WHY TAKE BAGHDAD? :

Urban War, the Right Way : Baghdad Needn't Be Another Mogadishu. American Troops Are Up to the Task--but Is the Public? (Mark Bowden, August 302002, LA Times)

Reports that Saddam Hussein is hoping to lure invading U.S. armies into protracted street battles in Baghdad have prompted visionsof American soldiers caught in a nightmarish 360-degree urban battlefield--"Black Hawk Down" redux.

Given that his military is estimated to be only one-third as strong as the one routed by allied armies 11 years ago, Hussein's best hope against an invading American force would be to exact enough casualties to wear down support for the effort in the U.S. or frighten off support for such an invasion before it began.

Toward that end, the nightmare of the 1993 battle of Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, depicted in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down"might help convince Americans and their lawmakers that the cost of going to war against Iraq would be too high. But, in fact, the kind of urban fighting that members of Task Force Ranger faced in 1993 would little resemble such fighting in Baghdad.

The mission in Mogadishu was a limited, light-infantry assault, a lightning raid meant to capture unharmed several lieutenants of Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. The whole purpose was to get into the city and get out quickly. The mission turned into protracted street fightingonly when Somalis were able to down two Black Hawk helicopters, forcing the soldiers on the ground to stay and rescue the chopper crews. An assault on Baghdad would come with heavy force and would be designed to defeat an entrenched enemy. It would involve a large contingent of footsoldiers supported by armor and precision air support. Task Force Ranger fought without the aid of tanks or AC-130 Spectre gunships because the
Clinton administration had declined to authorize these weapons. The full force of the U.S. conventional arsenal would back any move on Baghdad. The Rangers, Delta Force, SEALs and Air Force commandos trapped in Mogadishu numbered only about 160 men. Any force employed to attackBaghdad would be many times larger and linked with ready replacements and reinforcement. The most valuable armored tool in such an assault would probably not be a tank but a bulldozer.

Here's the question though: why take Baghdad? Especially if Saddam is going with a turtle strategy, sucking in his head and limbs and hiding in a "tough" shell, why not just take the rest of the country, giving us free reign to clean up his weapons sites and denying him access to his oil, surround Baghdad and tell the folks we'll leave when they send him out.

---

TURNING JAPANESE (via The Edge of England's Sword):

EU's recovery may have been washed away (Anatole Kaletsky, August 29, 2002, Times of London)

[W]hile Britain has been saved from the euro, at least for the time being, by the operation of democracy and the good sense of voters, the rest of Europe is looking less and less fortunate on both counts. Europe is bouncing along the bottom of a deep economic slump and can no longer hope to export its way out of trouble by selling luxury goods to a super-charged American economy. Meanwhile, Germany, which is now perennially Europe’s weakest, as well as its largest, economy, is being sucked into a deflationary whirlpool similar to the one that drowned the postwar economic miracle in Japan.

Yet there seems to be little hope that either democracy or good sense will come to the rescue. To understand this grim diagnosis, we must focus on Germany, whose dysfunctions and blunders have been primarily responsible for Europe’s economic woes since the late 1980s. [...]

Europe will need some much more decisive economic leadership if it is to avert long-term stagnation and quite possibly a Japanese-style crisis. Nobody in Germany seems fit to provide it.

The analysis here is of a kind with much of the European coverage of their economic and social situation, which is to say it gnoores most of the real problems because the solutions are too distasteful to discuss in polite society. Forget the Eu, the euro, monetary policy, etc., etc., etc, and consider these questions : has there even been a case of a nation or group of nations sustaining a rising economy at the same time as its population was both in real decline and relatively aging? Between the lack of young workers, the rising demand for government services by a graying population, and a continent wide move towards a large centralized bureaucratic state, is there any reason to believe that Europes economies can do anything but decline?

---

BACH WHO? :

Michael Jackson duped at MTV Awards (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, August 31, 2002)

Michael Jackson has received so many awards during his career, he apparently mistook a birthday gift from MTV as another accolade.

Britney Spears presented Jackson with a birthday cake at Thursday night's Video Music Awards. Before introducing him, the 20-year-old Spears gushed that she considered Jackson to be the "artist of the millennium."

When Jackson came out, he was presented with a cake and a statuette in the shape of a treble clef. He then said he never dreamed he'd be getting an "Artist of the Millennium" award, and went on to thank several people, including his mother.

"When I was a little boy in Indiana, if someone had told me as a musician I would be getting the artist of the millennium award, I wouldn't have believed it," Jackson said.

Thriller ain't exactly the Brandenburg Concertos, Mr. Bubbles.

---

BODY BLOWS :

Bush, the man of steel, is humbled by a $4bn battering from the WTO (Leo Lewis, 01 September 2002, The Independent uk)

In 1908, Andrew Carnegie, the Scot who was then America's biggest steel tycoon, was facing a tense Senate hearing on hefty US import tariffs and the prospect of a trade war with Europe. "Take back your protection; we are now men and we can beat the world at the manufacture of steel," he thundered.

Nearly a century later, the biggest names in US steel appear to find themselves on rather shakier ground. Despite having spent decades extolling the glories of globalisation, the US has suddenly found its steel industry the simultaneous victim and abuser of free trade. The US is swamped with cheap eastern European imports, and as a last resort the Bush administration has fallen back on the blunt instrument of protectionist tariffs.

In keeping with tradition, the US steel industry maintains its access to Washington's ear. With a move that stunned those who had not read the story in The Independent on Sunday predicting it, President Bush clearly demonstrated that fact in March when he announced a series of tariffs on steel imports – some as high as 150 per cent. The motive was obvious: nearly 30 US steel companies had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection since 1998, and more would surely follow unless something were done. With mid-term elections looming in November, the steel industry did not have to work hard to remind Mr Bush of the dangers of mass lay-offs in Ohio and New Jersey.

But over the last 10 days, Mr Bush has been forced into some serious backtracking. As the official complaints and threats of retaliation have rained in from around the world, Washington has grudgingly exempted around a quarter of steel imports from the tariffs. Sniffing victory, some of the larger European producers optimistically believe that a complete reversal could now be close.

This is a well deserved butt-whipping of a column aimed at US protectionism. The only two things to point out are that the European steel industry is in fact illegally subsidized and that the tax break in question was not implemented on the watch of the current administration. Other than that, Mr. Lewis gets in a number of shots that I'm afraid we just have to take. Hopefully now that the steel tariffs have served their purpose by helping him win Fast Track Trade Authority, Mr. Bush will have sense enough to discard them.

---

SPEAKING OF CONSERVATIVE HUMOR :

The Conservatives have hardly ever had it so good (Andrew Gimson, The Spectator)

Pessimism among Conservative candidates, extending to anguished doubt about their deficiencies as public speakers and their general ability to stay the course, is nothing new. As Chips Channon asked himself in his diary for 20 February 1934:

"Am I wise to embrace a Parliamentary career - can I face the continued strain? James Willoughby told me today that he nearly gave up his Parliamentary campaign in November, as he just could not stand the ordeal of speaking: when he confessed this to his agent, the man replied, 'Don't let not speaking well dishearten you: I have known candidates who could not even read.'"

We must all hope that in its restless quest to mirror the British people, the Conservative party will launch a drive to increase the proportion of its candidates who cannot read, but at least it already possesses an impressive number who cannot speak particularly well.

Not only is this column laugh out loud funny, it's also very wise on the need for Tories to return to first principles.

---

CONDI'S COMP (via Ben Domenech) :

LOOMING LARGENT (The Weekly Standard)

Largent embodies the conservative combativeness of the Republicans elected to the House in the class of 1994. He's a fervent opponent of abortion, gay rights, gun control, and the National Endowment for the Arts. On economic issues, he introduced legislation to scrap the tax code, he'd like to phase out Social Security, and last year he strongly opposed raising the minimum wage. He's also devoutly religious. In a speech following his 1995 induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, he thanked "my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" and said, "Football is what He gave me the physical gifts to do for a time, but my faith really defines who I am, as a husband, a father, and a man." Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition's former executive director, calls Largent "the genuine article."

But there are other traits that distinguish Largent from the rest of the House. Before he ran for Congress in 1994, he had never sought public office. During his athletic career, he scarcely followed politics beyond listening to radio broadcasts by Focus on the Family's James Dobson. That, and the birth of his first child in 1979, got him interested in public policy. But serving as an elected official never crossed his mind. "I didn't even know what 'GOP' stood for when I got to Washington," he says.

Political inexperience explains Largent's distaste for the wheeling and dealing that most people in Washington accept as a fact of life. When it was learned last year that Rep. John Boehner, who holds the number-four slot in the Republican leadership, had been distributing campaign contributions from tobacco companies on the House floor, Largent was appalled. He remonstrated personally with Boehner and even considered running against him in the House GOP's leadership elections.

Largent also possesses something found in few members of Congress: star quality. Since he came to Washington, People has twice named him one of its "Fifty Most Beautiful People in the World," and even a reporter for the New York Times gushed recently that Largent "looks like a male model and is so friendly he might be mistaken for a flirt."

Largent's glamour, particularly in the macho environment of the House, stems from his 14 years with the Seattle Seahawks. And he wasn't just any player: He was featured on a Wheaties box, and when he retired he had caught more passes than anyone else in pro-football history. He was selected for the Hall of Fame the first year he was eligible.

These qualities have won Largent a devoted following, particularly among conservatives, and made him popular on the fund-raising circuit. He attended about 50 events on behalf of other Republicans during his first term, and he looks out for his friends. When Gingrich canceled a fund-raiser for Rep. Mark Souder, a conservative Indiana Republican, after Souder voted in January 1996 against reopening the government, Largent called Souder the next day and said he'd come to the district for an event.

Souder, not surprisingly, is a Largent booster. So is Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who says Largent "is one of handful of guys I would trust my life with." His zeal for the Oklahoman is such that he wants him to run for president in 2000, though Largent has responded "coolly." "Other people's ambitions for Steve are greater that Steve's ambitions for Steve," Souder notes. Indeed, Largent told me he is "honored and humbled" people would want him to run for president, but says he doesn't think it's "realistic." "It's not an aspiration I have," he says, though he allows that "miracles do happen."

Mr. Largent is precisely the kind of candidate who presents a stumbling block for a Condoleeza Rice Presidency. If you are a Republican because you are conservative, you can trust a Steve Largent to, more often than not, share your view on an issue. Ms Rice is too much a tabla rasa for us to have such faith and as she fills in the slate she's bound to alienate people. The difficult balancing act she has to perform over the next few years is to begin to speak out on some non-foreign policy issues and, in doing so, either embrace conservative positions or explain coherently why she doesn't embrace them. She needn't necessarily toe the party line, but she'll have a tough time in the primaries if she's out of step with the party faithful on social issues like abortion, cloning, gay marriage, affirmative action and school vouchers.

---

METAL JAZZ? :

Alex Skolnick Trio
Last night on on their overnight Jazz Show, our local NPR affiliate played a cut from Goodbye To Romance: Standards For A New Generation by the Alex Skolnick Trio. It was Aerosmith's Dream On, but these guys play a jazz version of it. Apparently there are also covers of tunes by Black Sabbath, KISS, and The Who on the disc. It was at least intriguing.

---

IS CASTRO DONE YET? :

Totally Uncooked (PEGGY ORENSTEIN, September 1, 2002, NY Times Magazine)

Cooked food has not passed Klein's lips in five years -- that means not only meat but also vegetarian staples like pasta, rice and beans, which are not tasty in their natural state. Since, like most raw-foodists, he is also vegan, he abstains from dairy and eggs. Even tofu is taboo, because the soybeans it is made from are cooked. ''I've never felt better,'' Klein says. He sleeps less, has more energy. He even eats less. Although he does a two-hour ashtanga yoga workout each morning, he subsists on about 800 calories a day, which most nutritionists would consider starvation level. (The recommended daily allowance for an active adult male is 2,900 calories.) Raw-foodists claim, however, that uncooked calories metabolize more efficiently -- although there is no evidence for this. When I suggest that vegans I've met often look sickly, he shrugs. ''What we perceive as healthy may to a certain extent be socially determined,'' he says. ''They may have been very healthy and just looked weird to you.'' Klein himself is gaunt, though his arms are enviably muscular.

