 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NYC IS THE REAL CAPITAL OF AMERICA: [Rod Dreher] The Times' Frank Rich (a DC native) has started a huge Washington-vs.-New York slapfight with his provocative essay pointing out that New York City is superior to Washington, DC, in every way that counts. An excerpt: "First appearances can be deceptive to new visitors to DC. Edmund Wilson once observed that Washington, 'after other American cities, seems at first such a relief, so agreeable,' but 'turns out, when one has stayed there any length of time, to have little personality of its own and to come to taste rather flat.' Or as [New York Post gossip columnist] Cindy Adams wrote this year: 'Even folks who live in Washington don't want to be there. The high point for a visitor? Catching a glimpse of Trent Lott in person? I mean, please.'" Now, having lived in both cities, and loved both, I find Rich's delightfully arrogant piece unanswerable. But I look forward to someone from NRO's Washington office to hazard a rebuttal. Or maybe John Podhoretz, who once wrote an engaging essay in which he spoke unironically of Washington as a "place of excitement, romance, and mystery," will speak up in DC's defense -- if he can manage it with a straight face, now that he's been happily back in NYC for five years. Posted 10:42 PM | [Link] DAMN THOSE RALLY MONKEYS!: [Lowry] Posted 8:43 PM | [Link] THE ANAL-RETENTIVE PUNDIT STRIKES BACK (BY PROXY): From another reader: "I'm sure that this is not the only e-mail you'll get on the subject, but if it takes a cybermob to correct an evident idiocy, then it's a mob I don't mind being a part of. Contrary to what your reader wrote, there is no singular noun talebun in Persian. The singular is taleb: in my Persian dictionary (Haim), 'one who seeks or demands.' We foreigners who were in Afghanistan in the mid-nineties, during the rise of the Taleban, used to refer to them as talebs, i.e., adding the English plural form to the Persian singular. Like many words in Persian, taleb comes from Arabic. But Persian has its own grammar rules for pluralizing. In Persian, the suffix -an (pronounced 'awn') dentes the plural for humans (-ha, pronounced 'haw,' is used for inanimate objects). Thus, taleban is the plural for taleb... . Your reader should be reminded that the recent Arab invasion of Afghanistan has been defeated, and his application of Arabic grammar to Persian may be a clever rear-guard action, but it is also demonstrably false." So there! Next topic: Paula Zahn's promiscuous abuse of gerunds in colloquial Albanian -- just who the heck does she think she is?!. Posted 6:17 PM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 1:04 PM | [Link] DARE TO DREAM [Andrew Stuttaford] In an annoyingly realistic gesture, Taiwan has renounced its claims to Mongolia (which stem from the island nation's status as the continuation of pre-Communist China). Su Jia-shan of the Taiwanese interior ministry told the Financial Times that Taipei was simply being "practical", "To have Mongolia shown as part of our territory does not accord with reality." He's quite right, of course, but it's still somewhat disappointing. I rather like the thought of Taiwan's ambitious hegemons, hungrily staring across the ocean and dreaming of empire in distant Ulan Bator. In a way it's a little reminiscent (if I remember correctly) of the supposed war between Sweden and Yugoslavia dreamt up by the humorist Peter Simple in the London Daily Telegraph a few decades ago. The conflict had, apparently, being going on for years, with attempts to bring it to a successful conclusion by one side or the other being continually stymied by the fact that there was nowhere that these two powers could actually meet to have a battle. Posted 11:59 AM | [Link] FULL BLOOM [Andrew Stuttaford] The September 30th edition of the New Yorker has a long piece on Harold Bloom. It's worth reading in its entirety, but this remark by Bloom (on the experience of giving a lecture at Oxford) is truly something to savor: "I watched the faces of my audience as I delivered this, and I saw blank incomprehension. I had a vision of an airplane flying over cows in a meadow." Those words are, of course, boastful, rude and shamelessly elitist, and in an age of fake humility, bogus politeness and pious egalitarianism, they are a delight. Posted 11:25 AM | [Link] CUBA LIBRE [Andrew Stuttaford] In a charming gesture, delegates to an anti-racism conference in Barbados have voted to exclude all attendees with the 'wrong' skin color. Of all people, the Cubans had the guts to object. Who would have thought it? Posted 10:39 AM | [Link] ROTH TO NEW YORK CITY... [Andrew Stuttaford] Roth had, it turned out, arrived in New York City on September 10th, 2001. He stayed on afterwards for a few months. As he explains, "For me New York had become interesting again because it was a town in crisis, particularly in the weeks that followed when everyone was expecting another attack. It was a strange time and the first time for years that New York interested me." I'm sure that New Yorkers will be glad to know it. Posted 10:24 AM | [Link] PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT [Andrew Stuttaford] Author Philip Roth is reportedly attacking Americans for their "narcissism" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Well, I guess that it is a quality he knows something about. Posted 10:00 AM | [Link] A YANKEE FAN'S AGONY III: [Lowry] The Angels play like the Yankees of the mid-to-late 1990s: lots of basehits and disciplined at-bats, no superstars, doing all the little things right (like bunting, for instance--the Angels' lead-off hitter can do it, the Yankees' can't). Posted 9:29 AM | [Link] A YANKEE FAN'S AGONY II: [Lowry] When Mondesi dropped that ball in right-field, I couldn't help thinking: Paul O'Neill would have caught that! Posted 9:25 AM | [Link] A YANKEE FAN'S AGONY I: [Lowry] This feels a lot like 1995. Posted 9:22 AM | [Link] THE ANAL-RETENTIVE PUNDIT IS WRONG!: [Rod Dreher] Writes a reader: "Someone please tell the anal-retentive pundit the plural of talibun, student, is not taliban but tullabuun. Taliban is still a singular noun." Thanks, Mullah Omar! The anal-retentive pundit acknowledges his error, and will henceforth limit his lexicographal tut-tutting to lecturing Yankees on the proper use of the term y'all. Posted 8:45 AM | [Link] DOMESTIC PREEMPTION[Kathryn Jean Lopez] Those DNC ads showing the president killing elderly people might be the Democrats interpretation of preemption: the president kills people before they kill themselves, which they will do under CONSERVATIVE RULE. Posted 8:39 AM | [Link] WE SPONSORED THE BAGHDAD DEMS IN IRAQ…[Kathryn Jean Lopez] …but we’re not political. (That, but they are antiwar.) If they want to preserve a nonpolitical veneer, this "charity" should choose whose trips it pays for a little more carefully. Posted 8:34 AM | [Link] CAN'T WE FIND SOMETHING TO KEEP THE U.N. OCCUPIED... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...so they will stop messing with real life? U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child has informed Britain that it needs to rethink legal spanking, or else be in violation of an international treaty. Won't those bloddy British every learn human rights from the likes of Libya. Posted 2:18 AM | [Link] “PUT UP OR SHUT UP[Kathryn Jean Lopez] Mark Steyn on European whining. Posted 2:08 AM | [Link] CYNTHIA MCKINNEY SUPPORTERS ARE LOOKING FOR A FRIENDLY COURT... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...to turn her primary loss around for her... Posted 1:59 AM | [Link]
THE ANAL-RETENTIVE PUNDIT: [Rod Dreher] I know, I know, there are worse things to worry about (like those two Jane Monheit devotees out to get me for extolling the virtues of Diana Krall last night in The Corner), but I've gotta say that I'm really tired of newscasters calling John Walker Lindh the "American Taliban." The word taliban is the plural form of talib, which means "student." Inasmuch as there is only one of him, he is the "American talib." Posted 11:20 PM | [Link] A HITCH IN TIME [Andrew Stuttaford] Jonah posted something nasty from the London Daily Mirror earlier today. Any Corner readers overcome by nausea on reading it can find an antidote from, surprisingly, the same newspaper: Christopher Hitchens' entertainingly brutal comments on Clinton's performance at the Labour Party Conference earlier this week. Thanks to Blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh for pointing this out. Posted 11:06 PM | [Link] IS KRISTOF SERIOUS? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] >The New York Times columnist seems to not understand that the run-of-the-mill Iraqi is not suicidal and therefore takes everything folks he interviewed there at face value. Posted 5:13 PM | [Link] RE: RAELIAN SICKOS[Kathryn Jean Lopez] As for those nuts, they have been claiming to have buns in the oven so to speak for much more than nine months now. Truth be told, it's not them I am worried about. As each day passes without a federal ban on human cloning, serious, mainstream cloning technology from much more respectable types comes a little closer to reality. Posted 5:06 PM | [Link] RAELIAN SICKOS: [Rod Dreher] The Raelian UFO cult now says it has cloned pregnancies underway. The group is also undertaking a nasty anti-Catholic campaign in Canada that includes the burning of crucifixes, it is reported. If the space-cadet Raelians were burning Torahs or Korans, Canada would be in an uproar, eh? Posted 5:00 PM | [Link] ARIZONA READERS.. [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...are suggesting there are in-state boycotts of KUPD sponsors going on, and one sponsor has already reportedly pulled from the station. If any of you have a link to send people too, holler with it. A lot of Corner readers want to constructively voice their outrage. (A complaint or two to the FCC couldn't hurt, either.) Posted 4:48 PM | [Link] G-FILE FOLLOW-UP [Jonah Goldberg] Getting nice feedback on today's column. But a few people think I'm too calm on the whole New Jersey thing (they think the same of NRO generally). I think this is a big deal for the Republican Party and I think the GOP is right to be peeved. But I don't think this is the legal or cultural disaster some readers seem to think it is. One thing to keep in mind is that generally speaking elections in this country are cleaner today -- as in less corrupt -- than any other period in American history. If the GOP loses the Senate race because of this it will be an outrage, but it will be a lesser outrage in the history of the republic. I'm more concerned -- as my column suggests -- with the general glorification of voting in our culture. And since I think the judges were largely hacks rather than ideologues, I'm not sure we can say this spells a huge national trend quite yet. Posted 4:41 PM | [Link] JOHN WALKER LINDH... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ..has officially been sentenced to 20 years. So he'll be in his 40s? Doesn't seem long enough. Posted 4:36 PM | [Link] RE: NOT EVEN CLOSE: [Rod Dreher] That apology says the jerk DJ's phone call to the widow "was not intended to be hurtful or malicious in any way." What the hell was a taunting phone call to the wife of a dead man meant to be, then? And the station is shocked that people are offended. Maybe the morning show's producer Brady Bogen (brady@98kupd.com) can explain. Posted 4:31 PM | [Link] BLUE IN THE FACE [Jonah Goldberg] A Libertarian poster boy -- in living color. Posted 4:28 PM | [Link] ANOTHER, SLIGHTLY BRAINIER, TIME WASTER [Jonah Goldberg] Trivial Pursuit Online. Posted 4:25 PM | [Link] NOT EVEN CLOSE TO GOOD ENOUGH[Kathryn Jean Lopez] That Phoenix radio station has a pathetic apology up on their website. The DJ in question, Beau Duran, should not be employed by this station if he did what the previously linked-to news story is true: He called baseball player Darryl Kile’s widow (Kyle is the 33-year-old Cardinals pitcher who died of a clogged coronary artery this summer) and asked her if she had a “date” for the playoffs. The radio station is calling it a "misjudgment." Misjudgment does not do such a rotten thing justice. Posted 4:22 PM | [Link] LIGHTEN UP, GOP [Byron York] The Democratic National Committee has released a new set of talking points in reaction to the furor over its "Bush Kills a Senior" flash animation posted on the DNC website. And the DNC's defense is...it was all a joke, sort of. The points are titled, "Lighten Up, GOP: DNC Social Security Flash Animation Wraps Truth in Humor." They continue: "The Republicans can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. The DNC's flash animation is a creative way of illustrating the ugly truth about the President's Social Security privatization plan -- that it will cut guaranteed benefits and gamble Americans' retirement savings in the stock market, the same stock market that has lost $4.5 trillion since the Bush Administration took office." Posted 4:10 PM | [Link] RE: AWFUL: [Rod Dreher] Good Lord. Kathryn, if that really happened, the DJ should be missing a lot more than his job by the end of the day. Posted 4:06 PM | [Link] WILL JONAH SINK BIG IDEA?: [Rod Dreher] Christianity Today is reporting that the future of Big Idea, the company behind VeggieTales, depends on the success of the Jonah movie. This report says Big Idea is in financial trouble, has been laying off lots of people, and has left behind some pretty sour ex-employees. Posted 3:39 PM | [Link] AWFUL! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Another rotten radio DJ "prank." If this is what happened, this guy should not have a job by the end of the day. Posted 3:20 PM | [Link] ENOUGH! [Jonah Goldberg] Rod - I am nobody's fearless leader, partly because I have many fears and partly because I constitute a one man puppet regime -- run from "below" by Kathryn Lopez and from above by Rich Lowry. Think of me as the President of the Ukraine during Soviet days. Rich is the Soviet premiere who runs the Big Show and Kathryn is the local Ukranian Party boss who informs me of how things are "going to be." I get to name streets, kiss babies and make suggestions. And K-Lo, for now and into the future we should have no more conversations about who does or does not "love our Jonah." I'm afraid to know how that would break down among Cornerites let alone the general public. Posted 2:33 PM | [Link] ROD... [KJL] No offense to Mark Shea, who is a good guy, but who cares what he thinks of the VeggieTales if he doesn't love our Jonah? Posted 2:14 PM | [Link] I STAND CORRECTED [Kathryn Jean Lopez] In a posting yesterday, I referred to Margaret Thatcher as a former head of state. I should not have. She was head of the government, QEII is head of state, as many readers have pointed out. Posted 2:13 PM | [Link] MARK SHEA LOVES JONAH: [Rod Dreher] The VeggieTales movie, not Our Fearless Leader. Here's his review. Mark liked the movie more than I did, but we're both VeggieTales devotees, and we agree that "The Song of the Cebu" is the best VT song ever! Posted 2:01 PM | [Link] THANKS [Jonah Goldberg] I gave a little talk to the gang from the Leadership Institute/Heritage Foundation last night. As a token of their appreciation they gave me a Heritage tie, three bags of beef jerky (mmmmm Jerky) and -- best of all -- a tube of Pupperoni for Cosmo the Wonderdog. I just wanted to say thanks from the pup. He seems to enjoy it a great deal. Posted 1:30 PM | [Link] THROW GRANDMA FROM THE CLIFF [Kathryn Jean Lopez] "Dirty" campaigning doesn't usually bother me, but this is outrageous. Posted 1:12 PM | [Link] I'M SURE IT IS JUST A COINCIDENCE... [KJL] ...But should we be especially worried that one of these Oregon terrorists is named "October"? Posted 1:06 PM | [Link] TALK BACK TO NEW JERSEY SUPREMES[Kathryn Jean Lopez] A few readers have emailed me that they have gone to the Forrester website and donated $25 to his campaign in a protest against Democrat election games and judicial activism. We report, you decide. Here’s the link. Here's his homepage. Posted 12:49 PM | [Link] WIMGATE: [Rod Dreher] There are further developments today in the controversy over European Central Banker Wim Duisenberg's big-mouthed, apparently anti-Semitic wife, reports Dutch blogger Michiel Visser. It seems that Yassir Arafat is thinking of naming a human rights institute after her. Posted 12:26 PM | [Link] SIX MORE AMERICAN AL QAEDA ARRESTED [KJL] Signed up after 9/11 evidently. Ashcroft holding press conference at 1. Posted 11:30 AM | [Link] TERRORISTS TARGETING SCHOOLS? