubt that the administration is going to have to do a better job of explaining its rationale for war. The real issue is not Saddam’s defiance of U.N. resolutions, it is the way in which Saddam will be able to destroy the peace of the world if we allow him to have a nuclear weapon for even one day. But if Kinsley wants to see the case for war with Iraq laid out in scrupulous detail, all he needs to do is read Kenneth Pollack’s, The Threatening Storm: The Case For Invading Iraq. We don’t need to have any more information than we already do to know that we must invade. Pollack shows why. I am now most of the way through Pollack’s extraordinary chapter on the planning and conduct of an invasion, and it opens the reader’s eyes as nothing else can to what are surely the real motivations of, and constraints on, the administration’s actions right now. Pollack was president Clinton’s top Iraq advisor, and in reading this book, you hearing what a president hears as he plans for war. As I argued yesterday, if liberal skeptics truly want to understand the reasons for this war, then they are obligated to read this book. Posted 9:26 AM | [Link] DO WE HAVE THE FORCES TO FIGHT? [Stanley Kurtz] It really is ridiculous to be heading into the invasion and occupation of Iraq with as few troops as we have. Read this article from today’s Washington Post and see if you don’t agree that our force levels are too low. The article shows that we are relying too heavily on reserve troops to fill in for what the regular army ought to be doing. Soon enough, this will undermine recruitment to the reserves, and we shall be even more in need of troops than we are now. Of course I’ve been saying that we need more troops, whether by paying for an expanded volunteer force, or by draft, for some time now. But it’s obvious that the current political environment will not support an expansion of our forces. So we cover the problem up by damaging the long term recruiting prospects for the reserves. The real question is what will happen after we have conquered Iraq. If things go well, the administration will have huge political capital to expend, and there will no longer be the fear that a move to expand the military could scuttle political momentum behind the invasion itself. At that point, a draft will still be unlikely, but an expansion of the all-volunteer forces will at least be conceivable. A lot will depend on whether our allies agree to help pay for the occupation of Iraq. More will depend on how many troops it will take to occupy Iraq. Any way you slice it, though, the decision to fund a larger military will likely force us into a tough choice between radical cuts in domestic spending and repeal of the tax cut. In an important sense, the apparent agreement on the war is deceptive. The public has definitely not established that it is willing to sacrifice, and even the silent opposition of many Democrats to the war has the effect of paralyzing the administration on the question of expanding the military. Again, the critical question is whether the post-war political environment will allow more space for military expansion. But for now, the public demands another cost-free war. Too bad, because this time, our lives are truly at stake. Posted 9:24 AM | [Link] THE NEW SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRAT [Jonah Goldberg] My syndicated column on Gore's speech. Posted 9:17 AM | [Link] SCHUMER'S SHAME [Jonah Goldberg] Jon - I heard some clips from the Estrada hearing. It was astounding. Schumer's "argument," as you note, was dripping with smarminess and innuendo. But the upshot of it was the most outrageous part. Schumer has been imposing ideological litmus tests on nominees with reckless abandon. He considers it his duty to keep conservatives off the court by any means necessary. And now he's suggesting -- through anonymous accusers no less -- that Estrada is not qualified because he applied ideological litmus tests to clerks!? Posted 8:58 AM | [Link] LIFE AT NRO [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Jack Dunphy called from his patrol car, sirens and all, at 6 ayem today. No intro or anything, just "Have you ever been called from a cop car before?" It took me a few seconds. Posted 8:40 AM | [Link] MAYBE TEENS AREN'T ANIMALS AFTER ALL [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Teenage BOYS turn away a stripper one of the kids' fathers brings along to a football party. Makes you wonder about all those they'll-do-it-anyway-so-hand-them-condoms arguments, too. Posted 8:27 AM | [Link] GULF-MEDIA UPDATE [Kathryn Jean Lopez] WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD, 27 September — US warplanes struck Basra airport in southern Iraq and knocked out its radar yesterday, as Russia poured cold water on Washington’s efforts to win official UN backing for making war on Baghdad. Iraqi television said "US ravens of evil carried out another aggression at 00:45 a.m. (2045 GMT on Wednesday), targeting Basra international airport," in an attack a government spokesman called a "terrorist" act.Full Arab News story here. Posted 8:05 AM | [Link] IF TOM CRUISE IS WITH US... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...Only Barbra Streisand can be against us. Posted 5:57 AM | [Link]
'STALIN'S VICTIMS' [Andrew Stuttaford] In response to an earlier post commenting on CNN and its coverage of the mass grave outside St. Petersburg a reader links to this story. Why the quotation marks around 'Stalin's Victims' ? Note also the comment that Russian officials "have said that they believe" that millions perished under Stalin. Why that qualification? Millions were murdered: it's that simple - and that horrible. CNN should just say so. Posted 10:08 PM | [Link] SHAME ON SCHUMER [Jonathan Adler] I don't expect to agree with Senator Schumer all that often, but I was truly astounded by his conduct at today's confirmation hearing for Miguel Estrada. The Judiciary Committee has a long-standing tradition -- historically upheld by Senator Joe Biden -- that nominees are not confronted with anonymous accusations. Senator Schumer has also disclaimed "gotcha" politics. Yet Senator Schumer has persisted in trying to catch Estrada contradicting himself about anonymous accusations, reported in The Nation, that Estrada