Klein is among a growing number of people who believe that eating uncooked ''living foods'' extends youth and staves off disease -- who, in some cases, consider cooked food tantamount to poison. Heat, they maintain, depletes food's protein and vitamin content and concentrates any pesticides. More important, it destroys a food's natural enzymes, which, enthusiasts claim, facilitate digestion; to absorb cooked food, they say, the body must use up its own limited supply of enzymes. By helping the body retain enzymes, a ''living foods'' diet supposedly delays aging, boosts energy and prevents or cures virtually all life-threatening diseases. ''In nature, all animals eat living foods,'' wrote the raw-foods pioneer T.C. Fry, who died six years ago at a relatively youthful 70. ''Only humans cook their foods, and only humans suffer widespread sicknesses and ailments.'' He also wrote, ''All the diseases of civilization -- cancer, heart disease, diabetes -- are all directly attributable to the consumption of cooked food.''

The raw-foodist subculture is a mix of alternative-health types, spiritual seekers and the aggressively trendy. (Celebrity devotees include Demi Moore and Angela Bassett.) Many people turn to the movement after struggling with chronic illness or obesity. Numerous Web sites peddle juicers, suggest recipes and offer testimonials that read like conversion experiences. ''It was about two years ago, at the height of my suffering from deadly cancer, that I was introduced to the raw-food diet, which completely changed my life,'' proclaims one of the faithful on rawfood.com. There are potlucks in Little Rock, festivals in Portland, conferences in Boston, tropical retreats in Bali. A small library's worth of ''uncookbooks'' have been published, and there is a movement afoot to pressure the Food Network into producing a raw-foods show.

It would be easy to dismiss raw cookery as kookery, and many do. But the rise of raw also reflects something about America's current mood. Extreme dietary regimens tend to crop up during times of crisis as a simple fix for society's ills. Amid the wave of social reforms in the 19th century, Sylvester Graham (of cracker fame) linked vegetarianism -- and home-baked bread in particular -- to spiritual salvation. A short time later, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, inventor of cornflakes, promoted a regimen of ''biologic living,'' which, in addition to some visionary ideas about diet and exercise, included five daily enemas and radium therapy.

Living-food gurus similarly promise not only better health but also increased wealth, spiritual enlightenment and inner contentment -- something that, these days, many of us find in short supply. In fact, by serving up equal parts fashion and phobia, raw-foodists may have hit on the ideal cuisine for an anxious time. ''In American life today, there's a lot we can't control,'' says Barbara Haber, author of ''From Hardtack to Home Fries: An Uncommon History of American Cooks and Meals.'' ''But everyone has control over their own intake. We can't control terrorism, but we can make sure we don't eat anything cooked.''

While mildly sympathetic to folks who feel the world today is beyond their control, might I suggest an alternative way of asserting control that involves food but that's much more fun? Try doing what the wife and I do: when you go to the store today to pick out a steak, give it a name, the name of someone you hate, maybe Osama bin Laden. Then, rather than eating it raw, barbecue it. Barbecue it with flames leaping up. Barbecue it until the outside is black and crusty. Than hack it up with a sharp knife and woof it down. This sort of symbolic anthropophagy may not reflect any better mental health but it sure as heck tastes better than raw macaroni.

---

SELF-CARICATURE :

What can you even say about this that the picture doesn't say itself?

---

GOLDEN BALL AND CHAIN :

We infants in men's clothing (Leonard Pitts, Jr., August 30, 2002, Jewish World Review)

They tell me the modern marriage is a partnership, a concept with which I have no disagreement. What I struggle to understand is why, where the family purse is concerned, my partner's vote carries so much more weight with me than my own. Am I really so much more likely to be seduced by useless gadgetry? Lose my mind at the promise of more watts per channel? Fall in love with a pretty faceplate?

Don't answer that.

"When I get married," my son announced, "I'm going to say, 'Look, baby, I'll buy whatever I want to buy.'"

"No you won't," I told him.

And my cocky son, who never believes anything I say, who thinks I know nothing about anything, considered that with a rueful smile.

"Yeah," he said, "I know."

The wife actually argues that we should rent movies rather than just buy the DVD. Women...

---

THE TIMES, IN DEFENSE OF BAD BUDGETING :

Tax Cuts, Again (NY Times, August 31, 2002)

[T]he overriding problem with more tax cuts is the cost. The proposals Mr. Bush is looking at are expensive. This week the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the recession, combined with increased spending and the cost of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, had vaporized all but $1 trillion of the 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus projected less than two years ago. It would be unconscionable for Mr. Bush to propose any tax cuts without explaining how they will be paid for over the long term. A case can be made for some tax-cutting now, but only if the huge tax cuts scheduled to take effect several years from now for the wealthiest Americans are repealed.

Why is a budget that projects the government taking one trillion dollars more than it needs from the American taxpayers any better than one that projects the government taking one trillion less than it needs? Aren't both simply bad budgets? In fact, given that we had a rising economy while we ran deficits but plunged into recession as soon as we started running surpluses, isn't it time to consider the possibility that the surplus is part of the problem? Mustn't there be some deleterious effect on the economy when government takes more of our hard-earned money than even it can spend, when, in effect, government removes the vital free market mechanism of allowing taxpayers to determine how to spend those dollars? Who cares if we give tax breaks to left-handed eggplant growers in Wyoming; just give the money back to the people, any people.

---

THE BROTHERS JUDD LIBERAL HUMOR CHALLENGE :

This was the week that, for some reason, everyone finally realized that the Left is humorless :
Bubble Wrap: The Nation vs. The Weekly Standard (John Powers, LA Weekly)

AS FAR BACK AS I CAN REMEMBER THE NATION HAS been the journalistic lodestar of the American left. Now, in its 137th year, the magazine is on a commercial roll. Its subscriptions have risen steadily in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks. Its finances may actually break even (a miracle in the world of political magazines). And its publishing adjunct, Nation Books, is raking in money from two hot titles: Gore Vidal's Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace and Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume DasquiÈ. Indeed, everything's going so well that I feel kind of churlish in pointing out what most on the left are unwilling to say: The Nation is a profoundly dreary magazine.

Just compare it to another thin, ideologically driven rag, The Weekly Standard, a right-wing publication currently approaching its measly seventh anniversary. A few months ago, I began putting new issues of each side by side on an end table and, to my surprise, discovered that while unread copies of The Nation invariably rose in guilt-inducing stacks, I always read The Weekly Standard right away. Why? Because seen purely as a magazine, The Standard is incomparably more alluring. As gray and unappetizing as homework, The Nation makes you approach it in the same spirit that Democrats might vote for Gray Davis -- where else can you go? In contrast, The Standard woos you by saying, "We're having big fun over here on the right."

And in some undeniable sense that's true. Back in the '60s, the left was the home of humor, iconoclasm, pleasure. But over the last two decades, the joy has gone out of the left -- it now feels hedged in by shibboleths and defeatism -- while the right has been having a gas, be it Lee Atwater grooving to the blues, Rush Limbaugh chortling about Feminazis or grimly gleeful Ann Coulter serving up bile as if it were chocolate mousse, even dubbing Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning television." (Get your political allegiances straight, babe. Katie's the Madame Mao of morning television. You're Eva Braun.)

Right-Wing Envy : Do you have it? (Jack Shafer, August 29, 2002, Slate)

While the right seeks converts, trying both to persuade and entertain, the left spends its journalistic energy policing the movement. Imagine The Nation running a weekly column about nothing, called "Casual," as the Standard does. Also, conservative journalists are more likely to allow readers to enjoy a magazine article without strong-arming them into signing the ideology oath that seems to come packed with most lefty journalism. For instance, when the Standard's David Brooks profiled "Patio Man," the acquisitive consumer who haunts Home Depot looking for things to buy, he both laughed at its subject and exalted him without fear of contradiction.

Of course, lefty journalism needn't turn right to improve itself. But Powers hints that the source of The Nation's illness is the Stalinist impulse to prescribe proper attitudes toward culture, art, and journalism. A Nation writer who, say, wants to use humor or wit to make his point mustn't abuse gays, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Ralph Nader, foreigners, women, the infirm, working stiffs, Indians, Mohammed (but Jesus is fair game), whales, or any cultural stereotype. This leaves him just one angle from which to compose his point: Stupid White Men. Such is the state of left journalism that Michael Moore has made a career out of painting and repainting this mono-mural.

How the anything-goes drug-and-sex party that the cultural left threw in the '60s segued into an Amish wake featuring stern readings from the joyless work of Barbara Ehrenreich, the scoldings of Todd Gitlin, and the catechisms of Richard Goldstein is anybody's guess. Would Emma Goldman dance with these folks? Or would she make a beeline for the house on the right, which looks like a brothel in comparison to the one on the left? I await the Powers sequel.

Who's more miserable - the far right or the far left? (James Lileks, Rants)

The former is likely to wash its hands of the modern world, lament how things have gone to hell since the Brits stopped shoving civilization down the ululating maws of Wogland, and announce that you're all welcome to your polyglot mishmash - I'll be over here getting smashed on port and reading Patrick O'Brien novels. But at least they seem dedicated to enjoying life on their own terms; if they're cultural conservatives, they retire to their version of Heston's apartment in "The Omega Man," surrounded by the remnants of Western glory, keeping to themselves, and venting their spleen now and then by burping off a few rounds at the moaning zombies outside in the darkened park.

The hard left, on the other hand, demonstrates all the symptoms of anhedonia, or the inability to feel pleasure - there's a rancid bitterness, a pissy miserablism that makes you feel very, very sorry for them.

All of them are, of course, correct, but Mr. Powers and Mr. Shafer and several of the folks who have commented on these stories make one major mistake in their analysis: because they are Leftists themselves or in some of the commentators cases reformed Leftists, they are forced to assume that this represents a change of some kind. Typically they harken back to the 60s when the Left was "fun". Mr. Shafer for instance refers approvingly, and apparently with a straight face, to the "anything-goes drug-and-sex party that the cultural left threw in the '60s". Surely at this late date there's no one left who really thinks that was fun, is there? You'd have thought the Clinton Presidency, where we got to see what the children of the 60s had turned into, or the Robin Wright character in Forrest Gump would have put the final nail in that coffin. It's entirely typical of the time that the genuinely humorous art it produced all makes fun of the Left's pretensions and heaps scorn upon the "party". One thinks in particular of Tom Wolfe, who in essays like Radical Chic made it clear that hat was fun about the 60s parties was not to be at one but to contemplate the participants. Even Hunter S. Thompson, who we still tend to think of as a defender of the 60s party, apparently understood even at the time that the joke was on him and the rest of the partiers. At the end of his book Hell's Angels, after a several hundred page paean to the care free biker gang spirit, those same bikers beat the living hell out of him. The whole text is revealed to have been an elaborate joke at his own expense. And that is the proper point to take away from the 60s: the partiers were not the perpetrators but the butt of all the truly amusing jokes.

---

YOU CAN'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER :

In Those Days, Too, Blood and Sex Could Make a Best Seller (EMILY EAKIN, August 31, 2002, NY Times)

In 1796, a 20-year-old Oxford University graduate named Matthew Lewis published "The Monk," a Gothic shocker unlike anything English society had ever seen. The novel told a lurid tale of sex and murder involving a Roman Catholic priest: Ambrosio, the revered head of a Capuchin monastery in Madrid, rapes and stabs Antonia, a local beauty of noble descent, in the crypt of the convent next door. The macabre nature of his crime is conveyed in graphic detail. The priest drugs her with an opiate so powerful that she is presumed dead and carted off in a coffin to the crypt, where, as soon as she revives, he forces himself on her and then finishes her off with two dagger blows to the heart. In an earlier fit of lustful frenzy, he also strangles her mother.

A succès de scandale 200 years ago, the novel is being reissued this month by Oxford University Press with a terrific new introduction by Stephen King. By dressing the book in a 1950's-style noir cover - featuring a shrouded monk in sinister silhouette and the title in ghostly, backlit typeface - Oxford seems to be trying to have it viewed as a precociously modern work. [...]

When Lewis dashed off the book in 10 weeks while working at the British Embassy in The Hague, the Gothic novel was just a few decades old. Its progenitor, most scholars agree, was Horace Walpole, the author of the mildly spooky romance "The Castle of Otranto" (1764) and one of the first novelists to abandon all pretense to moral instruction in favor of sheer entertainment. Walpole's celebration of romantic love and fondness for vengeful ghosts and moldering castles became hallmarks of the Gothic.