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Posted 11:28 AM | [Link] SCONJ FELL LONG AGO [Jonathan Adler] I've read lots of outrage at the SCONJ decision in the New Jersey Senate case yet, with the exception of Mark Levin's post yesterday, I've seen no effort to deal with New Jersey precedent on the issue. While I agree with Mark that the prior cases are distinguishable, I think they are much closer than his essay suggests. In 1952, the SCONJ allowed the substitution of a candidate on the ballot when a candidate died after the substitution deadline in the New Jersey election statute. There the Court made clear its preference for candidates for both major parties, in addition to candidates from OTHER qualifying parties. In 1991, in the Catania case, the SCONJ allowed the Republicans to place a nominee on the ballot even though the Republican Party had failed to comply with the explicit statutory requirements for placing a candidate on the ballot. In other words, the SCONJ has long held that the interests of voter choice -- defined to mean candidates from the two major parties -- trumps a hypertechnical reliance on statutory text. I agree with all the commentators on this site that this is a terri ble -- indeed, dangerous -- approach to statutory interpretation. But we should all recognize that, at least in the Garden State, it is not unprecedented. Posted 11:17 AM | [Link] BUSH SPEECH MONDAY NIGHT... [KJL] ...on Iraq.... Posted 10:48 AM | [Link] OUTSTANDING GYMNASTICS [Jonah Goldberg] How a newspaper managed to kiss Bill Clinton's butt while having its own head crammed so far up its own is a miracle scientists will be studying for centuries. Posted 10:21 AM | [Link] WE CARE [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of National Abortion Federation in a letter to the Washington Post today writes, "The opposition to the nomination of Michael McConnell to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is not about a 'litmus test' on abortion; it is about women's access to safe, legal abortion care." Posted 10:14 AM | [Link] MORE JUST WAR [Stanley Kurtz] Let me add a note to my earlier blogs about the “just war” symposium. I had a comeback to Bill Galston’s reply to my comments, but wasn’t able to give it. (Understandably, the moderator felt that I had already had enough time.) Here is what I would have said. In response to my claim that Saddam could not be deterred, Galston argued that Saddam had in fact been successfully deterred when we read him the riot act. It was only when we were weak that Saddam took advantage. But that’s not true. As Kenneth Pollack shows in The Threatening Storm, we told Saddam during the Gulf War that several actions on his part would bring the severest possible consequences. One of those actions was destruction of the Kuwaiti oil fields. But Saddam burned the Kuwaiti oil wells anyway, and we neither deposed him nor struck him with nuclear weapons. So in fact, Saddam has already defied us and broken out of the constraints of deterrence. Worse, we allowed him to get away with it. How can that have done anything other than encourage Saddam to believe that he can get away with nuclear blackmail? By the way, last night The Threatening Storm was seventeen on Amazon’s best-seller list. Posted 10:03 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 9:47 AM | [Link] RE: TERRORISM AND "TERRORISM" [Kathryn Jean Lopez] To his credit, Jonah, I just heard the Montgomery County sheriff refuse to rule out terrorism, as opposed to what authorities were so quick to do at LAX on July 4th. Posted 8:40 AM | [Link] GALSTON, BTW [Stanley Kurtz] By the way, if you’re interested in reading William Galston’s case against a move on Iraq, you can get the written version here. Walzer’s essay on the topic is in The New Republic, but available only to subscribers. Posted 8:22 AM | [Link] TERRORISM? [Jonah Goldberg] I haven't scoured the web for this so maybe someone has floated this idea already. But isn't it possible that the Montgomery County sniper is a "terrorist" or terrorist-without-quotation-marks? I make the distinction because he wouldn't have to be a member of al-Quaeda or any other group. But the fact that these killings are random, in the DC suburbs and that they seem to be committed by a skilled shooter possibly with an accomplice makes it seem unlikely that it's a typical spree killer. They usually don't work in teams. There are precendents: This sort of thing is very common in the West Bank, not unheard of in Europe and there was the CIA shooter and the LAX guy (who was a freelancer). If it's an al-Quaeda type operation it may be evidence that bombing and large scale operations aren't possible in the current climate. Other than catching them, the surest way to tell if this more than a "normal" spree-killing is if there's another similar spree in a completely different area. Posted 8:18 AM | [Link] WALZER’S ISSUES [Stanley Kurtz] Walzer’s argument also had other problems that I couldn’t get to in my comments. He wanted to trust the French and Russians to impose stringent inspections, even when he admitted that they had been bought off by Saddam, and even though he was pessimistic that they would really come around. How can we gamble our lives on the slim chance that the allies will do what needs to be done. Walzer also argued that the Israeli preemptive strike on Iraq’s reactor was justified because Israel was technically in an unresolved state of low level war with Iraq. Yet in his answer to a question at the symposium, he acknowledge that we too have been engaged (with the no fly zone bombing) in an unresolved low level war with Iraq. So his distinction between our preemption and the Israeli preemption disappears. Walzer and Galston are brilliant, and both strongly supported the war in Afghanistan. Since 9/11, Walzer has taken a courageous stand against leftist anti-war sentiment. But I think these two important thinkers have got the Iraq question wrong. Posted 8:14 AM | [Link] THE SYMPOSIUM[Stanley Kurtz] I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with either side of the debate at the just war symposium. Even those who said an invasion of Iraq would be justified hedged their approval with limiting conditions that in my view were misguided. It seems to me that the whole “just war” tradition has serious problems. For example, as Walzer noted, just war theory doesn’t like any kind of pre-emptive move. It seems fairly clear from his remarks that just war theorists would not have approved of a British and French attack on Hitler in 1938, when they could have won. By waiting till 1939, we got World War II. Was that just? Posted 8:14 AM | [Link] "JUST WAR" TALK [Stanley Kurtz] Earlier this week I attended a symposium sponsored by the Institute for American Values called “Iraq and Just War.” In that symposium, two eminent political philosophers, Michael Walzer and William Galston, argued that an invasion of Iraq at this time would be in violation of traditional “just war” principles. Two other theorists of just-war traditions argued that an invasion at this time would be justified. I led off the question and answer period by pressing William Galston, and to a lesser extent, Michael Walzer, on their points (although time forced me to leave out a more detailed response to Walzer). If you want to hear the symposium, click here. To get to my comments, and the response by Galston and Walzer, scroll down to Question and Answer, and click on “Segment 1.” By the way, my comments refer to certain “stipulations” that all the panelists were said to accept. (See the “Introduction” segment for the stipulations.) Posted 8:09 AM | [Link] OH NO [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Jeff Greenfield is on CNN's American Morning discussing how Bush and Saddam Hussein would stack up in a duel, and Cheney vs. Iraqi Vice President Ramadan. Makes me feel less self-conscious for calling our president a stud a little earlier in The Corner. CNN actually cancelled Greenfield's intelligent late-night news show for the likes of this.... Posted 7:53 AM | [Link] PEACE IS FLOWING… [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Friday sermons in Iraqi mosques today warn worshippers that Muslims who choose to side with the U.S. against the Iraq regime (threatening neighboring countries) will be made to be “tea boys and dust sweepers” and be “relegated to the dustbin of history,” according to a report on CNN this morning. Posted 7:38 AM | [Link] SADDAM BETTER THANK ALLAH... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...that our studly Texan prez didn't take him up on this offer. Posted 7:34 AM | [Link] HOW ABOUT BLAIR REPLACE BLIX? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] More tough talk from Britain's prime minister. Meanwhile Hans Blix gives Iraq more time to hide anything they don't want inspectors to see in any of the off-limits presidential sites. Posted 7:16 AM | [Link] THE REV DON’T NEED TRUTH [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Asked to speak to the Tawana Brawley fiasco that ruined a cop’s life for no true or good reason, he accused the media of being the only ones who care about the issue and said that everyone else respects him “for standing up for what I believe in”—regardless if they are lies or not. Posted 6:50 AM | [Link] AL GOES TO THE BARBER [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Al Sharpton on local NBC news just now suggested that he opposes Barbershop’s Jesse Jackson, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr. lines because they are racially exclusive. Jokes are only funny--and PERMITTED--if they work on a quota system. Posted 6:50 AM | [Link] MEVROUW DUISENBERG'S BIG MOUTH: [Rod Dreher] Michiel Visser has news of the latest anti-Semitic buffoonery of the wife of the European Central Bank president. Posted 12:39 AM | [Link] NOW PLAYING: [Rod Dreher] Jazz diva Diana Krall's Live in Paris disc is out this week. Unless you've won the lottery, listening to it will be the best thing to happen to you all week (follow the link and see for yourself). Lord have mercy, but she is so good it hurts. Posted 12:22 AM | [Link]
JERSEY TALK [Dave Kopel] The Wall Street Journal's on-line "Discussions" website is hosting a discussion of the Torricelli controversy. Along with Jonathan Adler, I'm one of the experts selected by the Journal to participate in the discussion. Please join in, and share your views. Posted 8:14 PM | [Link] GOOD POINT! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A reader writes: "Do not fear. I am sure the Democratic party can find a friendly court to rewrite the constitutional requirement that the US President must be born in this country." Posted 8:10 PM | [Link] ON GRANHOLM [ Mike Potemra] Look at the bright side, Kathryn: She could have chosen Mary Robinson or Gro Haarlem Brundtland! Posted 8:07 PM | [Link] VOICE OF THE ORDAINED: [Rod Dreher] There was a fascinating meeting in Manhattan this afternoon, in a room above an Irish bar. It was the inaugural gathering of "Voice of the Ordained," a group of priests from the Archdiocese of NY, the Diocese of Brooklyn, and the Diocese of Rockville Center (Long Island). About 140 priests showed up for discussion about the predicament Catholic priests find themselves in amid the scandal. There was no small amount of anger and fear present, as very many of the priests feel that they have been abandoned by the bishops, who (in the priests' view) are all too eager to throw them overboard if they are accused of sexual misconduct. A priest and canon lawyer from Brooklyn gave a presentation to the group about various aspects of the situation. At one point he advised them not to admit anything to the bishop if they are called in on a sex charge, because the bishop may release it to prosecutors. At that, a Brooklyn man who claims to have been a victim of clerical sex abuse leaped up and began railing at the priest, waving an outline of the priest's lecture and saying, "This is a road map for protecting pedophiles!" He had to be dragged out of the room, but a couple of priests later spoke sympathetically about his pain. Interestingly, the priests gathered included some of the most liberal and conservative priests in the city. There was also one notorious ephebophile priest present, as well as both a priest who has publicly asserted that he was molested as a boy by a priest, and the priest who allegedly molested him. For all that, there was a palpable sense of fraternity among the men, who seemed glad to finally be able to get together to talk about the whole damn mess. Posted 7:17 PM | [Link] AT LEAST…(A.K.A. I LIED WHEN I SAID I WAS DONE WITH GRANHOLM [Kathryn Jean Lopez] …Granholm will never make it to the White House. And it’s not because she is from Michigan (fear of another Gerry Ford): She was born up north—in Canada. Posted 5:50 PM | [Link] MAYBE THE U.N. SHOULD GET TO WORK ON THIS… [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ….the world’s funniest joke. Posted 5:42 PM | [Link] A MAN SHOT AT THE UNITED NATIONS TODAY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, and other very important people doing vitally important work were inside the complex, near where the gunman was aiming. Fortunately, no one was hurt/hit. You might think, though, that the world would have stopped due to the scare, but it didn’t. The world barely noticed. Posted 5:41 PM | [Link] FROM JERSEY TO THE SUPREMES [Kathryn Jean Lopez] NJ GOP appealing to real Supreme Court. Posted 5:40 PM | [Link] THE TORCH, A WINNER[Kathryn Jean Lopez] This story got somewhat lost in the fog of the N.J. Supremes remarkable lawmaking/breaking move yesterday: Torricelli had tried to get then-President Clinton to pardon one of his launderers. Posted 5:05 PM | [Link] THE BLUE CANDIDATE [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The Natural Law party (which has nothing to do with natural law) has as part of their platform that candidates for office should submit CAT scans to voters. This Libertarian candidate for the Senate from Montana has done better. Posted 5:05 PM | [Link] ONE LAST GRANHOLM THING [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The Economist had a great line a few weeks ago: "To hear Democrats talk about it, Ms Granholm is the most exciting thing in Michigan politics since Gerald Ford." Posted 5:03 PM | [Link] RE: GRANHOLM [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Mike, I think you might be giving her a little too much credit. She’s got her share of left-liberal feminist pretensions. Because she has Maggie Thatcher on her list doesn’t mean she’s an American conservative, capitalist iron lady; I think it’s more like Thatcher was the most prominent and successful female head of state she could think of. Posted 5:03 PM | [Link] THATCHER’S A GOOD CHOICE [ Mike Potemra] The New Republic has an interesting cover story on Michigan Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jennifer Granholm. The reporter "asked Granholm to name her political heroes. Most of her list--Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Gandhi--was predictable, the stuff of ninth-grade civics presentations. The one exception was the only woman Granholm mentioned, Margaret Thatcher. It was not lost on Granholm that Thatcher was probably the modern female politician who most transcended gender stereotypes. ‘She took no guff and got it done,’ Granholm explained." The point of the article is that Granholm is running "like a man" and thus offers a good paradigm for how women can run for office without engaging in radical-feminist or "soccer-mom" pretensions. Posted 5:00 PM | [Link] FORGIVE US OUR LARGE TIME GAPS [KJL] I've moved to a undisclosed location from where I can post (NR World Headquarters is having some technical difficulties). No one else can post for awhile because they are mini-golfing, of course. Thanks, Jonah. Posted 4:28 PM | [Link] BUT.... [Jonah Goldberg] Please don't write me screaming "Damn you Goldberg!!!! I'm going to lose my job!" Which is more or less what a bunch of you have done because of the mini-golf time waster. It's not my fault. Posted 3:31 PM | [Link] GOOD TIME WASTER [Jonah Goldberg] The web is being very persnickety for NRO, so if you have trouble getting into the corner or if we have trouble posting to it, you can waste some time here. Posted 1:14 PM | [Link] A CONNERLY READ [Stanley Kurtz] Ward Connerly is out with a very nice column today about Worth v. Martinez, the suit against HUD and the EEOC being argued by the Center for Individual Rights. This suit is sure to provoke a major fight. If it succeeds, the massive and draconian affirmative action apparatus that applies to all federal employees will have to be significantly scaled back. Posted 9:21 AM | [Link] SOMETHING MISSING FROM MESA [Stanley Kurtz] A very interesting new entry today on Middle East scholar Martin Kramer’s blog, Sandstorm. It seem that the Middle East Studies Association is meeting this year in Washington DC. They meet in DC regularly, to remind the federal government just how much MESA scholars contribute to our national security in exchange for all the money they get from the federal government. Trouble is, there are no panels scheduled on suicide bombing or Wahhabism, no mention of al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Even the few mentions of “terrorism” are put in quotes. These scholars, who are getting subsidized by the federal government for contributing to our national security, are busy planning panels on Middle Eastern “sex and gender” in the early twentieth century. I have no problem with that topic per se, but where is the attention to the crisis of the moment? Is this what we’re paying for? After all the embarrassing revelations about their refusal to deal with the reality of terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism, these scholars have learned nothing. Posted 9:10 AM | [Link] STARS AND STRIPES AND HIGH TAXES [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Democratic U.S. Rep. Janice Schakowsky of Illinois, on the campaign trail for a fellow state Dem running for congress, attacked his opponent, incumbent Pat Toomey for being "unpatriotic." His disloyalty? Supporting Bush tax cuts. "It is unpatriotic if we don't put tax cuts on hold," Schakowsky said during a news conference. "Everybody is being asked to sacrifice, we are dipping into the Social Security trust fund, and only the wealthy are not asked to give anything." Posted 9:09 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 8:24 AM | [Link] IRAQ WON'T ATTACK? THINK AGAIN. [Kathryn Jean Lopez] So Iraq is claiming it will not attack a nation in retaliation for the U.S. attacking Iraq. But Iraq doesn't actually consider Israel a country, does it? Posted 8:22 AM | [Link] RE: IS IT ME? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Well, I laughed out loud during the president's post-school-bombing we-need-more-teachers-in-the-classroom speech, as well as during the idiotic Rock the Vote scene with the press secretary. Maybe it's like Bill Clinton going to Britain--once you have reached liberal-dream status, you don't have to try hard anymore. Just hang out with actors and look cool. (On the topic of Bill Clinton, he couldn't help but make multiple Bush v. Gore jokes, I noted between snoozing, during that speech in the U.K. yesterday. Wonder how he'd spin this NJ nonsense.) Posted 8:19 AM | [Link] IS IT ME? [Jonah Goldberg] Or has the writing on the West Wing gone way down this season? Maybe it's the fact that the do-gooders are in campaign mode, but it seems to me the show has slipped from character sketch to caricature. The subtlety -- to the extent there was any before -- is missing entirely now. Now it's just a bunch of liberal supermen. The president sayng stuff like "I want justice, that's why I contacted a lawyer"...come on! Posted 8:09 AM | [Link] HEAD FOR THE ZONE: [Rod Dreher] Al Gore says he's too fat to get his wedding ring back on. Posted 5:55 AM | [Link]
KIDS, COMMERCIALS, ETC. [Andrew Stuttaford] This debate has now carried over to Mark Shea's blog. Mr. Shea is with Rod on this one, but be sure to check out Justin Katz's response in the 'comments' section... Posted 11:32 PM | [Link] KEVIN SPACEY? [Andrew Stuttaford] Kevin Spacey, eh? That's a wasted opportunity, Kathryn. Clinton should have taken Alec Baldwin and then dropped him off in France before returning home. Posted 11:08 PM | [Link] CONSUMER SOCIETY [Andrew Stuttaford] Rod, I'm sure that any remaining Corner readers would like us to "just move on" from the kids, commercials and TV debate, but one (rather crunchy) comment that you made earlier today was fascinating in its wider implications for the adult world: "Advertising exists, in part, to create desires in us for things we don't need. It is a tendency each one of us has to fight within himself to master, and it's tough..." While I would agree that people do need to exercise more self-control in how they spend their money, let's not take this puritanism too far. The habit of buying stuff we don't really need is one of the motors of the American economy. Besides that, it's fun. Posted 10:45 PM | [Link] MORE WJC [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The former president is travelling with his friend Kevin. Kevin Spacey. So Bill Clinton. Posted 10:43 PM | [Link] SMALL OBSERVATION, NOTE OF THANKSGIVING [Kathryn Jean Lopez] There are many, many reasons, of course, why I am grateful Bill Clinton is not POTUS anymore. But right now, with him speaking from London at a Labor party conference(CSPAN replay from earlier in the day, this is the one I am most grateful for right now: that I don't have to regularly listen to his ridiculously LONG speeches anymore. Fifteen minutes into the speech, I think, he just indicated he was at the beginning of his speech. Posted 10:42 PM | [Link] TITLE IX IS OFFICIALLY UP FOR DISCUSSION [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Tonight on West Wing, the Aaron Sorkin's liberal dreamy White House didn't have a unanimous opinion on it. Actually it was a boy/girl split with obnoxious political operative Ron Silver announcing his indifference on the issue. Yes, it's TV, but they wouldn't do it if they couldn't. Posted 10:26 PM | [Link] PAY TO PLAY [Jonathan Adler] It's also worth noting that under the New Jersey Supreme Court's order directing the removal of Torricelli's name from the ballot, the Court further ordered "that all of the costs related to the preparation and, when necessary, the mailing of revised ballots . . . shall be borne by plaintiffs." That's nice. It would have been better to direct that such costs be borne by the campaign. Posted 10:10 PM | [Link] LAUTENBERG V. FORRESTER [Jonathan Adler] It's over. A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled for the Democrats. Lautenberg's name will be on the ballot, potentially allowing the Democrats to retain the New Jersey Senate seat. I take some consolation from the fact that the Court relied on the precedent I cited this morning. Posted 10:09 PM | [Link] A DISSENT ON DEES: [Ramesh Ponnuru] I agree with Wesley Smith that animal-rights terrorism is a menace, but I can't sign off on the description of Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center as "one of the most respected antiterrorist organizations in the world." Dees, the SPLC, and its publications are not above smearing conservatives, as in a recent attempt to paint Colorado Republican congressman Tom Tancredo, the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and indeed the immigration-reform movement generally as a racist conspiracy. Caveat lector. Posted 4:50 PM | [Link] CPUSA AND THE DEMS [Jonah Goldberg] I was scanning through the American Communist Party's website -- nothing better for writer's block. Anyway, look through their news archive. Isn't amazing how so many of the groups they mention are staples of the Democratic Party? Okay, maybe it's not amazing. But it is sort of an interesting reminder. Posted 4:33 PM | [Link] BUCKING THE TREND: [Rod Dreher] Duane McAllister, publisher of the Gaston (N.C.) Gazette, explains why his newspaper won't be publishing notices of gay commitment ceremonies. Writes McAllister: "I think publication of these announcements legitimizes a practice that offends many of us in that it leads in a direction different than our personal compass heading. As individuals, and a society as a whole, we seldom get lost by suddenly altering our course by 180 degrees. Rather, we lose our way one small increment at a time. When we do, or accept in our personal lives someone else doing, a small course change, we are taking the first step in an off-course direction. Subsequent steps always seem like they are easier to take. It seems to me that we’ve been taking a lot of steps in a direction that is increasingly becoming off-course." I spoke with McAllister earlier today, and he says the paper has lost one advertiser because of its stand, but reader calls praising the move outnumber the protests 60 to 1. Posted 4:32 PM | [Link] DUDE.... [Jonah Goldberg] David Boaz would spontaneously burst into flame if my name even made the short list. Posted 4:16 PM | [Link] ONE GENIUS AND COUNTING [Jonathan Adler] Jonah, take heart, there is one award on "our" side like "genius" grants: the Cato Institute's Friedman prize. The first prize was given last year to the late Lord Peter Bauer and came with a $500,000 check. Stop whining about booze advertisements and start playing nice with libertarians and you might be eligible yourself some day. Posted 4:09 PM | [Link] BYRD'S COMPLAINT [Ramesh Ponnuru] About an hour ago, Sen. Robert Byrd was complaining that none of the spending bills have been sent to the president yet: "This is the worst record for progress in the appropriations process since 1987. . . . Let me say again, this is the worst record for progress in the appropriations process since 1987." And who was the Senate majority leader in 1987? Robert Byrd. Posted 3:59 PM | [Link] GENIUS GRANTS [Jonah Goldberg] I was reading a good piece at TCS-- the site who's full name I refuse to mention -- about the MacArthur Genius grants. And, in a fit of pure jealously, I was wondering why the conservatives can't come up with something like this. Many conservative foundations are considering or have already spent down their endowments. Why can't one of them do it by handing out checks to conservatives? Posted 3:34 PM | [Link] HURRICANE WARNING: [Rod Dreher] Hurricane Lili is now a Category 4 storm, and is looking to become the strongest hurricane to hit the U.S. mainland since Andrew. It looks like New Orleans will barely dodge the second bullet in two weeks -- if the storm doesn't tick to the east just a bit. Posted 3:34 PM | [Link] ON THE OTHER HAND: [Rod Dreher] Is there a website that features Islamic sermons that aren't so fire-and-brimstoney? That preach peace between Muslims and non-Muslims? If anyone is aware of such, send the link to me, and I'll be pleased to post it to The Corner. Posted 3:24 PM | [Link] I'M BACK.... [Jonah Goldberg] The G-File is up. And I'm done arguing about censorship for a while. But I would like to allay the fears of some readers who are concerned that all of this talk of censorship is a sign that I no longer appreciate the women's prison movie genre. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just don't have anything new to say on the subject. Oh and Sarah, as for the Harvard Law Bloggers, I really couldn't give a rat's patoot about what they think about me (especially if they spend their spare hours reading Paul Gottfried of all people. Elizabethtown College's Harvey Mansfield he ain't.) Besides, if even my "defenders" have to score points by calling my dog "freakish-looking" then I turn my back on the Harvard Federalist Society and all of their ilk. Posted 3:18 PM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 3:16 PM | [Link] SCHRODER'S MISCALCULATION [Ramesh Ponnuru] "[I]f Shroder miscalculated, it wasn't only about which words to use or how many of those words added up to a majority in parliament. It was about just how vindictive an American president could be, and what that could do to Germany." -- Jane Kramer in The New Yorker. Posted 3:04 PM | [Link] HARVARD LAW BLOGGINGS [Sarah Maserati] The Harvard Law School Federalist Society has started its own blogging community, Ex Parte. Tuesday's entries have a lively debate on the paleocons. (And today there's a defense of Jonah, whom the paleocons can never help bringing up.) Posted 2:32 PM | [Link] RELIGION OF PEACE UPDATE: [Rod Dreher] Here's a link to the Mecca-based AlMinbar.com, which is Arabic for "ThePulpit.com". It contains a collection of current and past sermons given in mosques throughout the Islamic world. It is an enlightening read. For instance, here's a diverting little homily about devil-worship, which the preacher seems to define as participating in modern life as we in the West know it. If we're all a bunch of devil-worshipers, of what value are our lives? Or here's one from the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, informing the faithful of a conspiracy among the U.S., the U.K., Russia and Israel, to unite against and destroy Islam. These sermons are the voice of madness -- and it's right there for you to read, in English. Posted 2:29 PM | [Link] SAUDI MOSQUES [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Rod, you and the rest of the "infidels" and "enemies of Allah" should read all of MEMRI's latest Saudi Friday sermon translations. I's a long document but eye-opening--even if you have been reading this stuff for a year now (thanks to MEMRI). Things like: "Muslims must… educate their children to Jihad. This is the greatest benefit of the situation: educating the children to Jihad and to hatred of the Jews, the Christians, and the infidels; educating the children to Jihad and to revival of the embers of Jihad in their souls. This is what is needed now…" Posted 2:19 PM | [Link] THE INDIANS DEFEATED CYNTHIA MCKINNEY! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] McKinney seems to think "Indian-Americans--American citizens--lobbying and voting against her is illegal foreign involvement in an election. Posted 2:16 PM | [Link] SPEAKING OF SWINE: [Rod Dreher] How about those sermons in Saudi mosques? Posted 2:08 PM | [Link] SUBWAY READING: [Rod Dreher] I was squeezed tight on the No. 4 subway line from Brooklyn this morning, and happened to look over to see what the perfectly normal looking South Asian guy next to me was reading. It was a book called The Dangers of Eating Swine Flesh, and my eyes fell on a paragraph that talked about how Christianity is the false religion that leads good Muslims to hell, and which must be fought. I returned to Page Six and minding my own business. Posted 2:06 PM | [Link] RENDEVOUS IN HAVANA [Kathryn Jean Lopez] To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, “veterans” of the crisis will meet in none other than Havana. Some of the faces traveling to the Cuban paradise? Robert McNamara, Ted Sorensen, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. And, ex-Soviets: deputy foreign minister Georgy Kornienko, missile-deployment planner Gen. Anatoly Gribkov, and KGB officer Nikolai Leonov. Posted 2:00 PM | [Link] PRECISIONS [ Mike Potemra] 1) I "imagined" no lefty whining on Jonah's part or anyone else's. My exact words urged all concerned to "stop carrying on like whiny lefties." When whiny lefties are the chief proponents of a cause, it is perfectly legitimate to use their support as an argument against that cause. If I, for example, were to start making arguments against the Iraq war, pointing out that its proponents never served in the military, I could legitimately be reproached with "carrying on like Chuck Hagel." I would, of course, understand that I was not being accused of actually being Chuck Hagel; but that would not be the specific point of the reproach. 