vetoed law clerk applicants for Justice Anthony Kennedy because they were too liberal. If this persists the Senate Judiciary Committee will have hit a new low -- and that's saying something. Posted 10:07 PM | [Link] ON PROGRESS AND ISLAM Mike Potemra] Anti-Catholic bigots used to love to quote some of the propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX in his famous 1864 Syllabus of Errors. “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”: proposition condemned. “It has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship”: proposition condemned. “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with . . . modern civilization”: condemned. As I said, the anti-Catholics had great fun with this, because it seemed to prove (to the bigots’ satisfaction, at least) that Catholics were a benighted people who sought nothing but to tyrannize over everyone else, and certainly weren’t capable of making a positive contribution to our American democracy. For a number of reasons too complicated to enter into here, Catholics turned out to be a very positive, pro-democratic force in America. In the long run, whether Islam makes similar progress is up to Muslims themselves—but we Americans can help, today, by firmly opposing all Muslim forces that engage in violence and tyranny. Oh, and before I get all the e-mails from ultra-traditionalist Catholics explaining how Pius IX’s denunciations are perfectly consistent with today’s Catholic doctrines, let me say I’m really not interested in that discussion. As long as people stop killing and tyrannizing in the name of Islam, I don’t really mind if they write complicated theological disquisitions on how this new policy (not killing and not tyrannizing) is perfectly consistent with the earlier policy (killing and tyrannizing). Posted 10:05 PM | [Link] BUNK FROM BRODER: [Ramesh Ponnuru] The dean says that Bush is a "radical," not a classic conservative, since he doesn't seek "to preserve the status quo." Some of Broder's illustrations are goofy. It's normal, he says, for an incoming Republican president to propose cutting taxes, as Bush did. But: "What is different is Bush's insistence that tax cutting should continue, even with the return of budget deficits. . . . Facing deficits in his second year, Ronald Reagan acquiesced in Congress's rollback of some 1981 tax cuts. In a similar situation in his second year, the president's father made the same concession to a Democratic Congress. This President Bush has broken the pattern." But Reagan faced deficits in his first year, too, when he proposed tax cuts. The federal government had, in fact, been in continuous deficit for over a decade. Nor can it be said that Bush I rolled back previous tax cuts--he hadn't cut any taxes. Broder's history is bunk. So is the larger thesis that Bush's willingness to shake up the status quo is "redefining what it means to be a conservative." Who was more in line with the status quo, Reagan or Carter? Reagan wanted to reverse a half-century pattern of government growth and reverse the foreign policy of (at least) the previous three presidents. Was Gingrich trying to preserve the status quo? Republicans in the mid-'90s styled themselves "revolutionary." Where's Broder been for the last 40 years? Posted 7:42 PM | [Link] RE: SAVING ISLAM: [Rod Dreher] Mike, I look forward to reading Pryce-Jones article, especially coming to understand how Islam is, in his view, compatible with democracy. Contrary to that view, I'm now in the middle of Roger Scruton's terrific The West and the Rest, his meditation on the meaning of globalization and Islamic terrorism. Scruton argues that democracy as we know became possible because it emerged out of an understanding of the discrete realms of the sacred and secular intrinsic to Christianity. Islam has no such view, says Scruton; the shari'a -- Islamic law -- is valid for all. "This does not mean that Islamic societies have been governed solely by the shari'a," Scruton writes. "On the contrary, in almost all respects relevant to the government of a large society, the shari'a is radically deficient. It proceeds by the application of immensely complex sources to the individual case and, while rich in jurisprudential commentary, has produced no body of general laws." The result, Scruton writes, is that the political leaders of Islamic societies have had to promulgate laws outside the shari'a, simply to govern their countries. "But these laws have no independent legitimacy in the eyes of those compelled to obey them. They do not create a space outside religion in which freedom is the norm. On the contrary, they merely add to the constraints of th holy law the rules of apolitical order that is backed by no de jure authority, but only by de facto power. In any upheaval they are rejected entirely as the arbitrary edicts of a usurper. Hence, there is no scope in a traditional Islamic society for the kinds of purely political development, through the patient building of institutions and secular laws, that we know in the West. Change, when it comes, takes the form of a crisis, as power is challenged from below in the name of the one true Power above." Posted 2:27 PM | [Link] AND ANOTHER THING... [Andrew Stuttaford] It's also curious that the BBC refer to "Al Muhajiroun - The Defenders of The Messenger Jesus" as if they were an enthusiastic, if somewhat unexpected, ally of some of this country's wilder evangelicals. In fact, Al Muhajiroun (without the benign-sounding suffix) is an ominous presence on the UK's Islamic extreme. Strange that the BBC didn't choose to point this out. Posted 2:19 PM | [Link] FATUOUS [Andrew Stuttaford] Rod, that BBC story about the 'fatwa' pronounced on Terrence McNally makes depressing reading. It's also somewhat disturbing to see the matter of fact way in which the BBC refers to Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad as a "judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK", without any hint (a quotation mark or two would have been good) that this 'court' is an entirely unofficial body that seems to make up in malice for what it lacks in status. If Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad is a judge, I'm an emperor. Posted 1:51 PM | [Link] THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DENOUNCES