"If this new genre had an Elvis Presley, it was Walpole," [Stephen] King writes. "Then came Matthew Lewis, the genre's first punk, the Johnny Rotten of the Gothic novel."

If you pick it up because of the Mickey Spillane-style cover you're going to be disappointed. It defies reading.

---

VOUCHERS NOW, PART 472 :

Lesson Plans for Sept. 11 Offer a Study in Discord (KATE ZERNIKE, August 31, 2002, NY Times)

"For some kids, school may be the only place they have where they can find a listening ear," said Jerald Newberry, director of the Health Information Network for the [National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union], which produced the lesson plans.

The criticism to the lessons on tolerance, Mr. Newberry said, is thinly veiled bigotry. "If you boil down the concerns of the opposition, what I would call the far right, ultimately it boils down to is: `I am not comfortable with my child being in school with someone who's different. I want to keep my child surrounded by people who are identical to me. The world is getting too diverse, and I'm scared.' " [...]

Among what Mr. Newberry called "100 gentle lessons" in the N.E.A. curriculum is one where middle school students make color wheels to relate color to how they feel. A tolerance lesson suggests talking to high school students about their definition of "terrorist." How many times in defining it, the curriculum asks, do the terms "Muslim" and "Middle East" come up, and how does that compare with the characterization of Japanese-Americans who, as the students learn, were sent to internment camps in World War II?

The N.E.A. Web site also included a link that urged teachers to avoid blaming Muslims for the attacks.

Actually, Mr. Newberry, I'm not comfortable with my child being in a school with a fact-warping, America-hating, self-loathing nitwit like you. Who do you think we should blame for the attacks, Zoroastrians?

---

GOOD VIBRATIONS LINGER :

Lionel Hampton, Jazz Great, Dies at 94 (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, August 31, 2002)

Lionel Hampton, the vibraphone virtuoso and standout showman whose six-decade career ranked him among the greatest names in jazz
history, died Saturday. He was 94.

Hampton, whose health was failing in recent years, died of heart failure at Mount Sinai Medical Center at about 6:15 a.m., said his manager, Phil Leshin.

``He was a great man, a sweet, nice, gentleman, and one of the greatest musicians this country has ever produced,'' Leshin said. ``He's influenced thousands of musicians around the world.''

Hampton worked with a who's who of jazz greats, from Benny Goodman to Charlie Parker to Quincy Jones.

Hampton and pianist Teddy Wilson were the black half of the fabled quartet with Goodman and drummer Gene Krupa that in 1936 broke the racial barriers
that had largely kept black musicians from performing with whites in public.

He played at our High School and was not only great but seemed like a genuinely sweet man.

---

DONAWHO? :

'DONAHUE' DEBUT DRAWS FEW VIEWERS (DON KAPLAN, August 28, 2002, NY Post)

The ratings for TV vet Phil Donahue's new talk show are almost too low to track.

The ratings for "Donahue" scored a .1 rating last Friday - that means fewer than 136,000 viewers nationwide were tuned in during MSNBC's hour-long 8 p.m. talk show.

Never mind the specific delusion that there would be an audience for Donahue at this moment in our history, when Western Civilization is under attack. Consider the general question of whether there's really much of a market for news with an openly Leftwing slant. Ann Coulter put it well in her Booknotes appearance :

COULTER: Oh no, no one in the entertainment world is going to watch this show.

LAMB: Why not? [...]

COULTER: If they watched the show they'd all be conservatives. Did you see that NPR listeners, something like 72 percent are conservative? And you remember from your own show here when you just had open lines, it was all conservatives calling and you had to set up a liberal line. If liberals paid attention to politics, they'd all be conservatives.

For years before blogging came along, I used to send out pretty much all the same type stories that we link to now. One of the folks on the mailing list, a liberal, asked what the point was. I told him that I didn't think it was possible to be an intelligent person and actually know what's going on in the world and remain a liberal.

---

HAPPY CIVILIZATION DAY :

Charlie Chaplin's Long Nightmare Has Finally Ended: This Labor Day no one is celebrating workers. (DANIEL HENNINGER, August 30, 2002, Wall Street Journal)

What's perhaps most interesting about the American workforce as we welcome a Labor Day weekend is just how little interest there is in the subject. Ever since the Industrial Revolution began to funnel families to big-city jobs, popularizers and theorists have obsessed over the culture of work.

Some weeks ago I saw a restored print of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis," a fantastic 1927 movie in which an all-powerful capitalist runs a magnificent futuristic city with lumpen workers who toil below ground at horrid, perpetual-motion machines. Ten years later in "Modern Times," Charlie Chaplin's Everyman is still enslaved to the metal monsters.

Some 30 Labor Days after that, nothing much had changed. In 1955 the coal miner in Tennessee Ernie Ford's "Sixteen Tons" can't afford to die because "I owe my soul to the company store." It sold two million copies and every kid in America was singing it. But the definitive gloss on work in America appeared the next year with publication of William H. Whyte's "The Organization Man." For the purposes of contemplating the evolution of paid effort on Labor Day in the 21st century, it's still worth reading Whyte's vision:

"The corporation man is the most conspicuous example, but he is only one, for the collectivization so visible in the corporation has affected almost every field of work. Blood brother to the business trainee off to join Du Pont is the seminary student who will end up in the church hierarchy, the doctor headed for the corporate clinic, the physics Ph.D. in a government laboratory, the intellectual on the foundation-sponsored team project, the engineering graduate in the huge drafting room at Lockheed, the young apprentice in a Wall Street law factory. They are all, as they so often put it, in the same boat." In Whyte's world, work had at least evolved from hell to purgatory.

Today we have Dilbert, the first labor theorist in all history with a sense of humor. I say this is progress.

We should scrap Labor Day and instead commemorate the attacks, with church services, concerts, and patriotic observances. This would serve as a permanent reminder that our freedoms have been paid for with blood and that many in the world would like to extract a higher toll. But it should be a day of thanksgiving, a day when we recognize and celebrate the values that were attacked on 9-11 and refresh our vows to defend them.

---

SPEAKING OF RIBBENTROPP... :

Germany Announces New Shift Away From U.S. Over Iraq (STEVEN ERLANGER, Aug. 30, 2002, NY Times)

If the United States attacks Iraq, Germany will pull out its specialized nuclear, chemical and biological warfare unit from Kuwait, the German defense minister said in an interview published today.

The conservative challenger in the electoral fight to be Germany's next chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, said today that he would do the same in the case of a unilateral American attack on Iraq, but only after consultations with European allies.

The new German position marks another shift away from Washington in the heat of a German election campaign that the chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, is trying to turn toward questions of peace rather than unemployment.

The unit, consisting of six specialized Fuchs tanks and 52 soldiers, is designed to detect the use or presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and then try to destroy them. The unit was sent to Kuwait as part of Germany's contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban that followed the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

Saddam and Schroder...perfect together....

---

CRANK UP THE SOX' MIRACLE COMEBACK :

Baseball: Deal Reached, Strike Averted (Reuters, 8/30/02)

Major League Baseball players reached a new labor agreement with team owners in 11th hour talks on Friday, narrowly averting a strike that had threatened to damage the sport for years to come.

This is how it must have felt on the day the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact was announced...

---

FOLDED UP IN THE PAPER TIGER :

China's Governance Crisis (Minxin Pei, September 2002, Foreign Affairs)

In retrospect, the 1990s ought to be viewed as a decade of missed opportunities. The CCP leadership could have taken advantage of a booming economy to renew itself through a program of gradual political reform built on the rudimentary steps of the 1980s. But it did not, and now the cumulative costs of a decade of foot-dragging are becoming more visible. In many crucial respects, China's hybrid neo-authoritarian order eerily exhibits the pathologies of both the political stagnation of Leonid Brezhnev's Soviet Union and the crony capitalism of Suharto's Indonesia.

These pathologies -- such as pervasive corruption, a collusive local officialdom, elite cynicism, and mass disenchantment -- are the classic symptoms of degenerating governing capacity. In most political systems, a regime's capacity to govern is measured by how it performs three key tasks: mobilizing political support, providing public goods, and managing internal tensions. These three functions of governance -- legitimation, performance, and conflict resolution -- are, in reality, intertwined. A regime capable of providing adequate public goods (education, public health, law and order) is more likely to gain popular support and keep internal tensions low. In a Leninist party-state however, effective governance critically
hinges on the health of the ruling party. Strong organizational discipline, accountability, and a set of core values with broad appeal are essential to governing effectively. Deterioration of the ruling party's strength, on the other hand, sets in motion a downward cycle that can severely impair the party-state's capacity to govern.

Numerous signs within China indicate that precisely such a process is producing huge governance deficits. The resulting strains are making the political and economic choices of China's rulers increasingly untenable. They may soon be forced to undertake risky reforms to stop the rot. If they do not, dot communism could be no more durable than the dot coms. [...]

Many in the Bush administration view China's rise as both inevitable and threatening, and such thinking has motivated policy changes designed to counter this potential "strategic competitor." On the other hand, the international business community, in its enthusiasm for the Chinese market, has greatly discounted the risks embedded in the country's political system. Few appear to have seriously considered whether their basic premises about China's rise could be wrong. These assumptions should be revisited through a more realistic assessment of whether China, without restructuring its political system, can ever gain the institutional competence required to generate power and prosperity on a sustainable basis. As Beijing changes its leadership, the world needs to reexamine its long-cherished views about China, for they may be rooted in little more than wishful thinking.

As is so often the case among foreign policy professionals, this article seems to be worried about the last crisis rather than the next. We all know how this one ends: communism can never, even when it attempts to weld itself to capitalism, provide the kind of decent life that citizens ultimately demand. The question is not: can this current political regime endure? Of course it can't. The question is: can this China endure a regime change? Absent a totalitarian, or at least authoritarian, central government, willing to use ruthless force to keep the State together, how can a nation of over a billion people of varied backgrounds, spread out over a massive geography, be made to cohere and be made to function efficiently? One seriously doubts that it can.

---

THE MEN WITH THE MEAT AXES :

Neo-Con Is Not a Keanu Reeves Fan Convention (Bobby Allison-Gallimore, 8/29/02, Caffeinspiration)

Although the definition of a neo-con as opposed to a conservative is no doubt blurry, especially with the swelling of the neo-con ranks, I wonder if the answer lies somewhere in the vicinity of this hypothesis: could the distinction involve a belief by neo-cons (perhaps carried over from their former days as liberals) that successful implementation of their policies would result in a net gain for society, whereas conservatives feel that successful policy implementation can only result in slowing down the rate of society's inevitable loss, rather than resulting in any gain.

Those pesky neocons are proving harder to nail down than Jell-o., but Mr. Allison-Gallimore brings up one of the most important features of neoconservatism and one that mitigates against their being considered conservative at all. They retain a rationalist belief that they can perfect society through proper implementation of government policy. The great vivisection of rationalism is to be found in Rationalism in politics (Michael Oakeshott, Cambridge Journal, Volume I, 1947) :

The general character and disposition of the Rationalist are, I think., difficult to identify. At bottom he stands (he always stands) for independence of mind on all occasions, for thought free from obligation to any authority save the authority of reason'. His circumstances in the modern world have made him contentious: he is the enemy of authority, of prejudice, of the merely traditional, customary or habitual. His mental attitude is at once sceptical and optimistic: sceptical, because there is no opinion, no habit, no belief, nothing so firmly rooted or so widely held that he hesitates to question it and to judge it by what he calls his 'reason'; optimistic, because the Rationalist never doubts the power of his 'reason (when properly applied) to determine the worth of a thing, the truth of an opinion or the propriety of an action. Moreover, he is fortified by a belief in a reason' common to all mankind, a common power of rational consideration, which is the ground and inspiration of argument: set up on his door is the precept of Parmenides--judge by rational argument. But besides this, which gives the Rationalist a touch of intellectual equalitarianism, he is something also of an individualist, finding it difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself.[...]