2) But of course, I recognize that this kind of argument cannot be dispositive. I cannot prove Jonah or anyone else is wrong about something merely by pointing out that certain unpopular people hold the same view, and use silly rhetoric in its defense. That's why I made clear why, specifically, I believe this particular ad-censorship policy would be harmful to America: its liability to abuse by regulators. That's why I am delighted that Jonah, like me, is "not gung-ho to ban ads." Posted 1:59 PM | [Link] THE G-FILE IS IN, I'M OUT [Jonah Goldberg] I've got to take the über hound out and finish the book I'm allegedly reviewing for NR. Back in a bit. I STAND CORRECTED [Jonah Goldberg] Fair enough, Jon. I wrote too fast. However, my understanding is that these rules were set -- like many censorial rules at the networks and elsewhere -- in order to head off government regulations. So yeah, the nets may be policing themselves in this regard, but it is out of a reasonable expectation that Congress would step in if they didn't. Posted 1:48 PM | [Link] BOURBON WITH THE POWERPUFF GIRLS [Jonathan Adler] Actually, Jonah, there is no law prohibiting the advertising of hard liquor on television, even during cartoons. Rather, it is the policy of the major networks to reject such ads. Congress might be quick to enact such a law were a station to air Courvosier ads during Pokemon, but they have yet to do so. Posted 1:41 PM | [Link] GIVE A GIFT SUBSCRIPTION, SAVE A COLLEGE STUDENT: [Rod Dreher] When I was a campus left-winger in the late 1980s, an old friend then living in DC bought me a subscription to the late, lamented, possibly-resurrected-in-some-form The American Spectator. The intelligence and (perhaps more importantly, given my age) lively rhetorical style of the magazine eroded my liberal pieties and convictions, and helped bring me over to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Imagine how much more quickly I would have seen the light had she bought me a subscription to National Review, the flagship magazine of the Right? Why not send a biweekly care package of sanity to your undergrad? The mind you save will one day parent your grandkids. Posted 1:34 PM | [Link] THE CHILDREN [Jonah Goldberg] Mike, I too feel the need for brevity. But you're A) dodging the fact that you imagined "lefty whining" on my part that did not take place and B) you're putting the cart before the horse in a major way. Even if your assertion that "There is no terrible political offense that is not defended by sanctimonious invocations of 'the children'" is true, that doesn't mean that all invocations to the children are therefore sanctimonious or terrible. Conservatives have made numerous arguments referencing the vulnerable status of children without being either "sanctimonious" or "terrible." There are countless sanctimonious and terrible arguments which invoke race and the environmemt too, but that hardly means that all arguments about race and the environment are sanctimonious or terrible. Discerning between legitimate and illegitimate arguments is what we're supposed to be doing here. We are not supposed to say "Oh, he mentioned children, therefor his argument is illegitimate." I'm not gung-ho to ban ads, but I'm hardly providing aid and comfort to the left by simply noting that some ads can certainly be banned. Indeed, I might add that the government can, does and always has regulated what sorts of ads and programs can be aimed at children. Just try to sell bourbon during Saturday morning cartoons or run an unedited R-rated movie on a broadcast network. Again, Mike, this isn't a "new government power" it is a very old government power which waxes and wanes in its application. And, again, if you want to have an argument about how limited that power should be, that's fine. Indeed, that's what "defenders of freedom" do. And, now, I am done with this argument. Books need reviewing, dogs need walking, whiskey needs buying. Posted 1:12 PM | [Link] OH, AND JONAH [ Mike Potemra] ...thanks very much for putting up that letter from the guy in Durham-it shows how little liberality of spirit some liberals have. When a conservative gets something wrong-something important, like the lyrics to the witch-doctor song-he usually endeavors to correct his mistake. Posted 1:01 PM | [Link] ON A SERIOUS NOTE [ Mike Potemra] A number of readers have pointed out that the witch-doctor song actually goes "oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang." I apologize to all concerned, and I hope that my mistake will not set back the cause of interreligious understanding. Posted 1:01 PM | [Link] MORE ON YALE [Stanley Kurtz] Thanks to the reader who sent me this very interesting article on changing attitudes toward the military at Yale. For more on today’s decision to allow military recruiters at Yale Law School, consult the estimable Instapundit. Posted 12:55 PM | [Link] 1000% GUARANTEED TO ANNOY ALL CONSERVATIVES [Jonah Goldberg] I'm not kidding. Let the email fly! Posted 12:44 PM | [Link] JONAH... [ Mike Potemra] The last thing I would want to do is distract you from the important book review you are writing for the next issue (hint, hint), so I'll make this brief. There is no terrible political offense that is not defended by sanctimonious invocations of "the children," and this attack on TV ads is no exception. But we can make short work of the idea, as follows: In practice, such a regulation would require government to be able to distinguish between ads aimed at children and ads aimed at people with a mental age of six. You see the problem? I can well understand why whiny lefties would gleefully welcome such a new government power, but I fail to see why "every conservative in the history of National Review"-defenders of freedom-should support them in this particular power grab. Posted 12:42 PM | [Link] LIBERAL READER COMES TO MY DEFENSE [Jonah Goldberg] As a loyal reader, it's disappointing to me that a liberal writer wouldn't use your name directly in an attempt to discredit your wife. Not to take anything away from your mother, but I think you've earned the right to be shunned by the Left based on your own accomplishments. I'm sure your readers will enthusiastically vouch for your independent qualifications as a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Keep up the good work, I'm sure someone over there at Slate will take a swipe at you personally soon enough. Posted 12:41 PM | [Link] REAL PEOPLE; ARTICLES YOU CAN HOLD [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I promise to stop soon, but the e-mails are overwhelming. Another reader: I wanted to let you know that I put in for a subscription to National Review over the weekend. I did this for two reasons: 1) Because I really like what I read online, and 2) for my 18 year old son to read. Every so often, my husband and I must go through a deprogramming session to undo all the liberal crap he hears from his friends and teachers. He was really eager to read the issue I picked up at Barnes and Noble the other day. Posted 12:26 PM | [Link] MIKE.... [Jonah Goldberg] If you'd like to point out where I whined or where I even sounded like I was whining -- about corporations or anything else -- I'd be delighted to hear it. I can't speak for Rod, but since you referred to the plural "whiny lefties" I can only assume you referred to me as well. I might also point out, by the way, that there are already rules on what kind of speech is appropriate for children (and there were plenty more when we were growing up, including the vaunted Comics Code). Simply because I acknowledged this fact by saying it doesn't "frighten" me hardly makes me a leftwinger or whiny -- or wrong. You can use Hillary as a Medusa's head to petrify your opponents all you like, but there's not a single conservative in the history of National Review who would dispute that community standards matter, especially in regard to children. The debate is where and how you set those standards, not about whether those standards should exist. That's the real reality check. Posted 12:13 PM | [Link] NOT EVERYBODY IN HOLLWOOD IS AN IDIOT, THOUGH [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Talking to Bill O'Reilly last night about being pro-life in Hollywood, two-time Emmy-winner Patricia Heaton, from Everybody Loves Raymond said: "it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life." In discussing abortion she said, talking about her work as chairman for Feminists for Life: "The early feminists were pro-life. And really abortion is a huge disservice to women, and it hasn't been presented that way. So -- so it's a -- there's a sort of an in for me because of that take on it." Posted 12:08 PM | [Link] "I HATE BUSH" [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Sorta like you might hate Saddam Hussein, Jessica Lange hates our president, in case you are keeping a tally on Hollywood political idiots. From Spain, she says she feels "ashamed to come from the United States — it is humiliating.” Posted 11:47 AM | [Link] SHOULD THIS WORRY ME? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The Derb e-mails to inform me that he will be somewhat incommunicado for a few days, but leaves me emergency-contact info. I e-mail in reply that "I would be evil" if I used the secret info to bother him during one of his few non-NR-controlled days. Derb replies: "Kathryn, you ARE evil! It's part of the job description." (And yes, Rod, I already know you agree; the vodoo doll was a clue.--sometimes witch doctors are useful, eh?) Posted 11:35 AM | [Link] A FEW POINTS [ Mike Potemra] 1) I saw a movie last night about butch lesbians, called By Hook or By Crook. It opens in a few weeks; it is dull and I do not recommend it. But I do think the leading lady would be kind of cute if she shaved off her beard. 2) On the censorship of kiddie ads: Stop carrying on like a bunch of whiny lefties about what "the corporations" are doing to "the children." Reality check: It does not take a village, Hillary. 3) I know brother Stuttaford is a stickler for theological orthodoxy, so let me reassure him that ecumenism does not require Christianity to actually Iadopt witch-doctor practices. I do, however, endorse the singing of "oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-bing-bang-bala-bala-bing-bang" outside the context of the formal liturgy, and in specially approved rites for children. Posted 11:34 AM | [Link] THE BLUES [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Like Jay, by the way, I was saddened by the Barry Manilow news this week. Posted 11:15 AM | [Link] JOIN THE CLUB [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A reader--just minutes ago--writes: "I finally gave in and subscribed. I'm a longtime online version reader, but Glenn Reynolds excerpted a long bit from a Ramesh Ponnuru article from the dead tree version, and I realized I needed all National Review, all the time." Thanks, NRO/(and now)NRODT reader. And thanks to Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit. Posted 11:09 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 11:07 AM | [Link] THIS IS HOW THE WORLD THINKS? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] "Is it any wonder that Sharon is Saddam for most of the Arab and Islamic world?" In case you missed (I had), this was in the Moscow Times on Monday, from an American. Posted 11:06 AM | [Link] BREAKING... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] From CNN: Pentagon says at least one U.S. serviceman killed in bombing near military base in the Philippines. Posted 10:59 AM | [Link] SNOPES ON THE BABS QUOTE [Jonah Goldberg] Here's their take, fyi. Posted 10:39 AM | [Link] UNEASY FEELING[Kathryn Jean Lopez] Barbra Streisand and Wes Smith both quote from JFK today....the same quote. Posted 10:22 AM | [Link] WHO YOU CALLING AN ATTACK-DOG? [Jonah Goldberg] Some woman named Lynn Sanders has a tiresome discussion of Title IX over at Slate. I'm used to this sort of thing, but I figured I'd point it out anyway. While criticizing my wife's position on Title IX Sanders writes "Gavora‚ who advises and writes speeches for Attorney General John Ashcroft (and who's also the daughter-in-law of anti-Clinton attack-dog Lucianne Goldberg)..." Now, I'm pretty sure Jessica is quite happy being Momma G's daughter-in-law and vice versa. But what's interesting here, in a very small way I admit, is the guilt-by-association implied. What is the relevance, exactly? Is there some sort of link between a wonkish book written by Jessica and my mom's "attack-dogging" toward the Clinton administration? Having been there when Jessica patiently explained the issues surrounding Title IX to Momma G, I'm very curious to know what connection Ms. Sanders imagines there to be between the two of them. Or do Slate's readers and writers subscribe to some sort of seamless garment of the Right doctrine of which I'm unaware (not being a regular Slate reader anymore, I'm in the dark). Anyway, I'm sure this will go unquestioned by the vast majority of Slate's audience since it's so typical of those guys these days. I wouldn't even have bothered except, well, my wife and mother are involved. Posted 9:56 AM | [Link] DON'T CHANGE THE BALLOTS [Jonathan Adler] I wonder if the New Jersey Supreme Court will read this New York Times op-ed. It makes some strong equitable arguments against permitting an electoral bait-n-switch. Posted 9:46 AM | [Link] STREISAND SPELLS [Ramesh Ponnuru] If you read on in that response to Drudge, Kathryn, you'll find out that Streisand is a "meticulous" speller. She says so herself. Also, she has a nice JFK quote that she verified for accuracy. She did not, alas, check to see if it had anything to do with what she's talking about. Unless the "peaceful revolution" in question is the one being prevented by Saddam Hussein. Posted 9:37 AM | [Link] MORE UN BASHING [Jonah Goldberg] From my syndicated column "In short, if the United Nations agrees to support an American military effort it won't be because the U.N. put principle above self-interest; it will be because various nations were willing to horse trade with blood and oil. Which raises the question, why is it morally superior to work with the U.N. when working with the U.N. means not only more bloodshed elsewhere in the world, but a deterioration of America's moral authority? I remain baffled." Posted 9:08 AM | [Link] ANGELOU’S BABY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Maya Angelou, a fav poet of the establishment, has an amazing essay in this month’s Family Circle. In it, she writes: I was scared to pieces. Back then, if you had money, there were some girls who got abortions, but I couldn't deal with that idea. Oh, no. No. I knew there was somebody inside me. So I decided to keep the baby. Angelou was 16 and had sex, she says,with a boy who “evinced interest in me.” Afterward, she vowed she would never do that again--have sex in such a casual, unloving way. The baby, unbeknownst to her, was already on his way. Her family was supportive of raising the child and Angelou says “the best decision I ever made was keeping that baby.” How wonderful of Angelou to write that...many, if not most, in her position of influence, would keep those sentiments private, for fear of angering the PC police. Posted 8:57 AM | [Link] YALE ADMITS ARMY [Stanley Kurtz] More excellent news from campus. The military’s threat to enforce the Solomon amendment (which withdraws many federal grants from universities that ban military recruitment) has now forced Yale Law School to admit recruiters from our armed forces. This follows a similar lifting of a ban under threat at Harvard Law School earlier this year. But this is only the beginning of what really needs to happen. The military must start enforcing the Solomon amendment against schools that ban the ROTC from campus. I certainly hope that the gradual, successful, and escalating campaign of Solomon amendment enforcement by the Department of Defense makes the leap to the ROTC issue soon. This is a battle that our campus leftists will surely lose, if only the Defense Department has the political courage to fight it. Posted 8:36 AM | [Link] URANIUM IN TURKEY [Stanley Kurtz] It turns out that the material seized in Turkey the other day was not uranium. But it also turns out that weapons grade uranium has been seized in Turkey on several recent occasions. So the dangerous lesson about the imminent danger of Saddam obtaining an atomic weapon still stands. Posted 8:31 AM | [Link] DR. RICE'S WORDS TO RUN A COUNTRY BY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] We have the ability to forge a 21st century that lives up to our hopes and not down to our fears. But only if we go about our work with purpose and clarity. Only if we are unwavering in our refusal to live in a world governed by terror and chaos. Only if we are unwilling to ignore growing dangers from aggressive tyrants and deadly technologies. And only if we are persistent and patient in exercising our influence in the service of our ideals, and not just ourselves. Posted 8:28 AM | [Link] RICE ON PREEMPTION [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Preemption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, "If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense." The United States has long affirmed the right to anticipatory self-defense--from the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula in 1994. Posted 8:26 AM | [Link] DR. RICE TAKES MANHATTAN [Kathryn Jean Lopez] At the Waldorf last night, Condoleezza Rice delivered the Manhattan Institute’s annual Wriston Lecture. On Iraq, Dr. Rice said: President Bush is committed to confronting the Iraqi regime, which has defied the just demands of the world for over a decade. We are on notice. The danger from Saddam Hussein's arsenal is far more clear than anything we could have foreseen prior to September 11th. And history will judge harshly any leader or nation that saw this dark cloud and sat by in complacency or indecision. Posted 8:24 AM | [Link] SOUNDS RIGHT [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I just noticed Andrew Sullivan did a word count on the Torch's Monday speech. He used the word "I" 99 times. Posted 6:27 AM | [Link] "DISHONEST, ILLEGAL, AND UNDEMOCRATIC" [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Fred Barnes on the Torricelli scam the Dems are pulling in Jersey. Posted 6:24 AM | [Link] AVERT YOUR EYES, ROD [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I feel bad when that NRODT subscription offer runs, thinking it goes right into Rod's brain next to the Lite Brite jingle. Posted 5:39 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 5:37 AM | [Link] TRUE, TRUE [Kathryn Jean Lopez] "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less" than going to war, President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said when asked at a televised briefing about the cost of military action against Iraq. Asked whether the administration was advocating the assassination of Hussein, Fleischer repeatedly replied: "Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes." Posted 5:37 AM | [Link] TOO FUNNY [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Babs wrote to Drudge. Posted 5:34 AM | [Link] STORM CLOUDS GATHER [Jonathan Adler] Here is the New Jersey state Supreme Court's order setting the briefing and argument schedule in the Torricelli election case. Republican attorneys will have had less than twenty-four hours to prepare their briefs in opposition -- and to answer the court's factual inquiries (e.g. have ballots been printed in all counties, how long would it take to print new ballots, etc.) -- and will argue the case today at 10am. Posted 5:22 AM | [Link] THE TORCH'S SONG [Jonathan Adler] While I concur with Dave Kopel's reading of New Jersey election statutes, I'm not so convinced that the Democrats are without a legal leg to stand on. There are a few New Jersey precedents out there upon which they may base the case. Perhaps the most important is Catania v. Haberle 588 A.2d 374 (1990), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court declared that "providing the public with a choice between candidates is one of the most important objectives of our election laws." So important is this objective, the Court held, that election statutes should be liberally construed. Specifically, "[t]he general rule applied to the interpretation of our election laws is that absent some public interest sufficiently strong to permit the conclusion that the Legislature intended strict enforcement, statutes providing requirements for a candidate's name to appear on the ballot will not be construed so as to deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a choice." There are grounds upon which the case can be distinguished. Nonetheless, I expect the Dems to ride this language hard. Posted 5:21 AM | [Link] IF YOU THOUGHT FLORIDA '00 WAS CRAZY: [Rod Dreher] Control of the Senate may not be decided until December, in Louisiana. If the November elections produce a functional tie in the Senate, and Sen. Mary Landrieu, the Democratic incumbent, fails to win on the first ballot of the state's open primary, we won't know which party will control the Senate until the Landrieu runoff in December. Posted 1:37 AM | [Link] KIDS AND COMMERCIALS: [Rod Dreher] Andrew, you seem to think that there's nothing wrong with commercials aimed at children that Mommy and Daddy can't handle by saying "No, you may not have that." Of course parents must learn to say no to their demanding children. What concerns me is something that goes deeper than that. Advertising exists, in part, to create desires in us for things we don't need. It is a tendency each one of us has to fight within himself to master, and it's tough (you should have seen Mrs. Dreher trying to drag me away from the HDTV at Circuit City). It bothers me a lot that children, who do not yet have the maturity to develop defenses against this stuff, are considered fair game for advertisers to manipulate in this way. Regarding your practical concern, it seems to me that the makers of TV programs for children are earning a fortune from the merchandising. In fact, it seems to me that so much children's television is nothing but a commercial for the merchandise associated with the program. Posted 1:33 AM | [Link] KIDS AND THE NEWS: [Rod Dreher] Andrew, I agree that children don't need to be cocooned totally off from the world of news, at least after a certain age. But my preference is to teach my child what's in the news via the newspaper. A child is simply unprepared, emotionally and spiritually, to take in the kind of reports about things like brutal massacres, child murder, and things like that. Television presents these things largely unmediated. There is surely a rather large sane area between letting your kids watch anything on the news, and keeping them in a cocoon. Posted 1:20 AM | [Link] A SAINT FOR THE TIMES? [Andrew Stuttaford] Here's an extract from a review in Tuesday's New York Times of Anna Quindlen's new book, Blessings: "Readers who first met Ms. Quindlen in the 1980's in her columns in The New York Times know she is kind but never sweet. Sharp-eyed but not cruel. Opinionated but never, ever polemical. Anna Quindlen is America's Resident Sane Person. She has what Joyce called the common touch, the ability to speak to many people about what's on their minds before they have the vaguest idea what's on their minds." Who knew? Posted 12:36 AM | [Link]
ANOTHER CONTROVERSY [Andrew Stuttaford] Having annoyed quite a few in Cornerland with my defense of TV for kids, I thought that I would add to my crimes by linking to this excellent article suggesting that the alcohol 'crisis' amongst teens is rather less than we are usually told. Thanks to a reader for pointing it out. Posted 11:40 PM | [Link] A BRIDGE TOO FAR? [Andrew Stuttaford] Mike, this is not my usual territory, but I have to say that I am puzzled about the thinking behind this Assisi encounter with the witch doctors. There comes a point, surely, when ecumenism can be stretched so far that it deprives a faith of any intellectual coherence. Is there nothing now that western churches are prepared to describe as superstition? Posted 10:08 PM | [Link] LET MIKEY SEE IT [Andrew Stuttaford] OK, Rod, here's the kerfuffle: there is absolutely nothing wrong with commercials that 'target' children. Children are not independent economic actors. Any significant purchases will need the approval of the only people in the household with any money - Mom and Dad. In reality, Scandinavian-style rules banning advertising directed at children come with a commercial of their own: that parents are so incapable of saying "no" to their kids that government intervention is needed. If that's really true, it is a state of affairs that has to be changed - and changed fast. Parents need to develop the ability to reject their children's more extravagant demands, and their children have to learn how to deal with a little disappointment. It will be good practice for later life. On a more practical note, without commercials how exactly is children's programming to be financed? Without commercials, children's TV will be left to the public sector. The result? PC parables and endless shows about the importance of recycling. Posted 9:43 PM | [Link] FIT TO PRINT? [Andrew Stuttaford] Rod, we might have to agree to disagree about the impact of TV on kids generally, but when it comes to the news I would be very slow to play the censor. Of course, there are many things that one would not wish a three year old to see, but as he or she gets a little older, I think it is important not to use the maintenance of 'innocence' as a justification for keeping a young person in a state of ignorance. Regrettable it may be, but the world is a harsh and complicated place, and, in training children to flourish in it, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that their education needs to feature a little less Elmo and a little more Hobbes. The alternative is to keep with our current practice, something which has replaced the classroom with a cocoon and perpetuated that destructive sense of entitlement which has so scarred so many in recent generations of younger Americans. Of course, this is not to suggest that kids' exposure to the sometimes horrible drama of the daily news should go unsupervised. Yes, they need to learn about the world outside, but they also need to know that there are at least some people who they can rely on to help them see it through. Their parents. Posted 9:08 PM | [Link] JJ AND BLACK MEDIA [Richard Brookhiser] Rod asks if the media, including black media, haven't boosted Jesse unduly. Jackson was getting tough coverage in black media in the early eighties--one paper in East St. Louis reported that he used the line, "If you want to play, you got to pay," to black businessmen he was trying to "help" through PUSH. The moment he announced his first presidential run, all this ended, in an unfortunate, if understandable, wave of ethnic solidarity. Posted 8:48 PM | [Link] WHERE AM I? [Andrew Stuttaford] Rod, the horror, the horror... Returning wearily to the Corner after a day away in Chicago and what do I find? Talk of 'the children' and endorsement of Scandinavian social engineering. Off to dinner now, but unlike Senator Torricelli, I will be back... Posted 7:59 PM | [Link] VOX POPULI: [Rod Dreher] A friend told me this morning that he had seen Barbershop here in NYC, and the largely black audience cheered Eddie's "F**k Jesse Jackson" line. A Corner reader of indeterminate geographical status just sent this over the transom: "The theater I saw the movie in was full, and probably 90% of the patrons were black. When Eddie uttered the soon-to-be-legendary quote, the theater burst into applause. Not only did I leave the theater feeling entertained, I left feeling more optimistic about America." Quite right. I have to ask this, though: Does the pleasant surprise white people have over this wonderful movie and the reaction of black audiences to it -- particularly its denunciation of Jesse Jackson -- say as much about us as it does about them? More to the point, could it be that the media have made Jesse Jackson a much bigger deal in black America than he really is? Have the media, including black media, been so lazy and/or biased about covering the true diversity among black America that journalists simply called Jesse, and his lesser known cohorts in the civil-rights establishment, because they were on their Rolodex, and because their liberal views reflected the journalists' own? How about corporate America? Have white CEOs paid what amounts to shakedown money to Jesse because they assume (because he has told them) that he speaks for all of black America? Posted 5:54 PM | [Link] RE: ACTUALLY: [Rod Dreher] Oh God! "Pretty sneaky, sis!" You've awakened the mummy, Jonah. My head is full of crap like that. I can sing the Lite Brite theme song. I know what Gnip-Gnop is. "You sank my battleship!" And for that matter: "It's tough to put a Muriel down." Etc. I thought it was all funny, that it makes for fun inane party chat ... until I had a kid of my own, and we were in a hotel room in Los Angeles, and he was just learning how to talk, and he saw a logo and said, "Time Warner Cable keeps getting better." That was one of the boy's first full sentences -- and we don't watch much TV in our house. But that slogan stuck with him. Now, if we don't want him to have his brain marinated in advertising, we shouldn't watch any (adult) TV while he's in the room. That's our responsibility. But commercial speech directed toward children is something else. Posted 5:17 PM | [Link] ACTUALLY.... [Jonah Goldberg] Off the top of my head, I think I might agree with the Scandos or at least I'm not horrified by the thought. Children do not fit in the libertarian paradigm. While I do not think I was damaged by the old "Connect Four" commercials ("...where?"..." Here diagonally" ..."Pretty sneaky sis") I don't see anything intellectually or philosophically offensive about regulating certain speech aimed at kids. Then again, I'm the pro-censorship guy. Also, since children might be reading the Corner, I think we should definitely drop the subscription plugs. Posted 4:53 PM | [Link] COMMERCIALS TARGETING CHILDREN: [Rod Dreher] This should start a kerfuffle in The Corner. A reader who is a frequent antagonist writes: "I also hate TV marketing to kids. The ads pit the worst impulses of Madison Ave. against the minds of young children. An unfair fight and an example of market capitalism at its most seedy. I don't know if your aware of this but most of the Scandinavian nations ban marketing to children. I know you will be loath to admit that those socialist folks from the North have done something right but I dare you to watch a two hour block of Nick Jr. and not accept that an all out ban is a great idea." Well, I do admit that the Scando-socialists are right about this. I find commercials aimed at adults annoying, and mute the TV when they come on. But that's free speech. What about marketing to children, who lack the maturity to watch advertisements in a discerning fashion? I think it stinks. Those readers who aren't parents of small children now may be surprised to learn that there are now storybooks for toddlers that incorporate Cheerios and other branded products into the text -- or even base the book around the product! No child is too young to be a target market, it seems. Posted 4:38 PM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 3:46 PM | [Link] REPORT FROM THE FRONT: [Rod Dreher] Witch doctors are benign curiosities to ecumenical-minded Europeans (and, QED, Americans); they are something else entirely in Uganda -- according to this report from The Tablet, the British Catholic paper. Posted 3:32 PM | [Link] SHAKESPEARE HOAX [Richard Brookhiser] Didn't Barbra notice that the writing is most un-Shakespearean? It doesn't scan, so it pretends to be a prose passage. But isn't it astonishingly flat and limp for the Bard? (When he errs, it is through double density and forced cleverness.) The talk of rights seems quite anachronistic. Jeff Hart would flunk her in a minute. Posted 3:27 PM | [Link] FOR THE BIRDS? [ Mike Potemra] I apologize for my prolixity here, but I have to express my delight at one particular phrase Rod used. He asserted that this sort of ecumenism is "for the birds"-and I cannot help believing that, in doing so, Rod is calling down the blessings of Assisi's patron saint, St. Francis, on the whole project of interreligious dialogue. Posted 3:17 PM | [Link] BUT WHAT ABOUT THEIR OFFENSES? [ Mike Potemra] Rod raises the interesting point of what our standards should be when it comes to allowing representatives of other religions to meet and pray together with the Pope. Should we demand an unspotted record of respect for human rights, of opposing religious slaughter and oppression? As a European with a strong sense of his continent's history, Pope John Paul has understandably rejected this particular standard. In situations of conflict, he wants to break with the past, to break cycles of violence-in the conviction that there is a better way to deal with religious differences, a way more consonant with the values of the figure after whom Christianity is named. Posted 3:17 PM | [Link] JESSE: "IT'S ABOUT DIGNITY": [Rod Dreher] In this letter to the Los Angeles Times, Jesse Jackson says he never called for censorship of Barbershop (which he most certainly did), only "sensitivity." Posted 3:17 PM | [Link] AU CONTRAIRE! [ Mike Potemra] Rod says, rhetorically, that I "may think it was of no moment" that the Holy Father's Assisi meeting included representatives of certain religions he, that is to say our brother Rod, has examined and found to be imperfect. It should go without saying that this is not in fact my view: Far from viewing it as "of no moment," I believe it to be an extremely important and positive development: beneficial and truly apostolic. One of the key insights of Vatican II, stressed again and again by the current Pope, is that the Catholic faith must be open to the truths expressed in other religions-working with Man where we find him, and suggesting by our example (in which regard, I must concede, this is a rather optimistic view) to our dialogue partners that they might be enriched by the truths of Catholicism. The truth claims of Catholicism-the Trinity, the Resurrection, and so on-are in no way robbed of their force by this ecumenical approach; they, are, rather, strengthened by it. They point out to the world an essential point of Catholic belief-that Jesus came among us not as an avatar of an exclusivistic sect, but as a gift to all mankind. Posted 3:16 PM | [Link] WHO WOULD PLAY THE LEAD?: [Rod Dreher] A reader sent me the following link today: www.jonahmovie.com, which takes you to the site for the upcoming Veggie Tales movie about the Biblical figure Jonah. But it got me to wondering: What if Jonah were an NRO movie? Plot? Casting? Where would the junket take place? Posted 3:13 PM | [Link] IN ROSA PARKS' NAME: [Rod Dreher] Here's a curious story reporting that a "spokeswoman" for Rosa Parks is demanding that Barbershop be censored to remove its reference to her. But there's nothing in the story to indicate that Ms. Parks, who is elderly and in poor health, has made this request, or is in any condition to make such a request. The movie's reference to Ms. Parks simply states that there were a number of black people who refused to sit at the back of the bus before she did, though she became famous for doing so. What's wrong with saying that? Does it make her any less heroic to point out that there was a public-relations aspect to her sacrifice? I say good on the NAACP at the time for realizing her propaganda value in drawing attention to a grave injustice. Even if Eddie the Barber (Cedric the Entertainer) is wrong to complain about Ms. Parks getting the credit, so what? Who died and made Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and various "spokeswomen" the arbiters of what African-Americans can and can't say in public? Posted 2:46 PM | [Link] SPEAKING