CHRIST [Jonah Goldberg] Just kidding. Something only a little less shocking; The New Republic comes out against Al Gore. (Note: they seem to be having server problems because of a Drudge link). Posted 1:40 PM | [Link] SAVING ISLAM Mike Potemra] NR senior editor David Pryce-Jones is one of the world's leading authorities on the Arab world, and he has a marvelous article in the London Spectator on how the U.S. can help save Islam from its extremists. His analysis of the current situation is as follows: "South America, Russia and central and eastern Europe, and parts of Africa have all democratised in recent years. Arabs and other Muslims are almost alone in standing outside this profound historical transformation, and as a result they are increasingly unable to deal with today's world. Islam in practice tends to absolutism but it has a vision of justice and equality consonant with political democracy. What is missing in their legacy is any mechanism for enlarging separate ethnic and religious identities into a unitary nation-state." Pryce-Jones goes on to explain that the U.S. war against Iraq is a positive step toward peace and democracy in the overall Islamic world: "Destabilisation [in Iraq] is an essential prerequisite for progress. Countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran may have the good fortune to be similarly destabilised. This could be the moment when the Arabs and Muslims take their place in the modern world." These are words of hope, and good practical advice. We want a world in which, in the year 2302, a typical Muslim will live in a free and tolerant society-and think fondly of the Americans who, centuries ago, played such a positive role in making it happen. Posted 1:31 PM | [Link] SANDSTORM [Stanley Kurtz] The most important entry into the world of blogdom that I’ve seen in some time is Martin Kramer’s new, Sandstorm. If you have any interest in the war or the Middle East, bookmark this blog. Kramer is one of Bernard Lewis’s most important students. He edits the Middle East Quarterly. Above all, he is the author of Ivory Towers On Sand, the devastating critique of contemporary Middle East studies that kicked off the battle over things like Title VI funding for the academy, and the scholarly boycott of the National Security Education Program–a program that really aim to put experts on the Middle East in our defense and intelligence agencies. (Here’s my take on that book.) Kramer’s blog is simply first rate. Today’s entry exposes the close ties between John Esposito, arguably the most prominent scholar of Islam in the academy today, and a supporter of Hamas. Esposito has argued for years that our fears of Islamists are exaggerated–that we unfairly lump many democratic moderates together with people like Osama bin Laden. But here, Esposito seems to have direct and long term ties to someone who, as Kramer shows, is anything but moderate. On the contrary, this friend and collaborator of Esposito seems to be openly rooting for the folks who brought down the World Trade Center. (Here’s my own take on Esposito.) When you get to Sandstorm, be sure to scroll down and have a look at Kramer’s important critique of Francis Fukuyama’s new article about fundamentalist Islam. That article is critically important, because it’s Fukuyama’s attempt to patch up some of the weakness of The End of History. Kramer, however, isn’t buying it. This weblog is as good as it gets. Go there. And while your at it, check out Kramer’s larger website. Posted 1:07 PM | [Link] ACCENTUATE THE NEGATIVE [John Derbyshire] Andrew: I don't know if my signature has negative value, but I do recall a British politician so deficient in personality that it was said of him: When he walks into a room full of people, they all look at each other and say, "Who was it that just left?" Posted 11:34 AM | [Link] DON'T TRY THIS WITH THE SUITS [Jonah Goldberg] I think Dennis Kozlowski, the disgraced former CEO of Tyco, is simply a criminal and, when convicted, he should go to jail for a long time. Anyway, my absolute favorite tidbit from the tales of his looting spree hasn't gotten much attention. At his now infamous birthday party for his wife in Sardinia. The party featured waiters in togas and faux gladiators. And, they had a full-size ice-sculpture version of Michelangelo's "David" which had vodka flowing from its you-know-what. Can you imagine putting that on your expense account? That's what the era of Clinton-greed brought us. Posted 11:16 AM | [Link] DO IT AL, JUST DO IT: [Rod Dreher] Yesterday, someone forwarded me an uncredited news report saying the producers of Barbershop had apologized to Jesse Jackson, Rosa Parks and the family of M.L.K. This morning, though, the NYTimes reports that MGM, the studio that released it, says no apology will be forthcoming, and certainly not a censoring of the comments that incensed Jackson. The Times also says the Rev. Al Sharpton is threatening to start a nationwide boycott of the movie this Friday, absent the filmmakers meeting Jackson's demands. One can only hope Sharpton goes through with it. He recently showed a tin ear for pop culture when his racialist alliance with Michael Jackson on the absurd charge that Sony Music was racially exploiting him (black recording artists rushed to the defense of Sony chief Tommy Mottola, and Sharpton had to back down). If Sharpton attacks this popular black movie on such flimsy grounds, I suspect many African-Americans will tell the Rotund Rev where to get off. Good. This discussion needs to happen. Posted 10:56 AM | [Link] PEACEFUL PAKISTANIS... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...kill 7 Christian charity workers. Posted 10:49 AM | [Link] HITCHENS [Richard Brookhiser] Kathryn: Saw the headline, CHRIS HITCHENS IS ON BOARD, and thought for a sec you'd signed him with NRO. Posted 9:45 AM | [Link] POLLACK UNPLUGGED [Stanley Kurtz] Well, I must be psychic. It wasn’t till I’d finished my blog on the signed ad on today’s New York Times op-ed page by conservative realists opposed to an invasion of Iraq that I noticed today’s featured op-ed. The Times has given an unusual amount of space to Kenneth Pollack, whose new book is the subject of my NRO piece today. In his op-ed, Pollack explains why a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot be deterred--the point I focus on in my own discussion of Pollack’s book, and the very point that refutes the professors who signed today’s ad. Pollack’s Op-Ed is important and most welcome, but you really ought to get the book. The true dimensions of the danger of letting Saddam survive only come through there. Thank goodness this book is out. Our national debate over Iraq is heating up, and the nay-sayers are going to have serious trouble coming to terms with Pollack’s arguments. Posted 9:25 AM | [Link] AL QUAEDA Vs. IRAQ [Jonah Goldberg] The question of which is the bigger threat is going to be a media thumbsucker for the next couple days. They asked Bush which he thought was a bigger threat yesterday and he said he couldn't choose just one. So now the question is CNN's question of the day (or the morning, I'm not sure). It was the central criticism in Al Gore's speech: al-Quaeda should be our top priority because Iraq can wait. Etc etc. Now, I don't know which is the greater threat, because it is impossible to know what a bunch of psychopaths are ever going to do. This is one of the reasons why we call them "psychopaths" instead of, say, "bunny rabbits." But let's remember that it has been the standing policy of the United States to be able to fight two wars simultaneously for a very long time. I know that fighting al-Quaeda isn't the same thing as, say, defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion while attacking Iraq simultaneously. But am I crazy to think that defending Taiwan might take more troops and other military resources than a search and destroy mission for al-Quaeda? I can imagine that the war on al-Quaeda might require more intelligence resources and serve to drain some of our special forces, but so would a simultaneous war in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula, right? Asking whether one is more of a threat than the other isn't without merit. The real question is whether or not both of them are a significant enough threat to deal with each of them -- even simultaneously. You don't say "Oh I won't kill the rattle snake in my kitchen because that gas leak is a much bigger threat." You figure out how to deal with both as quickly as possible. Posted 9:14 AM | [Link] PROFESSORS AGAINST IRAQ WAR [Stanley Kurtz] Today’s New York Times op-ed page features an ad signed by 33 professors of international relations who oppose an invasion of Iraq. The statement’s authors and signers are not left-wing academics, but prominent members of the “realist” school. These professors claim that even a nuclear-armed Saddam would be deterred by the threat of U.S. or Israeli retaliation. However, it’s important to understand just how odd the views of some of these scholars are. John Mearsheimer, one of the statement’s principal authors, for example, offered his prescription for the Iraqi crisis in the latest issue of The National Interest. There he denies that the Islamic world’s hostility to America is grounded in hatred of Western culture and maintains instead that it is American foreign policy--like our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia--that is responsible for terrorism. Mearsheimer then advocates a withdrawal of United States forces from the Middle East and reliance on states in the region to balance each other. According to Mearsheimer, our problems with Iraq can be fixed if we cozy up to Iran. And if that doesn’t work and Iran becomes a problem, says Mearsheimer, we should actually bolster Iraq in an effort to balance Iran. From this it follows, Mearsheimer argues, that we should entirely withdraw our sanctions against Iraq. In short, Mearsheimer is a believer in classic balance of power. He denies any role to cultural factors--like Muslim resentment against the West for its own failure to modernize--and sees no real danger in proliferating weapons of mass destruction. The same can be said of Kenneth Waltz, another signer of the statement. As I wrote in, “Brave New World,” Waltz actually believes that the spread of nuclear weapons to all countries will have the effect of guaranteeing a peaceful world. But for reasons I detail in that piece, Waltz is dead wrong. So before you get carried away by the idea of realist professors opposing an invasion of Iraq, think about whether you would feel safer with an end to the sanctions against Iraq and the spread of nuclear weapons to every country in the world. And for a powerful explanation of why these professors are wrong--why a nuclear armed Saddam cannot be deterred by the threat of force--be sure to read the brand new book by Kenneth Pollack, The Threatening Storm. (See my NRO piece today for details.) Posted 9:00 AM | [Link] EASING SAUDI FEARS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The adding of Saudi Arabia to a list of nations from which visitors will get a new fingerprinting treatment is apparently being downplayed by the Department of Justice. In today's Arab News, a DOJ spokesman tells Saudi nationals (including the ones who are terrorists?) not to worry. The Department of Justice "considers Saudi Arabia an ally on the war in terrorism," the Arab News was told, and is not being singled out (despite the majority of 9/11 hijackers having come from there). Posted 8:47 AM | [Link] LOOK WHO IS HARBORING TERRORISTS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Al Qaeda camps in Iran. Posted 8:36 AM | [Link] CHRIS HITCHENS IS ON BOARD... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...an Iraq attack. (He's also leaving The Nation.) Posted 6:05 AM | [Link] BAD DEAL [Andrew Stuttaford] I don't want to say anything, but that offer to bid a dollar for a half eaten jar of Marmite signed by Derb is, well, kinda insulting. According to at least one on-line vendor of British treats, the smallest (125 `grams´ ) jar of Marmite sells in this country for $2.32. That means that a half-eaten jar should sell for $1.16. The person offering to pay `at least a dollar´ for an autographed jar is, therefore, implying that John Derbyshire`s signature could actually subtract value from this product. Posted 1:21 AM | [Link]