The conduct of affairs, for the Rationalist, is a matter of solving problems, and in this no man can hope to be successful whose reason has become inflexible by surrender to habit or is clouded by the fumes of tradition. In this activity the character which the Rationalist claims for himself is the character of the engineer, whose mind (it is supposed) is controlled throughout by the appropriate technique and whose first step is to dismiss from his attention everything not directly related to his specific intentions. This assimilation of politics to engineering is, indeed, what may be called the myth of rationalist politics. And it is, of course, a recurring theme in the literature of Rationalism. The politics it inspires may be called the politics of the felt need; for the Rationalist, politics are always charged with the feeling of the moment. He waits upon circumstance to provide him with his
problems, but rejects its aid in their solution. That anything should be allowed to stand between a society and the satisfaction of the felt needs of each
moment in its history must appear to the Rationalist a piece of mysticism and nonsense. And his politics are, in fact, the rational solution of those practical conundrums which the recognition of the sovereignty of the felt need perpetually creates in the life of a society. Thus, political life is resolved into a succession of crises, each to be surmounted by the application of reason'. Each generation, indeed, each administration, should see unrolled before it the blank sheet of infinite possibility. And if by chance this tabula rasa has been defaced by the irrational scribblings of tradition-ridden ancestors, then the first task of the Rationalist must be to scrub it clean; as Voltaire remarked, the only way to have good laws is to burn all existing laws and to start afresh.

This stands in sharp contrast to the portrait of the conservative he draws in his other great essay, On Being Conservative (1956):

A man of conservative temperament draws some appropriate conclusions. First, innovation entails certain loss and possible gain, therefore, the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be on the whole expected to be beneficial, rests on the would-be innovator. Secondly, he believes that the more closely the innovation resembles growth (that is, the more clearly it is intimated in and not merely imposed upon the situation) the less likely it is to result in a preponderance of loss. Thirdly, he thinks that an innovation which is in response to some specific defect, one designed to redress some specific disequilibrium, is more desirable than one that springs from a notion of generally improved condition of human circumstances, and is far more desirable than one generated by a vision of perfection. Fourthly, he favours a slow rather than a rapid pace, and pauses to observe current consequences and make appropriate adjustments. And lastly, he believes occasion to be important: and, all other things being equal, he considers the most favourable occasion for innovation to be when the projected change is most likely to be limited to what is intended and least likely to be corrupted by undesired and unmanageable consequences.

It comes as little surprise to read in Irving Kristol's own Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea that he personally rejected On Being Conservative when Oakeshott presented it to him for publication in the journal Encounter.

---

GET BUSINESS OFF THE PUBLIC TEAT :

W.T.O. Will Allow Europe to Impose Record Sanctions Against U.S. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, August 30, 2002)

The World Trade Organization on Friday ruled that the European Union can impose trade sanctions of up to $4 billion against the United States in a tax dispute, the biggest penalty it has ever allowed.

The sanctions are 20 times the amount levied in any previous WTO dispute. Experts say their potential effect on EU-U.S. trade would be so serious that the ruling will likely prompt a new compromise between the two sides.

The result is a big victory for the EU, which had requested the $4 billion amount. The United States claimed the award should be less than $1 billion.

The WTO considered the request from the EU after ruling last year that a system of tax breaks for companies from the United States was an illegal subsidy and violated international trade rules.

Considering that we didn't even dispute that the subsidies were illegal we deserve whatever we get. This is an extraordinary opportunity for Republicans, who are too stupid to take it. They should go to McCain and the Democrats and say: draft a list of every corporate tax break and subsidy you want to get rid of and we'll do it. We'll also get rid of the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, Export-Import Bank, etc.--every program and department that is set up primarily to benefit business. No tit for tat, no gimmicks. Just simplify the laws and treat business no better than we did poor people in Welfare Reform. Tell 'em, to sink or swim on their own.

---

SO I SAY, WELCOME, TO THE BOOMTOWN :

Japan recovers from recession (Charles Scanlon, 30 August, 2002, BBC)

The Japanese economy has recovered from one of its worst recessions but it remains heavily dependent on growth in the United States.

The latest figures show gross domestic product was up by 0.5% in the three months to June.

Is it really a recovery when the growth number is the size of an accounting error? Here's the important thing to keep in mind: there's not a single factor that would lead one to believe that the Japanese economy will recover, ever.

---

A FAVOR, PLEASE :

BE A DATA POINT! (Patrick Ruffini, 08.29.02)

Since I'm going away for Labor Day and I'm unlikely to post anything from the road, I thought I'd put this out there when it might get a few extra eyeballs. It's a poll — my first effort to get a clear picture of political attitudes in the Blogosphere, among readers and authors alike. Crunching crosstabs is like crack to me, and I want some good, solid data. How many ultra-liberal women are defense hawks? I'll tell you, but first I need a meaningful sample to know. Please take this, no matter how meaningless or unthinking you think your answers might be. Thanks!

We'd appreciate it if folks could take a minute, it truly takes no longer, and complete Mr. Ruffini's survey. The numbers should be revealing and Mr. Ruffini is just the man to do something useful with them. Here's a prediction: 80%+ will be white, male, libertarian, pro-war, but at least a third of those will pick Gore in '04 to reveal their contempt for Mr. Bush's positions on steel and cloning.

---

HEADS OR TAILS? :

What are we doing here? (Dr. Abraham Twerski, M.D., August 29, 2002, Jewish World Review)

Just what are we doing here? What is the purpose of existence? Is it to "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die?," as the prophet Isaiah asked? It is not necessary for spiritual man to know the purpose of his existence, but it is essential that he think about it and search for it. If one concludes that he has no, purpose in life, that is his privilege, but as a human being he must exercise the unique human capacity to at least contemplate whether there is a purpose to life or not.

This is necessary because this search is crucial for self esteem-a necessary prerequisite for a person to maintain his emotional health. Self esteem requires a sense of having value or worth. Generally we value things for their function or for their aesthetic value. Of these two choices, man is not merely a decorative ornament, so we are left with contemplating our function: Just are we for? To be without a purpose would be devastating to our self esteem.

Now for the big question. Can you have purpose in life without postulating a Creator? To speak of one's ultimate purpose one has to assume that there is an ultimate purpose for the entire universe; a universe where each person has an individualized role. For the Universe to have a purpose there must have been some Intelligence that brought the Universe into being in order to fulfill that purpose. In a Universe that came about spontaneously and happened to evolve in such a way that after billions of years man appeared on insignificant earth, man can hardly be considered to have a purpose.

...and that, to me, is an intolerable thought. I know many people who are unable to believe in a Creator because their reasoning precludes it. I know several who believe in a Creator because they've had a personal experience of Him. I, on the other hand, have to admit I've never had a moment where I thought that I could truly perceive the Creator. But, even if applying it backwards, I find "reasoning" a sufficient means to arrive at the necessity of His existence. Because a life without purpose and without morality would be a horrible and ugly thing and because purpose and morality are only possible if there is a Creator, I choose to believe in Him.

---

MORE EAKINS :

The Gross Clinic, Thomas Eakins (1875) (Jonathan Jones, August 3, 2002, The Guardian)

Artist: Thomas Eakins (1844-1916), one of the greatest American painters, an artist of severity, of 19th-century sobriety, who never seemed to doubt that his was a moral vocation. [...]

Subject: Eakins approached Dr Samuel D Gross (1805-84) with his idea for a portrait in the operating theatre at Jefferson Medical College. Gross was an innovative surgeon and champion of surgical intervention. This operation - to save a gangrenous leg by removing pus - is one he pioneered.

Distinguishing features: It is Gross's face that holds you, his forehead caught by light from above, a glowing white star fringed with silver and grey, and the black pits of his eyes, their darkness only heightened by the light. He has paused for a moment to explain a detail of the procedure to the students all around him in the shadows of the theatre. The painting does not freeze the moment so much as expand it infinitely: there is a massive, grand stillness to this imposing canvas in which you contemplate with awe the dominating, dignified figure of the surgeon, all in black, except for the shocking shining red blood on his right hand as he holds the scalpel like a pen, or perhaps a palette knife.

What is Gross thinking?

As the husband of a doctor I can practically guarantee you he was thinking the following: "Boy, I hope they have the fried chicken basket in the cafeteria today."

---

PEACE IN OUR TIME :

If Churchill were alive today, he would strike at Saddam (John Keegan, 29/08/2002, Daily Telegraph)

The odour of appeasement that permeates the Western world has apparently driven President George W Bush to seek strength by studying the career of Winston Churchill.

Depressed by the warnings of his father's old friends against taking action against Iraq, he is looking for support in the life story of the supreme anti-appeaser. Churchill's refusal to be silenced by the peacemongers during Hitler's rise to power, a refusal all too painfully proved right when war came, sets an example President Bush finds reassuring.

If Churchill was right about Hitler, he seems to be asking, how can America be wrong about Saddam Hussein, a dictator who is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, a power Hitler never possessed?

The parallel is compelling, particularly to Americans, among whom Churchill, son of an American mother, continues to be venerated as perhaps he never was in his father's country.

But how right was Churchill?

It's interesting that the great military historian John Keegan, who I'd understood to be fairly skeptical about the war, should weigh in now in favor. but I wonder if he's not missing an important point here. If Churchill were alive today, he'd be in the wilderness, unwanted by an appeasement minded populace. For sixty years now Neville Chamberlain has been kicked up one side of the Atlantic and down the other by politicians, columnists, journalists, and historians who insisted that they'd have known that Hitler had to be stopped early. The underlying mesage of the scapegoating of Chamberlain has been that when the moment came again to either strike at a megalomaniacal dictator bent on murdering millions or to backdown in the face of his bellicose threats that we'd all demonstrate that we'd all learned our lesson. Bunk!

---

ONE NATION, UNDER THE UN :

France speaks out against US war plan (BBC, 29 August, 2002)

Mr Chirac told a meeting of French diplomats US threats ran counter to France's notion of collective security based on co-operation between states, respect for the law and the authority of the UN Security Council.

The "authority" of the UN Security Council? Boy, if the leader of one of Europe's major "conservative" parties really thinks that the UN is sovereign over the national security of his own state then there's just no hope.

---

HAUNTED BY JAMES :

Great Eakins Exhibit Finally Shows Up-With Nude Swimmers! (Hilton Kramer, August 29, 2002, NY Observer)

The great Thomas Eakins exhibition, which was reviewed here when it opened last fall at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (see The New York Observer for Oct. 15, 2001) has now come to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It hardly needs saying that everyone with an interest in the art of painting will want to see it. Even if you've already seen the exhibition in Philadelphia-or in Paris, where it has been shown in the interim-it's worth revisiting the show at the Met. Some paintings that were not available when the show opened in Philadelphia are now included in the Met's version. One of them is Swimming (1884-85), a painting of nude young men that the literary scholar F.O. Matthiessen once appropriately compared to the frank sexual imagery in Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself."

Eakins' fine portrait of Whitman is also in the exhibition, and the parallel interests that united the painter and the much older poet have frequently been noted. Yet I have sometimes wondered if a very different American writer, Henry James, might not provide an ampler perspective on the famous troubles that Eakins faced in the course of his Philadelphia-bound career.

Thomas Eakins (1844-1916) and Henry James (1843-1916) belonged, after all, to the same American generation. They were, in fact, the greatest artists of that American generation in their respective fields of endeavor. And while neither appears to have taken even the slightest interest in the other's work, they had a lot more in common than is usually recognized.

My two favorites are The Gross Clinic and the fabulous Baseball Players Practicing.

---

IT'S MORNING IN AMERICA (MOURNING IN EUROPE) :

Half a billion Americans?: Demographic forces are pulling America and Europe apart. If the trend goes on, it will fundamentally alter America's position in the world (The Economist, Aug 22nd 2002)

America's census in 2000 contained a shock. The population turned out to be rising faster than anyone had expected when the 1990 census was taken. There are disputes about exactly why this was (more on that shortly). What is not in doubt is that a gap is beginning to open with Europe. America's fertility rate is rising. Europe's is falling. America's immigration outstrips Europe's and its immigrant population is reproducing faster than native-born Americans. America's population will soon be getting younger. Europe's is ageing.

Unless things change substantially, these trends will accelerate over coming decades, driving the two sides of the Atlantic farther apart. By 2040, and possibly earlier, America will overtake Europe in population and will come to look remarkably (and, in many ways, worryingly) different from the Old World.

In 1950, Western Europe was exactly twice as populous as the United States: 304m against 152m. (This article uses the US Census Bureau's definition of "Europe", which includes all countries that were not communist during the cold war. The 15 countries that make up the European Union are a slightly smaller sample: they had a population of 296m in 1950.) Both sides of the Atlantic saw their populations surge during the baby boom, then grow more slowly until the mid-1980s. Even now, Europe's population remains more than 100m larger than America's.