OF ECUMENISM: [Rod Dreher] Muslims in Indonesia have destroyed another Christian church. And Daniel Pipes wants to know why Western media and politicians can't bring themselves to call this kind of thing what it is: an anti-Christian pogrom. Philip Jenkins says, in his terrific Atlantic Monthly article, that Western media and pols either cannot or will not recognize the religious roots of this kind of violence. When the Serbs were going after the Muslims in Bosnia, it was called "ethnic cleansing." Jenkins says the truth was, the (Orthodox) Serbs were not attacking the Bosnian Muslims for ethnic reasons; they were going after them for being Muslim. Posted 2:28 PM | [Link] FYI [Jonah Goldberg] G-File is up. And yes, I do know my schedule has been erratic lately. All will be explained. Posted 2:24 PM | [Link] RE: CARDINALS SOON?: [Rod Dreher] Oh jeez, that Fitzgerald news is depressing. If he was the organizer of Assisi, that's a big black mark in my book. Mike, you may think it was of no moment that that Assisi meeting included the participation of African witch doctors, but I think it was a terrible thing. Have you ever talked to Catholic and Protestant missionaries who work in Africa? Pagan religion there is in no way innocent. They will tell you absolutely hair-raising tales of spiritual warfare, and the destructive role witch doctors play in those societies. According to Philip Jenkins' piece in The Atlantic Monthly, Third World Christians are under no illusions about these malignant religions, and flock to Christian pastors who can free them. And then they have to see the Vatican inviting their (spiritual) oppressors to an ecumenical conference held in the Pope's name! That kind of ecumenism is for the birds. Posted 2:15 PM | [Link] THE HOAXES OF WAR [Jonah Goldberg] Drudge's busting of Barbra was delicious enough. But it turns out the Caesar quote is all over the web, specifically on Lefty sites. Here's a particularly odious one at MSNBC.Now, having fallen prey to a hoax myself, I can't really throw too many stones. But that doesn't mean you can't. Posted 2:01 PM | [Link] CARDINALS SOON? [ Mike Potemra] Fitzgerald's job usually carries with it a red hat; so does the patriarchate of Venice, in which recently installed Angelo Scola also is not yet a cardinal. There are currently 114 cardinals eligible to vote in a papal election, and the customary target is 120; Pope John Paul has an opportunity to exercise further gentle influence on the choice of his successor, by elevating these good men. Posted 1:34 PM | [Link] VATICAN SHAKEUP [ Mike Potemra] A couple of major personnel moves by Pope John Paul II. He has appointed a popular Nigerian cardinal, Francis Arinze, head of the congregation on the liturgy-replacing retiring Chilean cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez. And he has moved up Arinze's current deputy, British bishop Michael Fitzgerald, to head up the church's council on interreligious dialogue. Arinze is frequently mentioned as a possible pope, but the Fitzgerald appointment is also important. As an organizer of the Assisi conference-at which Pope John Paul welcomed representatives of the world religions in common prayer for peace-Fitzgerald almost certainly represents the current pontiff's hope that his warm ecumenical opening to other religions will be continued and strengthened by his eventual successor. Posted 1:34 PM | [Link] TOLD YOU SO: [Rich Lowry] There’s been a lot of coverage of West African oil potential lately, including this AP story and a big piece in the current New Yorker. NR readers, however, heard about it first, here, back in June. Posted 1:30 PM | [Link] BARBERSHOP…: [Rich Lowry] …is so good I didn’t want it to end. Hilarious and humane. The Rosa Parks/Jesse Jackson scene is priceless. Cedric the Entertainer deserves an Oscar. Posted 1:28 PM | [Link] YANKS v. HALOS: [Rich Lowry] I’m going tonight. This will be my third post-season game. I saw the Yanks beat the Indians in a 1997 ALDS game. It’s the one—don’t hold me to the details—where the Yanks were losing 6-0 and came back with back-to-back-to-back Raines/Jeter/O’Neil home runs. The most delirious baseball experience I’ve ever had. We were sitting in the left-field bleachers and when the Yanks were losing the natives were getting restless and amusing themselves by picking on some stoner who had passed up by the third inning. But when the Yankees came back there was so much screaming, hugging, and jumping up and down it seemed like the inning had lasted two hours. We adjourned to a neighborhood bar afterwards and watched the highlights over and over (funny thing—you can never get tried of watching highlights of your team win.) Then I saw a game in the 1999 World Series where, again if memory serves, Chad Curtis hit two home-runs, including one to win it in the tenth. Posted 1:27 PM | [Link] T.S. ELIOT AGREES WITH ROD [Richard Brookhiser] From a letter to the Times of London by T.S. Eliot, O.M., December 20, 1950. "...I have just returned from a visit to the United States...Among persons of my own acquaintance I found only anxiety amd apprehension about the social effects of this pastime [television], especially about its effect (mentally , morally and physically) upon small children....The fears expressed by my American friends were not such as could be allayed by the provision of only superior and harmless programmes: they were concerned with the television habit, whatever the programme might be." Posted 12:46 PM | [Link] HEY, ROD [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I'm willing to bet there is a Corner-ite or two who have no clue who Farmer Pickles and Wendy are. (They're from the wonderful Bob the Builder.) Posted 12:45 PM | [Link] IF STREISAND WERE QUEEN ... [Jonah Goldberg] Does anyone doubt that she'd have Matt Drudge executed? Posted 12:22 PM | [Link] CHARMED TORCH [Kathryn Jean Lopez] If it is true that Robert Torricelli yesterday did "the most painful thing" he's ever done ("It is the most painful thing that I've ever done in my life"), he's had a pretty cool life his first 51 years. Posted 11:04 AM | [Link] TURNING OFF THE COMPUTER: [Rod Dreher] It's easy for me to turn off the TV. It's a lot harder to turn off the computer. Diane Medved told me a couple of years ago that in terms of its effect on family life, the computer is no different from the television. It's easy to think otherwise, because when one uses the computer (or at least when I use it), it's an interactive medium, as distinct from the passive medium of television. I can spend a long time writing e-mails about religion, politics and so forth, and find that very stimulating. But as far as the rest of my family is concerned, I'm sitting in front of a glowing screen, locked into my own world. There are only so many hours in the day, and an hour spent doing e-mail in the evening is an hour not spent reading to my son or playing with him. It's a problem I think many of us minimize or overlook. Posted 10:32 AM | [Link] RE: TURN-OFFS: [Rod Dreher] Well, hang on a minute there, Andrew. I think you're being too hard on Spielberg and Cruise. Your point about the quality of information received, not just the medium through which it is received, is not a bad one, but we have found that there are almost no worse ways for a child to spend his time than by watching television. We let our three year old watch about an hour a day, supervised, and usually videos chosen by us (this morning he's calling me Farmer Pickles and his mother Wendy, which tells you what's he's been watching lately). Those who demonize television do grow tiresome, but we find that we don't like the effect much television has on our son: it makes him jumpy and nervous and irritable. And have you seen the ads targeting children? I hate them. Actually, I found when I cut out most of my TV watching, I started finding the information stream that came through the TV to be maddening in its rhythms and presentation. "Settle down, willya!" I thought. About the news, again, I wonder if you're too hard on Spielberg. I don't know how old his kids are, so it's possible that he's being a pollyanna about this. But I think one of the great gifts parents can give their kids these days is innocence, which our culture takes away from them soon enough. I don't want my son to know that some people kidnap children and rape them. Last year, on 9/11, my wife was so shocked and terrified about my whereabouts (I told her I was going to get as close to the Towers as I could, and ran out with my notepad in hand) that she left the TV on all morning, hoping to see me alive wandering through a live shot. Our son saw on TV that morning a lot of things he ought not to have seen, and wouldn't have been allowed to see under normal circumstances. It made a tremendous impression on him. He's still asking us about the Twin Towers, and the people in them, over a year later. Posted 10:24 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 10:05 AM | [Link] GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE [Jonah Goldberg] Frank Gaffney's column today. My column from last week. Posted 9:33 AM | [Link] FEMINIST INDIGESTION [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Roger Kimball in today's Wall Street Journal on much-hailed exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art: "The Dinner Party" is one of those works that suffers by first-hand acquaintance. Posted 9:30 AM | [Link] POVERTY [Jonah Goldberg] The press, especially the New York Times, is starting to make a big deal about the poverty rate going up for the first time in years. That's fine. Journalists are expected to focus on such issues. However, I do wish they would stop treating it as a surprise. We had an economic recession and may be heading into another one. Now, call me crazy, but I would think that if recessions reduced poverty we wouldn't call them recessions and the left would want more of them. I mean doesn't it make sense that poverty would go up when the economy goes down? When you read the Times' coverage, however, they make it sound like this is a stunning development -- much along the lines of their ongoing shock that crime rates go down when criminals go to jail. Posted 9:28 AM | [Link] SO MUCH FOR SELF-ESTEEM [Kathryn Jean Lopez] More breakthroughs in the news; this, from the New York Times: "some psychologists have begun debunking the notion that a poor self-image is the malady behind most of society's complaints — and bolstering self-esteem its cure....'D' students, it turns out, think as highly of themselves as valedictorians, and serial rapists are no more likely to ooze with insecurities than doctors or bank managers." Posted 9:16 AM | [Link] WHERE THE BOYS ARE [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Seattle catches on to classroom realities. From the Seattle Times: “Girls edge boys in math. They score much higher in reading. In writing, they are chapters ahead...The gender gap on the state's most important test — the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) — is big. ” Posted 8:49 AM | [Link] WELL, IF IRAN ISN'T PART OF THE COALITION...: [Lowry] ...let's call the whole thing off. From the Wash Post: "In an interview, Hagel said Bush is `falling short' in explaining how the United States can build a democracy in Iraq and keep the peace in the region without the backing of Russia, France, China and Iraq's neighbors, such as Iran." Ok, I can see France. But Russia? As a democracy-builder? China? Iran? Posted 8:43 AM | [Link] BAGHDAD DEMS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] George Will on Saddam’s new American friends: Not since Jane Fonda posed for photographers at a Hanoi antiaircraft gun has there been anything like Rep. Jim McDermott, speaking to ABC's "This Week" from Baghdad, saying Americans should take Saddam Hussein at his word but should not take President Bush at his. McDermott, in his seventh term representing Seattle, said Iraqi officials promised him and his traveling companion, Rep. David E. Bonior, a 13-term Michigan Democrat, that weapons inspectors would be "allowed to look anywhere." Posted 8:28 AM | [Link] RALLYING THE BASE [Jonathan Adler] It looks as if judicial nominations will be a big election issue this Fall. President Bush has been making repeated mentions of his judicial nominees -- and their treatment at the hands of Senate Democrats -- on campaign stops. Also, the Legal Times quotes an anonymous Republican Senate staffer saying that "Estrada will be a campaign issue in every major Senate race this fall." The story goes on to paraphrase the staffer's view that "if the GOP takes control of the Senate after the November elections, President Bush will promptly renominate Estrada and others such as Owen." Posted 8:21 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 6:12 AM | [Link] "AN APOSTLE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM" [Kathryn Jean Lopez] What a sad existence. Posted 6:03 AM | [Link] DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN [Jonathan Adler] Wait, let me get this straight. New Jersey Democratic officials are petitioning the state Supreme Court to change state election law to avoid an electoral outcome they don't like. Is this becoming a pattern? Posted 5:30 AM | [Link]
TURN-OFFS [Andrew Stuttaford] There’s been a rush of stories recently about parents (and, in particular, celebrity parents) drastically cutting back their children’s television viewing. The most recent London Sunday Times quoted Tom Cruise as saying that his luckless offspring were “allowed about 3 1/2 hours a week”, while Madonna is reportedly subjecting her tykes to the horrors of an existence with only “minimal TV”. What nonsense. Yes, reading certainly engages the mind in a more active way than TV, but to limit ‘television’ does not in itself make much more sense than restricting ‘paper.’ The message, surely, is more important than the medium. Is it better for your child to watch Ken Burns on the Civil War or to study the books of L. Ron Hubbard? As always, the answer for poor old Mom and Pop will involve yet more hard work – a carefully selected menu of entertainment options that might range from great literature to Playstation. When it comes to television, the best approach is likely to be some sort of intelligent supervision by parents of what their children are watching. Rationing is simply too blunt a tool. The imposition of a series of arbitrary time limits is neither an effective substitute for parental involvement, nor is it adequate preparation for life in a society where, like it or not, much of the shared ‘conversation’ is shaped by that tempting box in the corner of the room. Interestingly, one of the most controlling of parents in the Sunday Times report is Steven Spielberg. According to that newspaper, he limits his kids to an hour a day and bans them from watching the news altogether “because it is much more uncensored than it was when I was growing up and things are so frightening right now that I like the news to come from me. That way I can reassure them that they are safe.” Talk about Peter Pan. Posted 11:59 PM | [Link] TORCH SONG EPILOGUE: [Ramesh Ponnuru] I entirely agree with Rich Galen's assessment of his exit. Posted 11:10 PM | [Link] NURSE IS UPSET [Andrew Stuttaford] The New York Observer is reporting that Nurse Bloomberg is threatening to get tough on City Council members who have the effrontery to vote against his plan to ban smoking in bars. That Bloomberg should choose to spend his political capital in the pursuit of a personal obsession at a time of profound crisis in New York is deeply disturbing and quite extraordinarily irresponsible. The Observer’s piece (which is reasonably fair-minded for a newspaper that endorses the Nurse’s prescription) contains examples of Bloomberg’s “arguments”, a somewhat unhinged logic that is part Captain Bligh, and all Rodham Clinton. So, to add insult to condescension, we are left in no doubt that this hectoring plutocrat has only contempt for the voters who gave him his job. In particular, connoisseurs of hyperbole will take appreciative note of the report that, in Bloomberg’s view, “anyone who is not for this bill is killing people”, while fans of the intellectually bankrupt will be pleased to see that “the children” make their inevitable appearance in the context of Nurse’s wider tirades against tobacco. Of course in this context, “the children” shouldn’t matter at all. They ought not be hanging around bars in the first place. To Bloomberg, however, this distinction may be too difficult a concept to grasp. So far as he is concerned, the idea of ‘adults’, fully-grown creatures who are able to take decisions for themselves, is, quite obviously, a myth. To him, we are all no more than children. Posted 8:36 PM | [Link] YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST [Jonah Goldberg] My dad is something of my journalistic conscience. He often writes me to let me