THAT'S GOTTA HURT: [Rod Dreher] Speaking on Hardball tonight, Rep. Dick Armey referred to Al Gore as "the former vice president and future nothing." Ouch! Posted 10:06 PM | [Link] INS AT WORK [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Given their general slowness and communication problems, perhaps they have not hear about the events of September 11, 2001. Posted 4:31 PM | [Link] TERRENCE MCNALLY [John Derbyshire] I think what you would think I would think. As I recall, the matter arose because the Holy Family are minor saints in Islam. That is why, in Turkey, "Isa" (that is, Jesus) and "Yusuf" (Joseph) are common given names. Thus, Christians who are offended by anti-Christian art, plays, etc. should easily be able to recruit Muslims to their cause. Of course, the Christians will mostly be concerned with stopping public funding to these outrages; Muslims will lean more to the fatwa strategy... "Same bed, different dreams," as the Chinese say. Posted 4:29 PM | [Link] BEST-EVER ONION STORY: [Rod Dreher] The Onion's, um, archived take on a Malcolm X speech is so funny that you will have stuff coming out of your nose. Posted 3:43 PM | [Link] AUCTION SUGGESTIONS [Jonah Goldberg] Keep flying in. Here's one for Derb: "I'd shell out at least a dollar for a half-eaten jar of Marmite with an authentic Derb signature...I think the auction is a great idea!" Posted 3:43 PM | [Link] OKAY... [Jonah Goldberg] It's entirely possible that Twain was being sarcastic. But about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" I'm deadly serious. My latest syndicated column. Posted 3:26 PM | [Link] This is your link. Posted 3:21 PM | [Link] WHITHER DERB?: [Rod Dreher] Our own John Derbyshire opines on a novel by Michel Houellebecq, the French writer on trial in Paris for blaspheming Islam. Derb concludes that Houellebecq is a nasty piece of work, but "Naturally, we have to support the jerk. Muslims who come to live in Western countries must accustom themselves to the fact that being rude about religion, whatever you may think of the practice (I don't think much of it myself), has a long and not entirely dishonorable pedigree among us — in the case of France, going back at least as far as Voltaire. (At the court of Frederick the Great, where Voltaire spent considerable time, Macaulay tells us that: 'The absurdity of all the religions known among men was the chief topic of conversation.') For better or worse, blasphemy laws are no longer operative in any important Western country. That is how we are. If visitors and immigrants don't like it, the remedy for their discomfort is rather obvious." Well said! Now, Derb, where do you stand on the fatwa against Terrence McNally? Posted 3:21 PM | [Link] MY LAST ANDA POST FOR TODAY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] It passed the House 229-189, despite the ridiculous rhetoric. Now, pray for a Senate miracle. Posted 3:11 PM | [Link] CONGRATULATIONS, BEN!: [Ramesh Ponnuru] Thanks, Rod, for linking to Ben Domenech's site. I hadn't read it for a few days, and I'd missed some happy news in the young man's life. Welcome to the club, Ben. (And with this post, you can't say you have nothing to read in the Corner.) Posted 2:58 PM | [Link] PIM FORTUYN WARNED US: [Rod Dreher] An Islamic court in the UK has given a death sentence for blasphemy to Terrence McNally, the gay playwright who wrote a terrible, tendentious play depicting Jesus Christ as a homosexual. This is outrageous! I saw the play when it opened in New York, and reviewed it quite negatively for The Weekly Standard. Leaving aside the blasphemy, which Christian groups were right to protest, it was an embarrassing failure as art. That said, we live in a free country, and McNally is at liberty to write lousy plays offensive to Christians without having to worry about his safety. God bless America. What has happened to him in England now with the Muslims, who revere Jesus, is terrifying, and yet more evidence that Islam is a danger to civilized life in the West. Please note that I am not defending that McNally's repulsive Corpus Christi; I am defending his right to write the foul thing and have it performed in peace and safety. This is important for Christians to say, and even more important for Muslims living in the West to say (so say it!). If certain Muslims think they have the right to issue a death sentence on a man for saying what's on his mind, they are unfit for life in the democratic West, and ought to be deported to whatever tick-ridden, wife-beating, book-burning, infidel-hating Third World backwater whence they came. Posted 2:41 PM | [Link] CRUNCHY-CON SLAPFIGHT: [Rod Dreher] Josh Claybourn gets it but Ben Domenech doesn't. Discuss. Posted 2:22 PM | [Link] THEY ARE NOT AMUSED: [Rod Dreher] The Barbershop message board is full of anti-Jesse commentary. Posted 2:16 PM | [Link] BURKE AT THE BARBERSHOP: [Rod Dreher] I really don't want to make too much of this little comedy, but I can't quit thinking about what a truly conservative movie it is. Old Eddie's words to young Calvin at the film's climax lay out the reason Calvin's late father, from whom he has inherited the barbershop, was a successful man, though not a rich one. Eddie, who worked for Calvin Sr., explains how the father was a friend to all, and how he was willing to help out anyone who came asking. Moreover, simply by running his business in a public-spirited way -- it was a natural gathering place for the men of the community -- Calvin Sr. made the barbershop one of Burke's "little platoons," a voluntary association that promoted community and a sense of belonging, of mutual obligation that binds neighbor to neighbor. Eddie doesn't want Calvin Jr. to forget that, and forfeit the barbershop to a loan shark promising to help him (Calvin Jr.) achieve his private get-rich-quick dreams, at the expense of the community. Eddie also says that no matter how frustrating running the barbershop has been over the years, "there never was a time when I wasn't glad to be here." Some things money can't buy. Posted 2:07 PM | [Link] ANOTHER IMPORTANT REMINDER [Jonah Goldberg] Rod, Mike, I agree with you guys that Jackson’s a boob, Flannery O’Connor is great and that yanking books just for PC hysteria is a bad idea. However, since I’ve been cast in the light of NR’s Comstock, I thought I’d point out that even Mark Twain himself wanted his book banned from some