In the 1980s, however, something curious began to happen. American fertility rates-the average number of children a woman can expect to bear in her lifetime-suddenly began to reverse their decline. Between 1960 and 1985, the American fertility rate had fallen faster than Europe's, to 1.8, slightly below European levels and far below the "replacement level" of 2.1 (the rate required to keep the population steady). By the 1990s American fertility had rebounded, rising back to just below the 2.1 mark. [...]

European commissioners are fond of boasting that the European Union (EU) is the largest market in the world. They claim an equal status with the United States in trade negotiations as a result. Some also think that, because of this parity, the euro will one day become an international reserve currency to rival the dollar.

But assume, for a minute, that Americans remain, as they are now, about one-third richer per head than Europeans. The high-series projection implies that America's economy in 2050 would still be more than twice the size of Europe's-and something like that preponderance would still be there even if you assume that by then much of Central and Eastern Europe will have joined the EU. The balance of global economic power would be tilted in fundamental ways. With 400m-550m rich consumers, the American market would surely be even more important to foreign companies than it is today. And if so, American business practices-however they emerge from the current malaise-could become yet more dominant. [...]

The geopolitical impact is fuzzier, but still powerful. At the moment, America's political connections and shared values with Europe are still strong, albeit fraying. But over time, America's ties of family and culture will multiply and strengthen with the main sources of its immigration-Latin America chiefly, but also East and South Asia. As this happens, it is probable that it will also pull American attention further away from Europe. [...]

If Europeans are unwilling to spend what is needed to be full military partners of America now, when 65-year-olds amount to 30% of the working-age population, they will be even less likely to do more in 2050, when the proportion of old people will have doubled. In short, the long-term logic of demography seems likely to entrench America's power and to widen existing transatlantic rifts.

Perhaps none of this is altogether surprising. The contrast between youthful, exuberant, multi-coloured America and ageing, decrepit, inward-looking Europe goes back almost to the foundation of the United States. But demography is making this picture even more true, with long-term consequences for America's economic and military might and quite possibly for the focus of its foreign policy.

If you never read another article we post here, read this one. In a relatively short space it reveals why the Atlantic Century is over, why Europe is through, why the U.S. is an inevitable hegemon, why we don't any longer have common interests with former allies but do with former non-aligned states and may with former foes, why immigration is vital, why abortion kills countries, why Social Welfare systems are timebombs, etc., etc., etc.. As an added benefit, it suggests I'm not as big a crank as I may seem.

---

ALMOST KAJAGOOGOO :

Heath happy with 'Jenny' but doesn't dwell on relationship (MIKE LACY, Aug. 29, 2002, Knight Ridder Newspapers)

Tommy Heath is shy. Very shy. He says at least half of the people in the Oregon Electric Co. office where he works as a computer
"geek" consultant doesn't know him as the rest of the world does. It's not that he's embarrassed. But unless someone needs to know he's also the leader of Tommy Tutone, the band with one of the biggest hits in the 1980s, he simply doesn't mention it. [...]

In 1982, the song 867-5309/Jenny off his second album, went to No. 4 on the charts. But it had No. 1 effects. It pretty much changed the telephone industry when it caused cities all over the country to discontinue the number because of repeated calls looking for "Jenny." In fact, it is still not a listed number on the Coast. Rick Stewart with Bell South said the number is used only for outgoing calls for "a large company" in the area. [...]

"I'm proud to be a one-hit wonder. I'd rather be a three-hit wonder, but it's better than being a no-hit wonder."

I swear the lead singer from A-ha drives the ice cream truck in our neighborhood; he's very animated.

---

EH? :

A war only the White House wants (ERIC MARGOLIS, August 25, 2002, Toronto Sun)

Israel has been trying for 20 years to get the U.S. to go to war against the Arabs and Iran, knowing this will permanently enlist America's vast wealth and power in its cause, and permanently alienate the U.S. from the Islamic world.

If ever the United States needed real friends, it is now. And real friends like Canada, Germany and France are trying to deter the empty, misguided George Bush and his hijacked cabinet from committing an outright aggression that risks plunging the Mideast into chaos, or even nuclear war.

Note the clever construction there? The Israelis (for which read Jews) aren't real friends, like the Canadians, French? & Germans?

---

NOT REMNANTS :

COLLEGE BOARD DROPS BOMBSHELL (CARL CAMPANILE, August 28, 2002, NY Post)

The people who administer the SAT exams dropped a bombshell yesterday by suggesting high schools nationally are inflating students' grades.

The College Board noted that the percentage of students given grades of A-minus or better jumped to 42 percent this year from 32 percent in 1992.

At the same time, the SAT scores of students with the higher grades dropped.

Gee, and we thought turning education into a self-esteem factory would produce smarter kids...NOT!

---

THE GOLDEN AGE OF BLAX :

Getting Whitey : "The white is being paid back for years of portraying blacks in movies as simple, shiftless, and stupid, although occasionally faithful and brave as well" (David Denby, August 1977, Atlantic Monthly)

The eagerness of urban black audiences for movies with black casts, stories, and themes, and particularly for black heroes, exemplars of racial pride, has created the first situation of guaranteed profit for commercial film makers since the 1940s. Recent genres like the youth film, the drug-addict cycle, and the revisionist Western have failed after a few box-office successes, or failed altogether, but at the moment, any film which shows blacks facing down whites in violent confrontations (the more corpses the better) is going to do quick and heavy business in the big cities. From large studios like MGM to fly-by-night outfits that barely exist on paper, everyone is struggling to get a few black movies into the theaters before the bottom falls out of the market; within the next year as many as two dozen features for the black audience should be released-some directed by whites, but most of them made by young blacks experienced in stage and television directing, still photography, film acting, and documentary. [...]

What has already appeared is of immense importance in the history of mass culture, even if it is aesthetically null. The film makers, whether white, or black, have sensed the audience's rage and its mood of revolt against insulting images of blacks in past movies and against the white man in general. The black cinema has discovered the profitability of revenge: the desires to make money and to erase a legacy of racial humiliation coincide perfectly in a cinema whose moments of purest audience joy consist of black men and women responding to white racism by killing oppressors. Movie audiences always wanted heroesfor fantasy release or just the basic pleasure of watching beautiful physical action, but this may be the first time an audience has demanded physical heroism in order to confirm an emerging sense of identity. The mood in the theaters is festive, alternating between admiration and mockery. If a white person wanders into one of these movies, he will have the novel experienceof complete exclusion...

Saw the movie Soul Man in a theatre where I was the only pigmentally-challenged viewer. C. Thomas Howell dresses up in black face to get into Harvard as a minority. At one point he gets on an elevator and an older white woman, the only other person on board, visibly panics and clutches her purse to her bosom. Folks started shouting at the screen: "That happens! That's happened to me!" The crowd reactions ended up being better than the film.

---

GO ALL THE WAY :

Have Evolutionary Explanations Gone Too Far? (Jeremy Stangroom, Philosophers.net)

Dylan Evans began by noting that science has always had to face down its detractors. 'They sit, Canute like, on the sands of obscurantism, shouting in vein at the advancing tide of knowledge. "Get back! Come no further! Leave me this little piece of unexplained territory!" Thankfully, science takes no notice. The Promethean spirit that animates scientific enquiry, that terrifying curiosity that inhabits the human soul, always proves stronger than the fear of knowledge that opposes it.'

He pointed out that when evolutionists first suggested, sometime before Darwin, that humans had descended from non-human species, they were the target of this kind of reactionary criticism. However, in the case of evolution, the criticism has not gone away. Evans noted that 'although the evidence for evolution is overwhelming today, there are still those who ignore it. Over half the US population still believes in the literal truth of Genesis. Thankfully, the population in the UK is somewhat more enlightened on this matter. Few people here seriously doubt that we evolved from other life forms. But even in the UK, there is still a widespread reluctance to take this idea to its logical conclusion, namely, that our minds are just as much the product of evolution as our bodies. This is Canutism. The new Canutes admit that the tide has come further up the shore. Science has already claimed the human body as its own, they recognise, but please don't let it claim the human mind.'

But, he insisted, it simply isn't possible to separate out the body from the mind. 'What is the mind after all, if not the activity of the brain? And what is the brain, if not a biological organ, the product of evolution like any other organ?

'Unless we want to fall back into a long discredited Cartesian dualism,' he insisted, 'we must admit these simple facts. The mind, like the body, is the product of millions of years of natural selection and historical accident. This means that there simply must be some kind of evolutionary psychology. The only real question is how to go about doing it.' He concluded, therefore, that it wasn't the case that evolutionary explanations have gone too far, rather they haven't gone far enough.

One of the enchanting things about most believers in evolution is precisely that they can't face going all the way. To accept that all human behavior is determed by evolution is more than they can face. Thus does their residual religious faith trump their scientific rationalism and make them quite lovable.

---

THE FOUR Rs :

Retrograde on School Choice (Nathan J. Diament, August 22, 2002, Washington Post)

Organizations such as the ACLU, the American Jewish Congress and the NAACP properly pride themselves on fighting religious, racial and ethnic bigotry wherever it is found. Thus it is deeply troubling that in their determination to thwart school choice programs, these champions of equality would resort to invoking state constitutional provisions whose lineage lies in the sullied era of 19th-century bigotry against Catholics.

I am referring to the "Blaine Amendments" adopted in many states in the late 1800s. One of these -- in Florida -- was the basis on which a trial judge recently struck down the state's school choice program at the behest of "civil liberties" organizations.

The Democrats remain the party of rum and rebellion and now they're retrograde on vouchers. But the GOP is now the party of Romanism.

---

EUGENECISTS, TAKE NOTE :

Like dad, Lockbaum versatile on field (Steve Wieberg, 08/22/2002, USA Today)

Baseball ranks, oh, fourth or so among Gordie Lockbaum Jr.'s sports priorities. Behind track. Behind wrestling. And not surprisingly, behind football.

The name of the just-turned-13-year-old Worcester, Mass., shortstop, whose team plays tonight in the Little League World Series' U.S. semifinals, may ring a bell. His dad, Gordie Sr., is a member of college football's Hall of Fame, a two-way star at Holy Cross who was third in the 1987 Heisman balloting.

If he wasn't likely to go to the dread Holy Cross it might be possible to root for him.

---

I DON'T CARE IF THEY EVER COME BACK :

The Baseball Strike for Dummies (GREG COUCH, August 28, 2002, Chicago Sun Times)

So you haven't been paying attention. Not really. Not to all those tedious details about sliding scales and straight pools and luxury taxes. You know baseball players might go on strike Friday, and likely will have their chauffeurs walk the picket line.

Players are averaging $2.4 million a year. Why walk? Owners say the salaries are so high they can't afford them. Why keep offering them?

If this isn't resolved soon, then everyone around the fax machines, water coolers, smoking areas will be griping and you're going to have to keep quiet. So here's a quick look at the basics of this dispute.

Kill the current major leagues and start over with the guys in the minors. The game will be fine in ten years and only a select group of us will still care. It'll be like a cult for us Omega Men.

---

ESTRICH, AS IN OSTRICH :

Now she admits her duplicity. (Media Research Center, 8/28/02)

Bill Clinton defender Susan Estrich conceded during a Saturday appearance on FNC that she had "defended the indefensible" in explaining away as irrelevant to his job performance Bill Clinton's personal behavior.

Recalling her many media appearances post-Lewinsky, Estrich expressed regret: "I mean I've done it. I've said 'Oh, sex with an intern, oh big deal, you know. I don't care, you don't care, what could be better'....I sat there for years and I did that, in the hopes that it would finally go away and, you know, Bill Clinton would become Jimmy Carter and we could all live happily ever after."

There was something deeply disturbing not only about watching decent people like Susan Estrich defend him, but even more so about watching the three Senators who we thought had souls--Lieberman, Moynihan, & Kerrey--vote to keep the guy in office. What a dark moment for a once great party.

---

I BET MOBY'S A PSEUDONYM TOO :

REVIEW : of Fatboy Slim : Live on Brighton Beach (JOSH HATCHER, Relevant)

When somebody got the bright idea to plop [Norman] Cook in his hometown, in front of 40,000 dancing fans, they got what they anticipated, a masterpiece of house music. It has all the feel of a live performance, but with the flawless presentation that someone might expect from studio work. Even a few humorous moments when the police had to interrupt the concert to announce that the tide was coming in and amidst a booing crowd encouraged them to move to safety.