know when I've crossed the line of rhetorical (or intellectual) excess. Years ago, in this vintage G-File, I wrote: "Robert Torricelli, this small, beady, toady man is merciless, smart, pompous, vindictive, narcissistic, conniving, mercenary, and opportunistic. Sorry for beating around the bush. I guess what I'm trying to say is that he is the greasy gunk that accumulates in the garbage disposal of democracy. " Pops convinced me that this was over-the-top and I always regretted it a little bit. But today, after witnessing that speech, I think I might have been right the first time around. Posted 6:43 PM | [Link] NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!: [Rod Dreher] Andrew Napolitano, formerly a judge in New Jersey, just said on Fox that Bill Clinton has until Monday to relocate to the Garden State if he wishes to seek the Democratic line in the Senate race there. Posted 6:09 PM | [Link] SNUFFED TORCH: [Ramesh Ponnuru] By turns repulsive and ludicrous, Sen. Torricelli's speech was a glimpse of what life would be like if we weren't, most of us, equipped with a sense of shame. He asked when we stopped being "a forgiving country," when we stopped trusting one another. Umm, maybe when one another started taking kickbacks? Then there was the megalomania of the man, as he listed off all the things that he "built," albeit without investing either his own sweat or money. Torricelli told us not to feel sorry for him. Not a temptation here. Posted 5:47 PM | [Link] THE TORCH SPEAKS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Nick Schulz from techcentralstation IMs mea great line: "Torch is like school on Saturday: No class. That was one of the least magnanimous speeches I have ever witnessed." Posted 5:46 PM | [Link] WHAT'S A HASBIAN?: [Rod Dreher] A lesbian who has changed her mind. Posted 5:42 PM | [Link] THE TORRICELLI PRECEDENT: [Ramesh Ponnuru] I suspect that New Jersey Democrats have figured out how to bend state law to let them run another candidate; Torricelli is not dropping out with no back-up plan. The ideal candidate would be Bill Bradley, who has just the right amount of moral vanity to convince himself that he can redeem the seat. This does look like a cynical manipulation of democracy, as Republican Senate campaign official Mitch Bainwol said, and it's entirely fitting that Sen. Torricelli's career should end on such an unethical note. So can the Republicans copy the playbook? Can Arkansas Republican senator Tim Hutchinson drop out of his re-election race in favor of his brother Asa? Why didn't Al D'Amato think of this in 1998? Posted 5:40 PM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 5:27 PM | [Link] COMMITTEE ON THE ANTARCTIC WATER TABLE JUNIOR MEMBER, URINAL SCRUBBER.... [Jonah Goldberg] Oh, sorry, I'm just trying to figure out what jobs the Republicans should assign to Jim Jeffords if this Torricelli thing results in a GOP takeover of the Senate. "Official Historian & Poet of the Discontinued North East Dairy Compact".... Posted 4:24 PM | [Link] IN FAIRNESS TO PALMEIRO: [Rich Lowry] E-mail: "Mr. Lowry, I wanted to point out a legitimate reason for the 38 home run threshold applied to Rafael Palmeiro's records. 40 would have undoubtedly been the mark used had there not been a strike in '94 at which time Palmeiro only had 38 homers. While it is true that a number is only a number, even multiples of simple figures do give us a quick way to find useful comparisons. They are not usually an end; but they are frequently a very good beginning. P.S. My world series prediction: Oakland over Atlanta in 6." Posted 3:57 PM | [Link] E-MAIL: [Rich Lowry] "Making any kind of big deal out of 39/39 reminds me of a statistic I saw recently: Q: Who is the only player to hit 38 or more homers in 8 straight seasons? A: Rafael Palmeiro. Q: Why use 38? A: To get Palmeiro as the answer. Further down this path is the place where we draw connections between players of clearly disparate ability, simply by picking and choosing which statitics we're going to look at (such as: Q: Who are the only 4 players to hit 10 homers, 10 doubles, 10 triples and 125 hits, score 90 runs, drive in 90 runs and steal 10 bases in each of their first 3 major league seasons? A: Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Pete Incaviglia, or some such nonsense). No doubt Soriano had a Hall of Fame year, and may get better and better. But round numbers are not tyrannical; they're beautiful. Finally, 39/39 might be meaningful someday, that day being when we evolve to 13 fingers and 13 toes." Posted 2:28 PM | [Link] THE OTHER SENATOR CLINTON?: [Rod Dreher] I'm talking on the phone just now with a friend, and we're discussing Sen. Robert Torricelli's possible withdrawal from the New Jersey Senate race later today. The Torch has said he would quit if a suitable replacement could be found. My friend said, "Is Bill Clinton available to move to New Jersey?" Please, somebody tell me that Jersey has residency requirements that would keep Clinton away from this race. Posted 2:20 PM | [Link] TALES FROM THE HAGUE [Kathryn Jean Lopez] This, from a judge in the Milosevic trail: "In this jurisdiction we are quite flexible. We do admit hearsay evidence," Jamaican Judge Patrick Robinson said, though he added: "It doesn't mean anything goes." Posted 2:15 PM | [Link] GOING...GOING... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The Torch tells colleagues he'll drop out if a replacement is found. Posted 2:01 PM | [Link] APOSTATE YANKEE LOVES SWEET HOME: [Rod Dreher] From a Corner reader. I've blanked out a key name so as to avoid a spoiler, but if you really don't want to risk it, don't read further: "At my ten-year old daughter's insistence, we saw [Sweet Home Alabama] the night it opened in Staunton, Virginia. As a native New Yorker who has lived many years in the South, I was amazed by the audience's enthusiasm. The biggest cheers went up when Witherspoon punched [an uppity Yankee] in the face and some character yelled 'The South will rise again!' I have to say that I cheered right along with them. I don't know if I'm becoming defensive of my adopted home or if I just couldn't resist seeing the diminutive Ms. Witherspoon puttin' a hurt on [this character] in defense of her mama." Posted 1:55 PM | [Link] THE NEW CHRISTIANITY: [Rod Dreher] I'm finally getting around to reading Philip Jenkins' extremely important article in the October issue of The Atlantic Monthly (here he is discussing its themes on The Atlantic's website). He argues that Christianity, not Islam, will be the dominant religion of this century, because it is growing explosively in the Third World. Third World Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is a lot more conservative and charismatic than Christianity in Europe (where the faith is all but dead) or the United States, where it is comparatively liberal and rationalist. He foresees a rise in religious violence there, and not just between Christians and Muslims. There are today some apocalyptic Christian sects, particularly in Africa, which advocate radical violence. I thought when reading that that Muslims tired of being drubbed as following a religion of violence might point to these cases as examples of the same within Christianity. It will not be sufficient to point out that Christianity cleansed itself of its violent tendencies in the Enlightenment; the kind of Christianity that's rising in the Third World is foreign to Enlightenment sensibilities. The point to be made here is that whenever Christians kill in the name of their faith, they are violating the New Testament; when Muslims do, it is very easy to find Koranic justification for it. Christian reformers trying to purge violence from the Christian community could turn to Christian Scripture to exorcise it, and sadly, they will have to do the same thing in the days to come; the fact that Muslim reformers have a vastly more difficult time doing this with Islamic holy texts makes their task very difficult indeed. Posted 1:52 PM | [Link] ALSO... [Jonah Goldberg] Thanks for all the "stupid arguments" emails. I think I've got more than enough. 200 or so will do me just fine. Posted 1:41 PM | [Link] FOR THE RECORD [Jonah Goldberg] Very close Kremlinologists of NRO might suspect that Rich's reference to Rod's "Crunchy Con" piece is really a thickly veiled attempt to goad me into venting my disagreements with the Crunchy Con thesis. Posted 1:38 PM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 1:26 PM | [Link] I WROTE...: [Rich Lowry] ...a syndicated column last week about genetically modified food and aid to Africa. Here's an e-mail in response. It's funny what a hot issue FOOD is--people get really passionate about it (see, for instance, Rod's cruncy-con stuff): "Thanks for showing us all how genetically modified foods are safe, and you gave so much evidence to support it! [This appears to be sarcasm, by the way.] And all those people in Europe with all that high quality food that our restarants strive for, they are so wrong too. Those dirty little governments in Africa, how dare they have a conscience about what their people eat? Let them have a list of auto-immune disorders like Americans. I ate better in Peru than in America. Our food is the laughing stock of the world. We make the most money, but our food sucks and it is killing us!" Posted 1:19 PM | [Link] THE LIES PEOPLE TELL THEMSELVES ABOUT PRO-LIFERS: [Rod Dreher] I met a couple of really nice people in a coffee shop the other day. We got to talking about the war, and Islamic religious extremism. I said something like, "You just don't see that murderous kind of extremism in Judaism or Christianity." To which they both replied, "Yes you do! Christians are killing abortion doctors!" I had to explain to them that very, very few abortion doctors have been killed by Christians (come to think of it, more Christians were killed in Pakistan last week for being Christian than abortion doctors have been killed in the U.S., ever), and that violence against abortionists is the province of a fringe extreme. It is an extreme that has been loudly condemned by every mainstream Christian leader, Catholic and Protestant, and which is condemned loudly by Christians every time there's a violent incident. I said this is as fair as judging all of Judaism by the acts of that Jewish extremist Baruch Goldstein, who massacred Muslims at prayer in the Tomb of the Patriarchs a few years back. There is nothing in the New Testament to justify killing abortion doctors -- unlike the Koran, which is filled with martial imprecations against non-Muslims. The coffeeshop duo accepted what I said politely, but it was clearly news to them. They really did seem to think that Christianity teaches jihad on abortionists, and that Cardinal O'Connor, who pleaded for the violence against abortionists to stop, was no different from an ayatollah. Posted 1:18 PM | [Link] SADDAM’S OUT: [Rich Lowry] Speaking of Hans Blix. I’ve been thinking that the U.S. has a very strong hand in the UN, since he goes there with the implied threat that we will do it without them if they balk. But Saddam is potentially working a strong hand as well—namely, hugging Hans Blix. Saddam needs to get him on the ground in Baghdad as soon as possible. That way he can say he’s in compliance with the current UN resolution, and so there’s no need for a new one. Perhaps that provides enough cover for a France/Russian/Chinese veto (or, at least, major obstruction) of the new U.S./Brit proposal. Also, as long as Blix is on the ground, the U.S. probably can’t attack. So, Saddam needs to get him there fast, and keep him there at least until the summer, with an acceptable level of compliance. How can we bomb Saddam if he’s complying with the UN and current inspectors? Thus, Saddam will reap the fruit of having drastically weakened the UN inspections regime beginning in 1998. Over the six months he might have to give up some weapons sites, but he survives to fight another day. Just one scenario… Posted 1:10 PM | [Link] CHICKEN APPEASERS: [Rich Lowry] Shouldn’t everyone in favor of renewed Iraq inspections have to volunteer to be part of Hans Blix’s team in Baghdad? Someone should consult Chuck Hagel on this… Posted 1:09 PM | [Link] BULLISH ON THE YANK: [Rich Lowry] I’m a little more optimistic about their post-season chances than I have been recently. Why? The starting pitching has looked excellent the last few weeks, El Duque and Weaver are there to provide what has to be the best long-relief potential in the majors, and the late bull-pen is looking strong too, with Karsay and Stanton providing first-class set-up. Anyway, it ought to be fun against the Angels—a scrappy, honorable bunch. Posted 1:08 PM | [Link] THE TYRANNY OF ROUND NUMBERS: [Rich Lowry] So Alfonso Soriano didn’t make 40/40. Instead, he got 39/41. Why this should matter is a mystery, but it does. Why can’t we just average out the home runs and steals? Why can’t we celebrate his entry to the 39/39 club? Alas, it doesn’t work that way, and it is “so baseball” that even the finest season can be tinged with a hint of disappointment. Wait till next year… Posted 1:08 PM | [Link] BAAAA HAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! [Jonah Goldberg] CNN and Drudge are going with a WSJ report that Torricelli may drop out of the NJ Senate race. He's now down 14 points. I wouldn't laugh -- except for the fact that it is so darn funny. Posted 12:10 PM | [Link] HELP [Jonah Goldberg] I couldn't sleep last night so everything's in slow-motion today. Well, not everything; the speed of light remains unchanged. Anyway, doing a Goldberg File on cliched or unthinking antiwar arguments. Among them: The war is a way to prop up Bush's poll numbers, it's a war for oil, we helped Saddam in the 1980s etc. If you've got more let me know. They need to be in wide circulation and preferably attributable to someone. "Stupid Arguments" in the subject header would help. Thankzzzzzzzzzzz. Posted 12:04 PM | [Link] THE MOOSE IS LOOSE [Jonah Goldberg] Newly independent Marshall Wittmann may join the McCain camp. Posted 11:54 AM | [Link] A DISCLAIMER [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Commentary about the S-CHIP unborn rule should not necessarily be construed as an whole-cloth endorsement of the huge federal (entitlement) program. The backlash from the Left (pr-entitlement folks) against this one detail is what’s of interest to this Corner-ite right now. More comprehensive consideration of children, health care, and the program itself can be found here and here. Posted 11:33 AM | [Link] FALLING OFF THE WAGON? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Kate Michelman misspoke to a Washington Post reporter this weekend on the S-CHIP news. This, from the Washington Post: Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), said the change would raise medical and legal dilemmas. A mother???!! That’s not “pro-choice” feminist talk. It’s strictly “pregnant woman,” no mother, in their playbook. But, the truth sometimes comes out unintentionally, as it did here. You certainly can’t fault Michelman; after all, it’s kinda hard to be enthusiastically against pre-natal care. Posted 11:31 AM | [Link] FROM THE SPRING [Kathryn Jean Lopez] NR and George Will on the “unborn” S-CHIP deal. Posted 11:31 AM | [Link] THAT’S NOT TO SAY… [Kathryn Jean Lopez] …,of course, that I am “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion. Ultimately, of course, I want it banned, outright. I’m not going to be disingenuous about that. But the lie that the pro-lifers are conspiring to use various backdoors to ultimately illegal is just that, a lie (and a widespread one). The conspiracy to mislead the public is not coming from those who oppose abortion. Posted 11:30 AM | [Link] WHO HATES CHOICE? [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A controversy is re-brewing over prenatal health care. On Friday, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announced that states will be allowed to extend State Children’s Health Insurance Program money to unborn children. (It is the state’s right to choose.) The usual suspects are, of course, up in arms that thought would even be given to a child before he is detached from his mother. But, again, rather than being part of a conspiracy to end abortion through a secret back door (this proposal, by the way, went through a public comment period; it’s been public knowledge that this new rule was coming since March), it’s about helping ensure kids are born into the world safely. And it’s not even a federal mandate, the state’s have the choice. Posted 11:29 AM | [Link] GENERALS Vs. BUSH DOCTRINE [Jonah Goldberg] My old buddy -- and US News and World Report's Pentagon reporter -- Mark Mazzetti has an interesting piece on the brass' reaction to the Bush Doctrine. Posted 11:07 AM | [Link] SWEET HOME LOUISIANA: [Rod Dreher] Statistics suggest that Cajuns love their home state (and maybe their mamas too) more than anybody else. Posted 10:42 AM | [Link] CAN’T STRESS ENOUGH [Stanley Kurtz] As I say, Pollack’s book has affected me profoundly. There’s nothing emotional in The Threatening Storm (well, except the nightmarish account of Saddam’s terror mechanism), no rhetorical flights. It is all calm, balanced, frank analysis. Yet it has hit me like a thunderbolt. Literally, I feel the effect of this book physically–as a feeling in the pit of my stomach, and a physical impulsion to go out and do something. This has hit me harder even than 9/11–probably because there is still time to act. To put it in 9/11 terms, it’s as if you were in the WTC and saw the plane coming. You would want to do something–to get out, to take others with you, to have someone shoot the plane down. Saddam Hussein is that plane. We must take him down before he strikes. Posted 10:28 AM | [Link] A CLASSIC [Stanley Kurtz] Books have always been a central part of my life, and I haven’t been this strongly affected by a book since I read Allan Bloom’s, The Closing of the American Mind. That book really did change my life. More than that, Bloom’s book actually kicked off our contemporary culture war. Pollack’s book may influence history as well. I say this, not only because the book is so thoughtful and impressive, but because, as I said in my earlier blog, our national argument over Iraq, for all the ink that’s been spilled on it, is still more shadow than substance. Not until folks like Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, and Stanley Hoffman are speaking to the substance of Pollack’s case will we be having a real debate. We are nowhere near that point. So that is why I keep talking about Pollack–to do what I can to bring our national debate around to the real issues. Posted 10:28 AM | [Link] POLLACK MAKES THE CASE[Stanley Kurtz] Last week, in “Consider This,” I introduced readers to Kenneth Pollack’s extraordinary new book, "The Threatening Storm. I draw on that book for my full-length piece today, and will continue to draw on it in the future. So far, I have only been able to convey the book’s central argument for an invasion. But it’s important to emphasize how thoroughly Pollack covers every aspect of the Iraq dilemma, from the nature of Saddam’s regime, to the diplomatic challenge, to the conduct of an invasion, to the aftermath. It’s been frustrating, in a way, to have had to confine my comments so far to Pollack’s core rationale for the war. Posted 10:27 AM | [Link] MAKE THE CASE! [Stanley Kurtz] While international support would be welcome, an invasion of Iraq is a pressing necessity of self-preservation, easily on a par with our war on Afghanistan. The problem is not that this is a “war of choice,” but that neither Friedman nor the public yet understands why we truly have no choice. But Friedman is quite right about the public’s confusion and ambivalence about the reasons for this war. Don’t be fooled by seemingly positive poll numbers. It is time for the administration to start speaking more frankly about the terrible scenarios we face if Saddam is not stopped before he obtains a nuclear weapon. Until the scenarios are laid out, we shall have only a shadow debate. Public support is necessary for this conflict, because it may entail serious casualties and domestic terror attacks. We also need public commitment to bear the costs of rebuilding and transforming Iraq. The public does not yet understand what it must understand–that the world economy and our very lives are truly at risk at this very moment, and will not be safe until Saddam and his regime are destroyed. Posted 10:24 AM | [Link] BAD NEWS [Stanley Kurtz] Our national debate over war with Iraq is going poorly. The problem is that those who oppose the war do not understand the reasons for invasion well enough to disagree with them. That is partly the administration’s fault. The case for invasion needs to be made more clearly. But the complex politics of the moment have made it difficult for the administration to be clear or frank. I try to explain all this in my full-length piece today. What I want to stress here is the deep incomprehension and confusion on the part of professional politicians, pundits, and the general public about the very real need for this war. Maureen Dowd’s piece in Sunday’s New York Times ridiculed the supposedly shifting and incoherent character of the administration’s case for war. Even Tom Friedman’s piece the same day was premised on an alleged difference between the war in Afghanistan and an invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan’s war, according to Friedman, was one in which we had no choice. But an invasion of Iraq is a “war of choice,” and thus in need of greater political cover and international support. That is wrong. Posted 10:24 AM | [Link] TRIMMING SUITS DOWN TO SIZE [Jonathan Adler] While significant tort reform legislation has been a hard sell in Congress, the Federal Trade Commission -- under the leadership of Tim Muris -- is taking action against excessive attorneys' fees. As one might expect, the trial lawyers aren't too happy about it. Posted 9:57 AM | [Link] DWARF THROWING [Richard Brookhiser] Will Saddam Hussein cut off his feet to qualify? Posted 9:55 AM | [Link] GET 4 FREE ISSUES OF NATIONAL REVIEW! That's right: We'll send you 4 FREE issues of National Review at absolutely no risk to you. If you're impressed by National Review's superior writing style, analysis, and wit, we'll send you the next 12 issues — for a total of 16 in all! — for only $19.95. Click here for details. Posted 9:51 AM | [Link] THE UNITED NATIONS TAKES A STAND [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Upholds a French ban on dwarf throwing. According to Reuters: "In a statement Friday the U.N. Human Rights Committee said it was satisfied 'the ban on dwarf-tossing was not abusive but necessary in order to protect public order, including considerations of human dignity.'" I had no idea the words "human dignity" were in the Human Rights Committee's dictionary. Posted 9:17 AM | [Link] GOOD MORNING! [Kathryn Jean Lopez] If you are just tuning in for the first time since last week, there was Corner-ing this weekend, so just scroll down to see what you missed. Posted 8:41 AM | [Link] THE GAY TIMES (AND GLOBE) [Kathryn Jean Lopez] The Boston Globe follows the New York Times lead and expands wedding pages to include gay unions. Posted 8:27 AM | [Link] BY THE WAY... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] That Arab News story I just linked to includes this: "[Saudi Committee for Support of the Jerusalem Intifada] collected more than $150 million in a telethon fund-raiser held in April in support of the Palestinian people." Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would be a fundraiser for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Who would the "agressors" be there? Posted 8:20 AM | [Link] IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHICH SIDE OF THE MIDEAST BATTLE THE SAUDIS ARE ON... ...the Kingdom is building 600 houses for Palestinians. "'The aid is part of efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people who have been facing a war of extermination, starvation, murder, expulsion and destruction of property at the hands of Israeli aggressors,' a statement carried by Saudi Press Agency said." Posted 8:18 AM | [Link] RECRUITING IRAQI SOLDIERS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Making the case against attacking Americans. Posted 7:45 AM | [Link] WHY WOULD YOU EVER...[Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...try to get on a plane with boxcutters? Posted 7:43 AM | [Link] I HEAR PARIS IS QUITE BEAUTIFUL IN THE FALL [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Alec Baldwin, still here. Raising money for Paul Wellstone. Posted 7:37 AM | [Link] I WONDER... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...what the Israeli dossier against Iraq would include. Posted 3:59 AM | [Link] I LOVED... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] ...Joseph Epstein's "don't write your book" column in Saturday's New York Times. Now excuse me while I throw out some notes. Posted 3:36 AM | [Link] IDIOTS [Andrew Stuttaford] According to the London Sunday Express, here's what Moroccan-born London resident Abdul Lakhouane has to say about Britain: "When we declare war on Britain it will be jihad - not defensive jihad but a holy war to attack...The Muslims once conquered Rome. In the same way we will conquer Britain. When we attack there will be bloodshed..." Lakhouane reportedly accepts $500 per week in welfare benefits from the British infidel state. According to the Express, he is also being provided with a $600,000 'council house' (municipally-funded housing) which, under British law, he will ultimately be entitled to sell for a profit of around $500,000. Posted 12:20 AM | [Link]
MAJOR SCANDAL [Andrew Stuttaford] There was a large 'anti-war' demonstration in London yesterday (although the number of demonstrators was far, far less than the more than 400,000 who turned out last week to demonstrate in favor of fox hunting, farm support and the traditional joys of the British countryside). In any event, news of the anti-war jamboree has been drowned out by the revelation that John Major had an affair. Dull John Major had an affair? Yup. It turns out that, back in the 1980s (before he was prime minister) Major enjoyed a four year affair with Edwina Currie, a then Tory MP, for whom the kindest adjective is 'colorful'. In terms of worrying about politicians' private lives, British opinion is usually to be found half way between American rigor and French indifference, but what has caused today's uproar is the hypocrisy of Major's behavior. For, after he became prime minister, Major launched 'back to basics', a 'family values' initiative that (as was completely predictable) the left then used as an excuse to destroy the careers of various straying Conservative MPs and create the perception of Tory 'sleaze' that was to play no small part in the party's later destruction at the polls. History is unlikely to be kind to Mr. Major. Posted 11:58 PM | [Link] YEAH, OKAY [Jonah Goldberg] I guess I'm willing to dial back a bit from the man of the Right thing now that I've had the weekend to think about it. But do keep in mind that few people have broken with the left without eventually drifting further into the camp of sanity. As for the story about Hitchens and Edward Said, Andrew Sullivan actually told me that story a while ago (and having not seen the London Times piece I'm loathe to reveal more than it does). However, I can say that the way I interpreted the tale of Hitch's departure was not at all inconsistent with a man wrestling with the conflict between his personal relationships and his improving principles. Apparently Hitchens feels very strongly that Said is an honorable and decent man (for the record, judging solely from Said's public persona I consider the man an arrogant crapweasel). Hitchens felt that he could not sit there and tolerate what he perceived to be an assault on the man's honor. Maybe leaving the table over politics violates some conservative principle, I don't know (refusing free food and libations, it seems to me, is more of a violation of the journalist's code than the conservative's). But leaving a table out of loyalty to a friend seems entirely within the precepts of conservatism. Indeed, having been tested in similar ways before I see nothing wrong with what he did. Again, as I said above, I'm willing to withdraw the Hitchens as M.o.t.R. thing from the table for the moment. But, as for Lenin being a "great man," I always thought that the designation "great man" was more morally ambiguous than you're making it sound. I guess it depends on the context, but the way I always understood the term was that "great" men are men who changed history. Evil men could be great men too, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin included. But if Hitchens means Lenin was a good guy when he says that, then he's probably automatically disqualified from M.o.t.R. status. That's like saying, "Robespierre was really on to something." Posted 11:41 PM | [Link] DEATH CHIC [Jonah Goldberg] Can you imagine your contempt for these people if your son, daughter, wife or husband had been ripped apart by a suicide bomber? Posted 11:25 PM | [Link] SOMEONE'S GONNA LOSE A THUMB.... [Jonah Goldberg] The artwork on the homepage for the Goldberg File links to Byron York's (excellent) article. Posted 11:17 PM | [Link] STILL RIGHT ON [Andrew Stuttaford] Jonah, just back from the Old Country and, there too, you can find talk of Christopher Hitchens. In an excellent piece in today's London Sunday Times, which will, doubtless, pop up on his website before long, Andrew Sullivan makes clear that he still sees Hitchens as a man of the left. In one small, but telling, anecdote Sullivan recalls how, the last time he saw him, Hitchens "walked out of a dinner party in protest at a fellow guest's disparagement of Edward Said". Maybe the explanation is that something truly ghastly was said, but, on the whole I would think that no true man of the right would ever walk away from a meal over something so trivial as politics. To repeat, we don't know what was said about Said, but it's also fair to suspect that anyone who rushes to that 'historian's' defense is unlikely to be a natural recruit for the right. Back, though, to the main event. In essence, what you were saying about Hitchens was this: he appears to be immune to certain aspects of contemporary multiculturalist dementia, and he is, therefore, a man of the right. That's too generous. While the right should be a broad church (after all, you and I have had our disagreements over the Prime Directive), that does not mean that absolutely everyone who displays some traces of sanity should be admitted. Yes, it is, indeed, delightful that Hitchens appears to be a fan of western culture and suspicious of moral relativism, but that is still true of many others who you and I would regard as being on the left: not every Democrat is, ideologically speaking, an inhabitant of the madhouse. Likewise with Hitchens. He talks a lot of sense on some matters, he spews a lot of nonsense on others. You don't need a 'Cold War' perspective to think that regarding Lenin as 'a great man' (as Hitchens apparently does) reveals a world view that on no measure belongs on the right. Beaconsfield? All strains of ideology have had their pragmatists. I still think Orwell is the best analogy with where Hitchens is going, but if you want another comparison from the mists of British history, take a look at John Lilburne, a (sort of) left libertarian from the 17th Century... Posted 11:16 PM | [Link] A SCARY VISION . . . [Jonathan Adler] of what this nation narrowly avoided: President Gore after 9-11. Posted 8:47 PM | [Link] DISGRACEFUL DEMS [Stanley Kurtz] The performance of Democratic Congressmen David Bonier and Jim McDermott on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad today was truly disgraceful. Their craven rationalizations for Saddam’s lies and tricks, even as they accused president Bush of being a liar, rivaled the worst actions of the American turncoats who went to Hanoi during the Vietnam war. George Will condemned them in no uncertain terms, and rightly. This really was an outrage. If Congressional Democrats repudiate these shameful remarks, that is good. If they do not, then it is the Democrats themselves who have irretrievably politicized the war. This is fair game, and no one can deny it. We cannot elect men like this to Congress during this time of war. Posted 8:38 PM | [Link] TALIBAN JOHNNY, JIHAD BRIDE?: [Rod Dreher] Time magazine reports this week that John Walker Lindh had at least one, possibly more, homosexual relationship while abroad studying Islam. I'm sure the inmates at the prison Taliban Johnny is headed to will appreciate knowing about his history of Pashtun-plucking (something his lawyers deny, by the way). Posted 7:19 PM | [Link] AND... [Jonah Goldberg] I'm half as genuine and twice as smart as I am in my writing. No wait strike that. It's the other way around. No... it's half as genuinely smart and...no; that's not right either. Maybe it's.... ["Shut up Jonah," sayeth the Couch.] Posted 12:21 PM | [Link] COSMO IS REAL! [Jonah Goldberg] And if you tune into CNN today you can see the dog hairs on my suit to prove it! (If you have hi-def TV). Posted 12:17 PM | [Link] HITCHENS REBUTTAL [Jonah Goldberg] Here's one reader-response which may be true: "Hitchens isn't a man of the Right. He is a man of intellectual honesty and rigor, and when a position he finds emotionally appealing becomes intellectually indefensible, he abandons it instead of elevating feelings over fact. That ends up looking an awful lot like being on the right, but it isn't exactly the same." Posted 12:09 PM | [Link] |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>