libraries. Both Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were removed from the Children's Department of The Brooklyn Public Library in 1905. They were designated "bad examples for ingenuous youth." A librarian who opposed the ban wrote to Mark Twain seeking his support. Twain sent the following letter: Nov. 21, '05. Now, I'm not in favor of pulling Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn from libraries, but let's at least give a small nod to the fact that some material actually can be banned from libraries without the sky falling. Posted 2:06 PM | [Link] JOHN KASS POPS JESSE: [Rod Dreher] Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass quotes the radio interview in which Jesse Jackson admitted he hadn't seen Barbershop. This is a swell hit piece, one that raises other questions about Jackson's public foibles. NOTE: You have to register with the Chicago Tribune website to read the column. Bleah. Posted 1:57 PM | [Link] AN IMPORTANT REMINDER Mike Potemra] Rod, your cautionary words are well taken. Over the long haul, a country can only be as free as its citizens will allow it to be. The First Amendment is an important weapon we can use to defend freedom-but we must have the guts to use it; like any other constitutional provision, it is not self-enforcing. That's why it's so important that we cultivate a strong sense of the morality of freedom of speech, and defend it from would-be censors (like Jesse Jackson and the rubes who hate Flannery O'Connor). I defend their right to be "pig-ignorant"; but we have to resist their attempts to force all other Americans to be the same way. Posted 1:08 PM | [Link] NRO AUCTION? [Jonah Goldberg] NPR is running an auction as a fundraising tool. Some of the items are weird. Nina Totenberg's notes from a Supreme Court sessio, for example. For the life of me I can't figure out why someone would pay a large dollars for the words "save abortion" and "I hate Clarence Thomas" written over and over again. Still, others might raise some moolah for their cause, lunch with Cokie Roberts for example. So this got me thinking, maybe NRO should have an auction too? Sure, people would pay big money for lunch with WFB. But would people bid for a play date with Cosmo? How about Rod's notes from an anti-globalization rally ("too many smelly Marxists.....can't breathe!). Maybe people would pay to have Corner posting privileges for a week, or forever? How much is it worth to watch me eat a brick of pepper jack cheese? Anybody think this is a good idea? Posted 1:05 PM | [Link] EAT YOUR GREENS? [Andrew Stuttaford] Returning carnivore Paul Weller will now also be able to enjoy that moment in Ninotchka, when the self-righteously austere commissar (played, of course, by Garbo) orders "raw beets and carrots" for her dinner. The waiter's reply? "Madame, this is a restaurant, not a meadow". Posted 12:56 PM | [Link] AS THE TALMUDIC SCHOLARS MIGHT SAY... [Jonah Goldberg] Cows taste good, the rest is commentary. Posted 12:53 PM | [Link] CHANGE OF COURSES [Andrew Stuttaford] Drew Barrymore is not the only former vegetarian celebrity to have seen the error of her dinner plates. British rock musician Paul Weller is apparently back in the carnivore camp. When asked (according to the London Sunday Times) what this "symbolized", he replied "It was symbolic of 12 years of being bloody hungry." Posted 12:41 PM | [Link] THREE CHEERS FOR THE FRENCH! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I'm serious. French troops rescue 100 American shoolchildren in a Christian Ivory Coast school. Posted 12:40 PM | [Link] NOT SO FAST, MIKE: [Rod Dreher] What do you mean Jesse Jackson won't prevail in his efforts to get Barbershop censored? If he doesn't, it will only be because the filmmakers and MGM Studios refuse to kowtow to his pressure. Jesse has gotten quite rich and famous by intimidating businessmen into doing his bidding. There's nothing in the First Amendment that would prevent MGM from doing exactly what Jesse Jackson wants them to do. I am reminded of a case down in Louisiana that still sticks in my craw two years later. A black Catholic priest and some angry black parents of Catholic schoolkids went to the bishop of Lafayette to complain that their kids had been assigned to read Flannery O'Connor's short story "The Artificial Nigger." The story is a devastating portrayal of the psychological roots of white racism. O'Connor, of course, is one of the greatest Catholic writers (and writers, period) America has ever produced. Neither the priest nor the parents had read the story, but they demanded the bishop ban it. Not only did the bishop cravenly comply, but he banned from diocesan high schools any book with the word "nigger" in it. So long Mark Twain! Fare thee well, William Faulkner! See you later, Ernest J. Gaines! The First Amendment only protects speech from being banned by the government. It does not protect it from ignoramuses. Posted 12:38 PM | [Link] MEANWHILE ON THE SENATE FLOOR... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...Tom Daschle goes mad. Posted 12:32 PM | [Link] SLAUGHTERING [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Not to pick on Louise Slaughter (D., NY), but just now on the House floor she warned that "women will die" if the Abortion Anti-Discrimination Act is passed. Most congressmen seem to get that that's a completely illogical scare tactic. But not everyone. Slaughter, in a out-of-order debate with Chris Smith (R., NJ), argued that if a woman walks into a hospital, bleeding, because of a botched abortion somewhere else, doctors will let her die rather than treat her, the woman with the Scarlet AB, presumably, on her bloodied clothes. Now, first of all, her hypothetical nightmare has nothing to do with this very specific bill. But stop to think about this: People really believe this stuff. Posted 12:29 PM | [Link] NO WHODUNNIT (2) [Andrew Stuttaford] More from CNN International (the absence of a Fox News International is not good for my blood pressure): a reference to how the discovery of a mass grave (of around 30,000 people) outside St Petersburg gives "support" to "theories" that many thousands of the people who disappeared from that city during the Stalin purges were, in fact, murdered. Theories? Posted 12:27 PM | [Link] BLAMING AL