Norman? And I thought his real name was Fatboy...

---

HE PUTS THE CRETIN IN CHRETIEN :

Chrétien: Hamas Isn't a Terrorist Group (Stephen Brown, August 26, 2002, FrontPageMagazine.com)

It was another shameful Canadian moment.

Canadian Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien added to his dismal record in the war on terrorism when his government just recently published a list of seven outlawed terrorist organizations in Canada. The murderous Hamas organization was not among them.

The Prime Minister has excused himself by saying that Hamas has a charitable wing that runs schools and hospitals in the Gaza strip and West Bank; only its military wing, he says, should be sanctioned.

What the heck kind of standard is Mr. Chretien adopting here? Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all ran schools and hospitals but they also killed what? fifty million people?

---

POPULISM ISN'T POPULAR :

Why Democrats Must Be Populists : And what populist-phobes don't understand about America. (John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, September 9, 2002, American Prospect)

[Al From and Mark Penn] believe that while populist appeals help with the Democratic base, they hurt Democratic chances among upscale voters -- whom From calls "new-economy swing voters" and whom Penn has labeled "wired workers." They blame Gore's loss in key border states such as Missouri on the defection of these voters, and warn that if Democrats persist in pressing populist themes in November 2002, they will lose those states again.

But this argument doesn't stand up. If you look at Gore's poll ratings before and after his speech at the Democratic convention, his support shoots up among the very voters whom the DLCers believed were cool to such populist appeals. According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Gore's support increased 12 percent among voters who make between $50,000 and $75,000 per year (and by 19 percent among independents, according to the Gallup poll). If you look at the final results, Gore did relatively well among upscale voters, particularly those with high levels of education. Where he slipped precipitously from Clinton's margins in 1996 was among white working-class voters.

Take From and Penn's example of Missouri. In downscale north and southeast Missouri, where the term "wired workers" would provoke quizzical glances, Clinton had won white working-class voters by 50 percent to 38 percent in 1996, but Gore lost them by 60 percent to 38 percent, a huge 34-point swing. By contrast, Gore won upscale new-economy St. Louis County -- the high-tech suburban area to the west of St. Louis -- by 51 percent to 46 percent. Gore lost Missouri in the working class north and southeast, not in the affluent St. Louis or Kansas City suburbs.

Gore lost these working-class voters primarily because his populist appeal and his defense of Social Security could not overcome the Republican wedge issues of 2000: Democratic support for gun control and the shadow cast by the Clinton scandals over Gore's character. In an extensive post-election poll conducted by Gore's pollster Stanley Greenberg, white, non-college-educated male voters, who swung sharply from Clinton in 1996 to Bush in 2000, cited Gore's "exaggerations and untruthfulness," his "anti-gun positions" and his "being too close to Clinton" as the prime reasons for voting against him. College-educated white male voters who opposed Gore, meanwhile, overwhelmingly cited Gore's untruthfulness.

From's and Penn's fears that populism will drive away upscale voters stem in part from their misunderstanding of populism. They are fond of saying that other Democrats are living in the past, but this is a case where the DLCers are. Their model of populist advocacy is the 1930s, when populism did appeal primarily to a working-class electorate. They can't conceive of well-to-do, college-educated populists. But populism's leaders have historically been drawn from the well-to-do and the college-trained. During the early 20th century and again today, populist themes have resonated among upscale as well as downscale voters.

There's a strange disconnect in this essay as the authors argue in favor of economic populism but against social populism, without even seeming to recognize that they're doing the latter. This is an entirely predictable trap that Leftists continue to fall into, misapprehending Man as a primarily economic being. What they are asking for though is that Democrats try to cobble together an inherently unstable coalition that requires a socially liberal pitch to economic elites and an economically liberal pitch to the very poor. The problem is that both pitches tend to turn off the middle class, while the rich, though absorbed by guilt and self-loathing, are well aware that economic populism won't help the poor and the poor are generally hostile to the lax morality of the upper classes. (This last is something that Charles Murtaugh has been pondering.)

---

A TIME FOR BUSINESS AS USUAL? :

10-year surplus shrinks further Democrats say tax cut to blame (Jim Drinkard, 8/28/02, USA TODAY)

The nation's 10-year budget surplus, projected at $5.6 trillion just 18 months ago, has all but disappeared because of lagging tax collections and increased spending to counter terrorism, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that it will be 2006 before the government emerges from annual deficits, a year later than the White House projects.

For the period 2002 through 2011, the cumulative surplus would amount to just $336 billion if current spending policies continued and tax cuts expired as scheduled in 2010, the non-partisan agency said. If the tax cuts were renewed, as appears likely, the surplus would disappear.

This begs the obvious question : why are we still budgeting for a surplus during a time of war and recession? It certainly appears to be a time to get serious about returning money to the taxpayers.

---

HAWKISH DOVE :

U.S. Keeps War Pressure on Iraq, Says Case Strong (Stuart Grudgings, August 28, 2002, Reuters)

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Wednesday that Washington was confident it could convince skeptical allies to back military action against Iraq, and would be "moving forward" at the right time.

Armitage said in Tokyo he believed the United States had a compelling case to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and could win enough international support, despite signs of growing opposition from friends and rivals alike. "We believe that we will ultimately able to make a compelling case and, in the course of time, will be moving forward," Armitage told a news conference in Tokyo.

"It is our view that an Iraq left unattended is a threat to its neighbors and a threat to ourselves."

Mr. Armitage has been widely portrayed, along with his boss, Colin Powell, as one of the angels on George W. Bush's shoulder, whispering, "Peace"; while Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz whisper, "War", in the other ear. Mr. Armitage may well oppose the war, but he sure doesn't sound like someone who has trouble justifying one.

---

GUILTY AS CHARGED--VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO :

Who's more miserable - the far right or the far left? (James Lileks, Rants)

Who's more miserable - the far right or the far left? The former is likely to wash its hands of the modern world, lament how things have gone to hell since the Brits stopped shoving civilization down the ululating maws of Wogland, and announce that you're all welcome to your polyglot mishmash - I'll be over here getting smashed on port and reading Patrick O'Brien novels. But at least they seem dedicated to enjoying life on their own terms; if they're cultural conservatives, they retire to their version of Heston's apartment in "The Omega Man," surrounded by the remnants of Western glory, keeping to themselves, and venting their spleen now and then by burping off a few rounds at the moaning zombies outside in the darkened park.

We almost never link to James Lileks (or InstaPundit or Andrew Sullivan for that matter) because one assumes that anybody who'd bother reading us will have already visited them--we're well aware of our lowly place in the Great Chain of Being. But Drew Craft forwarded this and took such undisguised, and well-justified, glee in the image of cultural conservatives as resembling The Omega Man that we can't resist. This was one of the Brothers' favorite movies when we were kids, shown on WWOR Channel 9 with sufficient frequency to earn cult classic status for most kids who grew up in the Tri-State area, and we accept the comparison with no little pride.

---

THE WHIPPIN' ENDED YEARS AGO :

The End of the Age of Inflation (Robert J. Samuelson, August 28, 2002, The Washington Post)

The Age of Inflation is ending the way it began: quietly. Along with the Cold War, the rise and fall of inflation has been a defining event of the present era --
but one that is overlooked, because inflation receded so gradually that almost no one appreciates its historic significance. For four decades, Americans rode the inflation roller coaster up and down with huge economic, political and social consequences. It shaped how we live, affecting everything from the rise of political conservatism to yesterday's stock market frenzy and today's housing boom.

The inflation roller coaster, as measured by the consumer price index, proceeded from a meager 1.4 percent in 1960 to a peak of 13.3 percent in 1979 and then coasted down. In 2001, it was 1.6 percent. On the way up, Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 -- a pivotal political moment -- stemmed heavily from an anti-inflation backlash. People despaired at the double-digit onslaught, which disrupted all sense of order and predictability in everyday life. No one could know from week to week the prices of food, clothing or almost anything.

Lenin once said that "the way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." In America, that process discredited government, which people blamed for inflation's ravages.

Personally, I think Mr. Samuelson may be the best columnist in America, certainly the best economic columnist. But it's simply inaccurate to say that the end of inflation has been overlooked, as a general matter. It's true that it's taken the mainstream--which is to say, liberal--press quite a while to figure it out, but conservatives like Jack Kemp, Larry Kudlow, Bob Novak, Newt Gingrich, etc., have been criticizing the Fed for keeping interests rates artificially high for years now. In fact, here's what perceptive Fed critics were writing 18 months ago.

---

CONSISTENT IN CAROLINA :

Cuckoo in Carolina (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, August 28, 2002, NY Times)

The ruckus being raised by conservative Christians over the University of North Carolina's decision to ask incoming students to read a book about the Koran--to stimulate a campus debate--surely has to be one of the most embarrassing moments for America since Sept. 11. [...]

As a recent letter to The Times observed, the problem with the world today is not that American students are being asked to read the Koran, it is that students in Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim lands are still not being asked to read the sacred texts of other civilizations--let alone the foundational texts of American democracy, like the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Federalist Papers.

The fact that they ignore such diverse texts is the source of their weakness, and the fact that we embrace them is the source of our strength. What we should be doing is driving that point home, not copying their obscurantism. [...]

America will always be a strong model for how a nation thrives in the modern age, as long as our culture of curiosity, free inquiry and openness endures. And the Arab Muslim world will continue to struggle with modernity as long as 12th graders in public schools there are never challenged to read Genesis, Luke, Job and Psalms over their summer vacations.

When a columnist who, though you may disagree with him often, you respect and think is reasonably intelligent gets a story as wrong as Mr. Friedman gets this one it's awfully hard to avoid the feeling that he's intentionally mischaracterized the situation in order to score political points. The alternative, that he's a dunderhead, simply seems implausible.

---

OUR THROAT, SADDAM'S FEET :

Iraq Speech by Cheney Is Criticized by Schroder (STEVEN ERLANGER, August 28, 2002, NY Times)

Chancellor Gerhard Schroder of Germany has criticized the speech on Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney, saying that it signals a mistaken shift in American aims regarding Iraq.

In an interview broadcast tonight on RTL television, Mr. Schroder said the goal of the Bush administration no longer seems to be to persuade Iraq to allow unconditional arms inspections by United Nations experts. Instead, he said, the American goal seems to be to remove Mr. Hussein by military means regardless of whether inspections occur, which he says will undermine the chance of getting Iraq to allow the inspections.

"If the aim changes now, then it's one's own responsibility," Mr. Schroder said. "If somebody is to be removed with the aid of a military intervention, you can hardly convince him to let inspectors into his country. It's the change of aim that is the mistake."

The insipidities of the German Chancellor, fresh from his unilateral attack on freedom fighters who'd seized Iraqi soil, remind one of Winston Churchill's assessment of the Germans : The Hun--he's always either at your feet or at your throat.

---

RED IN TOOTH AND CLAW :

Soaring City Slickers : Birds of prey are being reintroduced to U.S. cities. Will they stay? (Jennifer Uscher, 8/26/02, Scientific American)

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a bird that more than any other symbolizes North America's wide-open spaces and vanishing unspoiled wilderness, is now the newest avian resident of New York City. In June 2002, the city's Parks Department teamed with the Earth Conservation Corps to transplant four eaglets to a tree house in Inwood Hill Park on the northern tip of Manhattan in the hopes that, after the birds are released, they will one day return to nest in the city.

Though other birds of prey have been successfully reintroduced in U.S. cities, some local biologists and birdwatchers have doubts about the project, charging that the area is not remote enough from human activity and that the Hudson River, where the eagles will soon fish, is still dangerously polluted. They wonder whether the eagles will adapt to urban life as well as other raptors, including red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), and will soon be seen soaring over midtown’s skyscrapers on their seven-foot wingspans.

It was great when they reintroduced the peregrine falcons in NYC and all the animal lovers were all dewy-eyed. Then the things started swooping down and snatching pigeons in front of people and ripping them apart on ledges outside office windows and folks realized what predators actually behave like. The sudden descent of ambivalence was palpable and immensely amusing.

---

GOD BLESS BILL KRISTOL :

Canadian model of healthcare ails : Report ranks Canada's state-funded system near the bottom among industrial nations. (Eric Beaudan, August 28, 2002, The Christian Science Monitor)

When Bill Clinton attempted to reform US healthcare in 1994, his administration often touted Canada's publicly funded, universal access system as a model to be emulated. As it turns out, the Canadian system may be crumbling under its own weight.

Despite spending nearly C$100 billion (US$64 billion) per year on healthcare--the most per capita among countries that run a similar system--a study released last week by the Fraser Institute, a public-policy think tank in Vancouver, shows that Canada ranks only slightly higher than Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in the quality of service its citizens receive.

Canada is the last industrialized nation to rely solely on government funds for its core healthcare system. There's an emerging view that it, too, may abandon a system that has long been a symbol of its national identity.

"We are no longer the model," says Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute. "When you consider that equal access in a country as spread out as Canada would require a greater number of physicians and diagnostic equipment, we're clearly headed in the wrong direction."

Here's how The Newshour describes Bill Kristol's role in killing the Clinton Health Care Plan :

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

For stopping us from heading in the disastrous direction outlined in the article above, if for nothing else, Mr. Kristol is a conservative hero, neo or no.

---

RCs AND NEOCONS :

Meanwhile, Paul Cella, wonders where Roman Catholics--like Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and Paul Johnson--fit in with the neocons. For the proposition that they are such he cites the following : Capitalism and the Human Spirit (Michael Novak, Spring 2000, Public Interest) :

I doubt that neoconservatives have (or ever had) a creed, but I am willing to commit myself to the truth of the following propositions: Economics is fundamental, and yet prior to economics is politics; prior to politics is culture; and at the root of culture lies formal public worship, embodying beliefs about God and man in dramatic form (cult, in its primary sense).

We'd first note that even Mr. Novak assumes he's one of the first to craft a set of foundational propositions for neoconservatism. Second, those he drafts are not actually neoconservative but rather theoconservative. In placing Man's relationship to God at the center of his philosophy rather than Man's relationship to the State, he falls into a rather traditional conservative category. There's no neo there.

---

THE YOUNGER PODHORETZ WEIGHS IN :

Here's John Podhoretz's response to our query about the organizing principles of neoconservatism :

I think my reply would be : Go soak your heads.

We're assuming that's the rough equivalent of : "I know of none".

---

MORE ON MAUREEN :

I'm With Dick! Let's Make War! (MAUREEN DOWD, August 28, 2002, NY Times)

I was dubious at first. But now I think Dick Cheney has it right.

Making the case for going to war in the Middle East to veterans on Monday, the vice president said that "our goal would be . . . a government that is democratic and pluralistic, a nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and protected."

O.K., I'm on board. Let's declare war on Saudi Arabia! Let's do "regime change" in a kingdom that gives medieval a bad name.

By overthrowing the Saudi monarchy, the Cheney-Rummy-Condi-Wolfy-Perle-W. contingent could realize its dream of redrawing the Middle East map.

Once everyone realizes that we're no longer being hypocrites, coddling a corrupt, repressive dictatorship that sponsors terrorism even as we plot to crush a corrupt, repressive dictatorship that sponsors terrorism, it will transform our relationship with the Arab world.

Well, the good news is she made it through a column without mentioning W's physique. The bad news is she's had some kind of weird moodswing--joining several others at the suddenly hawkish Times--and now recognizes that war may be justified merely by the repressive nature of the regime in question. She's also put the cart before the ass by suggesting we should take out Arabia before Iraq. All in good time Ms Dowd, all in good time...

---

CONDI PLAYS IN C :

Walking in faith (Condoleeza Rice, August 4, 2002, Washington Times)

Although I never doubted the existence of God, I think like all people I've had some ups and downs in my faith. When I first moved to California in 1981 to join the faculty at Stanford, there were a lot of years when I was not attending church regularly. I was traveling a lot. I was a specialist in international politics, so I was always traveling abroad. I was always in another time zone. One Sunday I was in the Lucky's Supermarket not very far from my house ÷ I will never forget ÷ among the spices and an African-American man walked up to me and said he was buying some things for his church picnic. And he said, "Do you play the piano by any chance?"

I said, "Yes." They said they were looking for someone to play the piano at church. It was a little African-American church right in the centerof Palo Alto. A Baptist church. So I started playing for that church. That got me regularly back into churchgoing. I don't play gospel very well--I play Brahms --and you know how black ministers will start a song and the musicians will pick it up? I had no idea what I was doing and so I called my mother, who had played for Baptist churches.

"Mother," I said, "they just start. How am I supposed to do this?" She said, "Honey, play in C and they'll come back to you." And that's true. If you play in C, people will come back. I tell that story because I thought to myself, "My goodness, God has a long reach." I mean, in the Lucky's Supermarket on a Sunday morning.

As Mike Daley who sent this said, forget VP, she should be President one day.

---

HERE'S A GREAT TAP DISCUSSION :

The American 100 (Mark Byron, 8/25/02)

After seeing the fun some bloggers had with the BBC's top 100 Britons in history, let's look at an American 100, the top 100 Americans that have shaped 2002 America the most, for good or bad. Or, to understand American culture today, these 100 biographies best tell the story of America.

The first glaring omission I note is, no Secretariat. One trembles though to think how many hours you could spend hashing this out and how many beers you could quaff in the process.

---

NEOCON UPDATE :

An alert reader informs us that David Horowitz touches on neoconservatism, which he declares dead, in an essay today : American Conservatism: an Argument with the Racial Right (David Horowitz, FrontPageMagazine.com, August 27, 2002)

The two most prominent theoreticians of neo-conservatism announced its death some time ago, because it had always defined the defection of a group of New York liberals from liberalism over its failure to stay the course in fighting the anti-Communist battle during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, neo-conservatism--at least in the view of its founders--has become indistinguishable from conservatism itself.

I have never identified myself as a "neo-conservative" because belonging to a younger political generation I did not share some of the social attitudes of the neo-conservative founders. Since attitude is fundamental to some conservative perspectives, I have preferred to define my own. To be a conservative in America, from my perspective, then, is to defend where possible and restore where necessary, the framework of values and philosophical understandings enshrined in the American Founding. This should not be taken to mean a strict constructionist attitude towards every clause of the documents that constitute the Founding. If the framers of the Constitution had presumed to see the future, or had wanted to rigidly
preserve the past, they would not have included an amendment process in their document.

My brand of conservatism is based on a belief in the fundamental truth in the idea of individualism; in the idea of rights that are derived from "Nature's God" and therefore inalienable; in the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and in the recognition that property rights are the proven foundation of all human liberties.

As is not seldom the case, Mr. Horowitz appears to be both wrong and self-absorbed. It's hard to see what the "National Greatness" types are if not neocons and, contrary to Mr. Horowitz's assertion, conservatives don't get to "define their own" attitudes. The phrase "my brand of conservatism" is in and of itself an oxymoron. His elevation of the Constitution to a level of primacy, for example, reveals him to be still too enamored of government, and his "nature's God", though (or because) derived from Jefferson's Declaration, is too ambiguous too know what God he's talking about. Here he makes a rather fundamental error, assuming the Constitution and the Rights it enshrines to be the end that conservatism seeks. In fact they are mere means through which conservatives seek the freedom to create decent lives, relatively free of government interference, lives that accord with Judeo-Christian principles.

---

THE SAUDI LINE--DON'T BLAME US; BLAME THE JEWS :

Check out the differing opinions John Hockenberry got from a Saudi official and from a family member in this piece : A Saudi apology for Sept. 11 (John Hockenberry, 8/25/02, MSNBC)

Prince Khalid Al-Faisal is governor of Asir Province. A third of the Saudi hijackers grew up here.

John Hockenberry: “Is there some aspect of Saudi life that would encourage well-to-do, educated, young men, to do these kinds of things? Bin Laden is one.”

Prince Khaled Al-Faisal: "The only problem is the Palestinian problems."

As opposed to this :

John Hockenberry: "Do you believe they are dead, in your heart?"

Salah Al-Shahiri [brother of 9-11 hijackers Walid and Wail Al-Shahiri]: "For me? Yes."

John Hockenberry: "You do? You carry that around in your heart, right? That's a terrible burden?"

Salah Al-Shahiri: "As for myself, yes."

Salah's truth bears no resemblance to the official line from the Saudi royals--that the hijackers were religious zealots seeking revenge for the Palestinians.

John Hockenberry: "Were your two brothers religious?"

Salah Al-Shahiri: "No. Not in the way one might imagine."

John Hockenberry: "But your brothers didn't march in the streets and work day and night to free the Palestinians? Did they?"

Salah Al-Shahiri: "No."

John Hockenberry: "No. Did they talk about getting U.S. military troops out of the kingdom?"

Salah Al-Shahiri: "No."

John Hockenberry: "No. So it looks like your two brothers were brainwashed."

Salah Al-Shahiri: "Yes."

You know, if the Sauds were consciously trying to turn us into enemies they couldn't do a better job.

---

THE BROTHERS JUDD NEOCON CHALLENGE :

Practically everyone who's weighed in on neocons has noted the near impossibility of pinning down who is one or what they stand for, other than not being avowed liberals anymore, being hyper-patriotic and support for Israel. So here's a challenge for our readers : try to enunciate the organizing principles of neoconservatism. By which we would mean not the three or four issues on which they hold opinions, but the four (or so) rules they'd apply if faced with a question of first impression or four questions they ask in seeking to form a policy.

---

OPPOSITE! :

Fear of a free fall : The Federal Reserve fights an unknown: the specter of deflation (NOAM NEUSNER, 8/26/02, US News)

For a quarter century, Federal Reserve policymakers have trained their sights on a single goal: making sure prices don't rise too much. Now, they need to be sure they haven't overdone it. Inflation, which used to be the Fed's chief nemesis, has evaporated amid a U.S. recession and global overcapacity. Prices for everything from butter to recycled glass to golf clubs are falling, triggering fears of a deflationary spiral. [...]

As their inaction suggests, the Fed governors aren't exactly ready to panic over deflation. For now, they may be right. Excluding food and energy costs, prices are rising at a 2 percent annual rate, and certain items–such as medical care and higher education–continue to get more expensive. But that's because consumers have little choice; you can't get an Ivy League education or American-quality medical care in Sri Lanka.

Be sure they haven't overdone it? They forced the economy into either recession or mere non-growth by raising interest rates into the teeth of a deflationary cycle. That's how the Great Depression was caused. Is that what we need before they realize they're fighting a problem, inflation, that was defeated twenty years ago and that with the end of the Cold War and the globalization of the economy shows no sign of returning in the near future?

---

ONE TOUGH BLOOM :

How democracy is preserved (Amitai Etzioni, August 27, 2002, Jewish World Review)

Social scientists who study the conditions under which democracy is lost have little to work with.

Democracy – once firmly established – has almost never been lost because of internal developments (as distinct from because of occupation by an invading force).

The one notable exception is the Weimar Republic. What happened there is subject to a much contested literature. However, most agree that following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the people's pride was deeply shaken, and they felt further threatened by massive unemployment and hyperinflation. The Weimar government, weakened by squabbles among numerous parties, corruption, and scandals, was unable to muster an effective response. As a result, "too many Germans did not regard it as a legitimate regime," writes E.J. Feuchtwanger in his book "From Weimar to Hitler."

In short, inaction in the face of threats, not excessive action, killed the Weimar Republic.

At some point, as we realize that America has just about the most stable government the world has ever seen, we'll need to consider whether our democracy is really the oh so delicate blossom of our rhetorical imaginations or whether it's actually a rather resilient weed-like growth that can withstand repressions ranging from the New Deal/Great Society to the Japanese Internments/Red Scares without suffering too much permanent damage. That doesn't mean that we should let our guards down when such repressive movements rise up, rather that we might seek to understand them as understandable and inevitable reactions to unusual circumstances.

---

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN :

What Denmark can teach America about dealing with Muslims --- and what we ignore at our own risk (Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, August 2002, Jewish World Review)

For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:

* Living on the dole. Third-world immigrants -- most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq -- constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

* Engaging in crime. Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

* Self-imposed isolation. Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

* Importing unacceptable customs. Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem. Another is the vocal intent to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam.

* Fomenting anti-Semitism. Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews ... wherever you find them."

* Seeking Islamic law . Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in forty years will be Muslim.