QUAEDA [Jonah Goldberg] Andrew, actually not enough has been made of it. Reuters is the worst culprit. They flatly refuse to say al-Quaeda did it even though Osama Bin Laden is on tape saying he did it. For example, a recent Reuters story reported, "The United States has blamed al Qaeda for the Sept. 11 attacks that killed about 3,000 people." You'd think they could at least say "which claimed responsibility for the attacks" or something like that. Of course, Reuters won't use the word terrorist without quotation marks either. I think this actually raises a more fundamental problem with global media companies. Sometimes they seem awfully tempted to kowtow to the sensibilities of their foreign readers. This can be harmless but not when you're splitting the difference with propaganda and outright lies. Posted 12:25 PM | [Link] NO WHODUNNIT [Andrew Stuttaford] Just heard in a newscast on CNN International: a description of Al Qaeda as the organization "blamed for" the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure that I am far from being the only person to have noticed (and commented on) this, but it does seem like a curious way to refer to the bin Laden gang. It's designed, presumably, to show 'objectivity', but the cost is clarity. Al Qaeda is, indeed, "blamed for" for those murders, and for a very good reason. It carried them out. So why not just say so? Posted 12:13 PM | [Link] RIGHT ON, ROD! [Mike Potemra] I am not a veteran Jesse Jackson basher; whenever I have disagreed with Jesse in the past, I have pretty much shrugged and said, "OK, he's kind of a quack, but he's entitled to his opinion; it's a free country." I still, of course, believe that Jesse is entitled to express his own opinions on anything whatsoever; but the fact that he doesn't extend the same courtesy to people who express views other than his own shows him to be a hypocrite of the worst kind. And there's a very important deeper principle here. Let's say 50 percent plus one voter in some locality were to decide as follows: Our "community" agrees with Jesse Jackson, and we want to defend our "community values" against the "moral relativists" who say Jesse Jackson might actually be wrong-so we're going to cut scenes from that movie that we think are "obscene" violations of the values we hold dear. What would happen? Put simply, the First Amendment would not let them get away with it. It's sad that Jesse Jackson, a guy who became famous by fighting for the rights of minority groups, now wants to stamp out dissent; but it's heartening that he will not prevail. This is America, and in America, in general, the enemies of freedom do not win. Posted 12:12 PM | [Link] REVVUM JACKSON: IT GETS WORSE: [Rod Dreher] Readers are writing from all over to say they heard it reported on their local radio station this morning that Jesse Jackson now admits he's never even seen Barbershop, though he is trying to get the movie censored for hurting his feelings. If true, what a boob. If anybody has a link to a print article reporting this, send it on. Posted 11:30 AM | [Link] DON'T BLAME ME FOR THE WASTED MINUTES YOU'LL SPEND ON TODAY'S COOL SITE OF THE DAY[Kathryn Jean Lopez] Posted 11:20 AM | [Link] AND THAT GOT ME THINKING.... [Jonah Goldberg] I wonder who the various contributors of the Corner consider to be the worst US Senator. This need not be a partisan thing. Which Senator regardless of party exemplifies all the things which make Senators annoying? I mean the ability to say the most words with the least substance, the Gore (and Orrin Hatch) like tendency to claim credit for every positive social and legal development in the world and so on. Posted 11:14 AM | [Link] PERSONAL POINT OF NO PARTICULAR ORDER [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Jonah, I don't like Tom Harkin either. He went to my alma mater. This makes me dislike him even more. Posted 11:11 AM | [Link] LOGIC 101 [Jonah Goldberg] I do not like Tom Harkin. Tom Harkin is in trouble. This makes me happy. Posted 11:07 AM | [Link] MISS AMERICA STUMBLES [Jonah Goldberg] The Miss America pageant was a ratings bomb. My un-PC theory is that it's because the beauty pageant has become so determined to prove it's not a beauty pageant that the women aren't that good looking anymore. Like it or not, people still watch beauty pageants to look at beautiful women. I didn't watch much of it, but it seemed pretty clear to me these were nice-looking women, but hardly the best looking women in America. I wonder what would happen if, say, Fox ran a real beauty pageant which just looked for the best looking women, period. Posted 10:59 AM | [Link] OVER AT THE ARAB NEWS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Top story: "Saudi Arabia said it was time for the UN Security Council to act against Israel’s 'oppressive and terrorist campaigns' against the Palestinian people." Well, switch some words around, and they're right. One wonders what Israel critics would say if the tables were turned and the Israelis actually did sponsor the murder of innocents. Posted 10:51 AM | [Link] WHO ARE IRISH TRAVELERS? [Dave Kopel] Intense media coverage of the Toogood case has led many people wonder who "Irish Travelers" are. Well, there about fifty thousand of them in the United States, and eighty-six thousand worldwide. Also known as Tinkers or Menceir, they speak a language known as Irish Traveler Cant, also called Shelta, Sheldru, or Gaemon. Linguists explain that Shelta is derivative of Gaelic, and is not associated with Gypsy languages, even though Travelers and Gypsies follow somewhat similar lifestyles. Shelta is classified as a cryptolect, a private language which helps group members maintain solidarity and secrecy. Irish Travelers immigrated to the United States in the middle and late 19th century; they originally specialized in the horse and mule trade, but the decline in this part of the economy led to their current specialization in the sale of goods and service. A website about the Travelers in Ireland details the conflicts between Travelers and the rest of the Irish population, explains Traveler culture, supplies a Shelta/English lexicon, and offers links to other websites about Travelers. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper lists a half-dozen serious crimes committed by Travelers in the U.S. between 1992 and 2001. But for just about any community of tens of thousands people (e.g., Catholic Priests and other Religious; or residents of semi-populous cities or counties; or employees of large corporations), one could compile lists of several serious crimes perpetrated by a few dozen members of the community, over the course of a decade. Mr. Roeper notwithstanding, we should be hesitant about using a few crimes committed by handful of people as a basis for condemning an entire group -- especially when we have little personal knowledge of the group. Posted 10:44 AM | [Link] NRO READERS GET IT [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I'll continue the trend of the morning: A reader writes, getting the bizarreness of the crusade against hospitals that choose to not perform abortions out of conscience: "This whole issue is surreal. Aren't there hospitals that don't do transplants? And hospitals that don't do brain surgery? And hospitals that don't turn men into women and vice versa? So why can't there simply be hospitals that don't do abortion without the government's asking why?" The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act before the House this week is that simple. Posted 10:33 AM | [Link] TWO POINTS FROM THE MAILBAG [John Derbyshire] 1. A reader living in the West Bank emails me to say that a lot of people from metropolitan Israel are moving to West Bank settlements in anticipation of an Iraq war. There reasoning is, that Saddam won't lob missiles into the West Bank. I'm not sure about the reasoning--it assumes that Saddam gives a fig about killing brother Arabs, which is not obvious to me--but this is a nice instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences--the danger posed by a crazy Arab dictator actually strengthening the settlement movement. 2. A different reader, who served in the Gulf War, tells me that the stuff you hear about military operations being impossible in the heat of summer because soldiers can't function in protective gear, is all b-s. The suits you have to wear to protect against nuclear, chemical and biological attacks (the current acronym is MOPP suits) add a layer of discomfort, but don't incapacitate, even in 120-degree climate. Plus, US forces are now terrifically good at night operations--and as everyone knows, deserts are cold at night. Plus, the enemy is fighting on the same battlefield, and their MOPP gear is old 1970s-era Soviet stuff, way more cumbersome and unreliable than ours. Posted 10:26 AM | [Link] AL DISAGREES WITH AL TOO [Jonathan Adler] In his recent speech on Iraq policy, Gore trumpeted his support of the Gulf War, and his dismay that the U.S. didn't finish the job. Indeed, Gore said he "felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield." Yet as Fox News reported, Gore was singing a different tune in 1991. Speaking on the Senate floor, Gore said then that "President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop." Posted 10:23 AM | [Link] CENSORSHIP [Jonah Goldberg] Another interesting note from dear old Dad. The most pervasive censorship, of course, is the copyright law, which prevents all of us from using other people's creations. The concept is very logical, but the extent and application are almost arbitrary - the length of protected copyright has varied enormously and of course is the topic of constant debate between copyright owners and disseminators. Plagiarism as a crime makes sense but has to be weighed against the social benefits of wide dissemination. If an obscure writer creates a brilliant work but nobody reads it - and his work is then plagiarized by a writer whom everybody loves and reads, thereby informing and uplifting millions of people, then perhaps a greater social good has been performed, at least in the short run. In the long run, however, it could stifle creativity. In any event, copyright and plagiarism aren't black and white issues and the FFathers - and indeed the Romans - knew the stakes were high in formulating these laws. Posted 10:06 AM | [Link] NASSER [Jonah Goldberg] Interesting email from Poppa Goldberg (who used to run the North American News Alliance AKA NANA): Your column reminded me that one of the rare instances of the use of poison gas was by Nasser. In 1958, Nasser inspired Egypt and Syria to combine as one nation, the United Arab Republic (citizens were called, simply, Arabs, and it was to be the beginning of a universal Arab state). Yemen joined the UAR within a few months, and the name was changed to United Arab States. Officers in Yemen then rebelled and Egypt tried to put them down, without doubt using poison gas. This was a dirty, secret little war - it so happens that NANA had a very reliable reporter there (I believe former LA Times guy, who later went back to LA Times). Nobody paid much attention to it, but it went on for a few months. I tried to find a reference to this in google but no luck. World Almanac doesn't mention it, nor Columbia Encyclopedia, but I'm sure any standard history of Yemen would cover it, that is, the war - but the poison gas, maybe. The United Arab States broke up a couple of years later when Syria pulled out. Posted 10:03 AM | [Link] NR'S ARROGANCE [Jonah Goldberg] Hugely (and surprisingly) positive response to yesterday's G-File. Here's one which went the other way: "While I agree that certainly America isn't an imperialist country, your article, in what must be unintended irony, was so obnoxious arrogant and self-satisfied that I can utterly understand why other people hate us. They hate us because of self-absorded, blinkered jerks like yourself! I live in Korea and have to explain idiots like yourself, saying "not all Americans are so conceited" etc etc -- man, you guys at the National Review sure make it hard for a guy to live abroad." Posted 9:22 AM | [Link] DOLLY PARTON.... [Jonah Goldberg] Was profiled this morning on NPR. She's come out with her like 8 billionth album. One of the songs is her version of "Stairway to Heaven," and I'll be damned if it isn't pretty good. Posted 9:04 AM | [Link] NO GORE-LIEBERMAN '04 [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Joe disagrees with Al over Iraq. Posted 8:10 AM | [Link]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>