Good immigration policy is surprisingly easy to draft, as these problems indicate. First immigration must be understood as a privilege, rather than a right. Then you simply require immigrants, in any number, to accept certain obligations in exchange for the privilege. Such policy might look something like this :

---

CYA :

The Right Way to Change a Regime (JAMES A. BAKER III, August 25, 2002, NY Times)

The only realistic way to effect regime change in Iraq is through the application of military force, including sufficient ground troops to occupy the country (including Baghdad), depose the current leadership and install a successor government. Anyone who thinks we can effect regime change in Iraq with anything less than this is simply not realistic. It cannot be done on the cheap. It will require substantial forces and substantial time to put those forces in place to move. We had over 500,000 Americans, and more soldiers from our many allies, for the Persian Gulf war. There will be casualties, probably quite a few more than in that war, since the Iraqis will be fighting to defend their homeland. Sadly, there also will be civilian deaths. We will face the problem of how long to occupy and administer a big, fractious country and what type of government or administration should
follow. Finding Saddam Hussein and his top associates will be difficult. It took us two weeks to locate Manuel Noriega in Panama, a small country where we had military bases.

Unless we do it in the right way, there will be costs to other American foreign policy interests, including our relationships with practically all other Arab countries (and even many of our customary allies in Europe and elsewhere) and perhaps even to our top foreign policy priority, the war on terrorism.

What does anyone realistically expect bureaucrats like Baker, Colin Powell, and Brent Scowcroft to say about overthrowing Iraq? "Okay, you're right, we completely screwed the pooch in '91. We should have maintained a no-fly policy over the entire country and aided the Kurds and Shiites and Saddam would be gone now." Those aren't the kind of admissions that people often make about the defining moments of their careers. It's forty years later and old Kennedy hands still pretend that the Cuban Missile Crisis, as a result of which we became an effective guarantor of Castro's regime, was an American victory. Thirty years from now, even after Saddam has been gone for twenty nine years, Jim Baker will still be regaling folks with the story of how wise it was to leave Saddam in place after the First Gulf War.

---

NO ONE LISTENED TO HERR STOIBER :

When the Terror Began : Thirty years later, the hostage drama that left 11 Israeli Olympians dead seems even more chilling and offers grim reminders to today's security experts (Alexander Wolff, August 26, 2002, Sports Illustrated)

With security tossed aside, the Olympics became one big party. Mimes, jugglers, bands and Waldi, the dachshund mascot, gamboled through the Village, while uncredentialed interlopers slipped easily past its gates. After late-night runs to the HofbrŠuhaus, why would virile young athletes bother to detour to an official entrance when they could scale a chain-link fence only 6 1/2 feet high? The Olys learned to look the other way. A police inspector supervising security in the Village eventually cut back nighttime patrols because, as he put it, "at night nothing happens." Early in the Games, when several hundred young Maoist demonstrators congregated on a hill in the Olympic Park, guards dispersed them by distributing candy. Indeed, in a storeroom in the Olympic Stadium, police kept bouquets of flowers in case of another such incident. Hans-Jochen Vogel, who as mayor had led Munich's campaign to land the Games, today recalls the prevailing atmosphere: "People stood on the small hills that had been carved out of the rubble from the war. They could see into some of the venues without a ticket. And then this fifth of September happened. Nobody foresaw such an attack."

Nobody except Stoiber.

Though this is an infuriating story, one of the most remarkable differences between then and now is that then we truly thought the world was slipping beyond our control, whereas now we view the terrorist threat as merely another problem that we'll deal with in due course. If you didn't live through them it must be hard to imagine that sense of desperation that pervaded the 70s. Meanwhile, the restoration of American confidence is the signal contribution of Ronald Reagan.

---

THE PROSPECT OF A BOMBING CONCENTRATES THE MIND :

The Secular Society Gets Religion (FELICIA R. LEE, August 24, 2002, NY Times)

From the recent Supreme Court decision supporting vouchers for religious schools to a lower court objection to the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance to wrangling over cloning, stem-cell research, euthanasia and genetic engineering, religion has been re-entering the public arena in complex and unforeseen ways.

The flirtation between the secular and the sacred has traditionally set off alarm bells among American academics, who have often regarded any intrusion of religion into politics as dangerous. In the last century, intellectual giants like John Dewey and Sigmund Freud dismissed religion as infantile and predicted an increasingly secular modern society. In his book "Human Nature and Conduct" (Henry Holt, 1922), Dewey said of religion, "It has been petrified into a slavery of thought and sentiment, as intolerant superiority on the part of the few and an intolerable burden on the part of the many."

But lately a growing number of social scientists, philosophers, historians and other scholars are trying to account for the energetic re-entry of religion into the public sphere, and some are viewing it with as much delight as distress. [...]

When it comes to the American public, both liberals and conservatives have often displayed deeply contradictory attitudes about the relationship between religion and politics, Professor Heclo pointed out, and many are skeptical about the sincerity of politicians' religious statements.

A Gallup Poll last year, for instance, showed that 82 percent of Americans thought of themselves as Christians, 10 percent belonged to other faiths and 8 percent were atheists or agnostics, Professor Heclo said. But they also said no dogma, religious creed or denominational commitment guided their beliefs. On the other hand, while majorities were willing to support a black, Jewish, female or gay presidential candidate, only 48 percent said they would vote for an atheist.

Sort of the 800 pound gorilla that's been sitting around the room post-9/11 is that the events of the day had a quite salutary effect in getting folks to reexamine their lives, however temporarily. The evidence is necessarily anecdotal, but it suggests that many people, when they did so, found a hollowness at the center of the lives they'd created for themselves. It comes as little surprise then that folks would turn to spiritual matters, traditions, and rituals to try and give their lives a depth and a heft they were lacking, to reknit their connections to the past, to one another, and to God. Hard to imagine how this can be other than a good thing.

---

CHANNELING HANK PARNELL :

The Spirit of Mars : the power to dream is what makes being human so much fun (John Carter McKnight, August 26, 2002, Space Daily)

For nearly a century Mars has been the blue screen onto which we project, in scientific speculation as well as literature, two powerful concepts: the West and the Other. Looking at the sequence of imagined Marses (see the previous edition of this column, "Barsoom's Legacy"), we [see] the evolution of American hopes and fears. In turn, these projections continue to shape the meaning of Mars for us.

Any attempt to advocate Mars exploration and settlement must be grounded in an understanding of the nuances of those memes of West and Other in our culture today. Central to Americans as motherhood and apple pie, they define the boundaries of the possible.

We find these memes expressed in both the Mars novel and the Western. The two have a common heritage in the pulp magazines of the early decades of the last century. Indeed, one of the great pulp writers, Edgar Rice Burroughs, published in both genres. His first novel, A Princess of Mars, literally began in the Wild West of Arizona before shifting to Mars.

This linkage still continues, down to the latest entries in each genre. Few might think to combine Paul McAuley's biotech Mars novel The Meaning of Life with Dreamworks' animated Western, Spirit, Stallion of the Cimmaron. Yet together the two works absolutely nail the zeitgeist, highlighting current views of the meaning of the West and the Other, with clear implications for Mars exploration.

Do you think his real name is "John Carter" McKnight?

---

AMERICAN HERO :

My cousin, the code-breaker (Pat Buchanan, 8/26/02)

Fifteen years ago, after I had written a memoir of growing up in Washington during the war and postwar, which traced my father's roots back to Okolona, Miss., and from there to Northern Ireland and Scotland, I received a note from Meredith Gardner.

He, too, he said, had been born in Okolona, and he informed me that we were cousins. The great counter-spy added that he now lived in the same condominium where I had lived in the early 1970s. It is to my eternal regret that I did not drive over to Connecticut Avenue to meet this American hero of the Cold War.

He sounds like a very cool guy. Maybe he could have told us if Pat was really Deep Throat.

---

THAT'S HOW THEY GOT TO BE STEREOTYPES :

Interview: Stereotypes of homosexuals (Steve Sailer, 8/22/02, UPI)

Q: What are some stereotypes about homosexuals that you've found not to be true?

A: One of the embarrassing facts from social psychology is that most stereotypes are true, in the only sense that stereotypes are ever true: on average.

We like experts who confirm all our preconceived notions.

---

NOT ANNOINTED :

GOP May Feel Generation Gap in N.H. Primary (Helen Dewar, August 26, 2002, Washington Post)

A few months ago, many Republicans thought Sununu was a sure bet to defeat Smith, citing polls that showed the younger man with a substantial lead in the primary and a better chance of defeating Shaheen in November. Several polls showed Sununu defeating Shaheen but showed Smith losing to her.

Now many observers say the tenacious, well-financed Smith appears to be back in the game, though few go so far as to describe him as the favorite. Smith says he pays no attention to opinion surveys because he has never won a poll or lost an election. But others, including some Democrats, say they think the momentum is going Smith's way.

"You can hear it, feel it, shifting toward Smith," said Arnie Arnesen, a former Democratic gubernatorial and congressional candidate who served as her party's commentator during a WNDS-TV debate in Derry, N.H., this month. "We tend to like the disruptive mavericks up here."

Smith "has had a lot of people in New Hampshire rolling their eyes, but he makes a good case that he's in a good position to help the state," said Fred Bramante, Arnesen's Republican counterpart during the debate. Bramante was referring to the seniority and committee positions that Smith says are worth millions of dollars in highway and other funds to New Hampshire, an argument that rankled the Union Leader but appeals to those receiving the federal funding.

Smith's edge from the start has been his supporters' fervor, which reflects the emotional intensity the senator brings to his causes. Sununu's support might be broader, but it appears less intense. "If the turnout is low, Smith has a really good chance of winning," said UNH's Andy Smith. "If the turnout is high, then Sununu probably wins."

The political battlefield is littered with the corpses of candidates who ran on their own inevitability and nothing else.

---

SATURDAY MORNING FUN/SUNDAY MORNING VALUES :

Unless you have kids you're unlikely to have any idea what joyous news this is Jonah : A VeggieTales Movie.

---

SLAP SCHTICK :

Slap-happy comment can't be taken seriously (MARY MITCHELL, August 22, 2002, Chicago Sun-Times)

For a moment, Charles Barron must have forgotten where he was. The city councilman from the East New York/Brownsville Section of Brooklyn was one of several speakers at last weekend's Millions for Reparations March in Washington, D.C.

Barron, who shared the stage with polished orators including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Conrad Worrill, leader of the National Black United Front, and U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who has kept the reparations issue alive for more than a decade, made comments that stirred up indignation among whites.

Most white people can't possibly follow where Barron was coming from when he told the protesters: "I want to go up to the closest white person and say, 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health."

I'm sure just about every black person within hearing distance, including those watching the march on TV, cracked up.

As long as we're laughing about such things, perhaps it's appropriate to mention how much he deserves to have someone "go upside his nappy head", as we used to say in the 'hood.

---

VERDICT FIRST, THEN THE TRIAL :

A High-Tech Lynching: ABC News, The FBI, And The Greendale School Myth (Nicholas Stix, August 14, 2002, Toogood Reports)

Are the FBI and the elite media interested in catching the right guy, or the right-wing white guy? In the case of the terrorist who
last fall murdered five people and made 13 others ill via anthrax-contaminated letters, the feds and Big Media have decided that it would be expedient to railroad scientist Steven J. Hatfill, and have engaged in collusion towards achieving that end. The only problem is, that no one has produced one iota of evidence tying Hatfill to the crime. And so, the media and law enforcement have subjected Hatfill to the death of a thousand cuts, via incredible leaks, innuendoes, irrelevancies, and even outright fabrications. Apparently, Hatfill's tormentors seek to make an eventual trial a mere formality, or perhaps even drive their victim to an act of such desperation, as to make a trial unnecessary.

This in one of the strangest stories of recent years and Mr. Stix has been all over it like white on rice since day one. Hopefully the guy did it because otherwise what's been done to him is shameful. And Mr. Stix raises our doubts.

---

SHOW ME WHERE RAPE IS FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION :

POOR ENVIRONMENTALISTS. (Tapped, 8/26/02, The American Prospect)

Okay, time for for some classic -- and completely unscientific -- pop psychologizing. Tapped has developed the armchair theory that beating up on The New York Times has come to rival obsessive Clinton-bashing in the conservative psyche. Times bashing, after all, has all the standard characteristics: it's obsessive, it's repetitive, it's quibbling, it's scandal-mongering. Indeed, because the day-in, day-out criticism is frequently so completely out of proportion to the paper's various offenses and betrays such a strong animus, it makes one inevitably sympathize with the Times -- which, despite its inarguable shortcomings, is not exactly evil incarnate. Kind of like Clinton.

Well, yeah, except that Bill Clinton--according to the testimony, much of it uncontradicted, of various women (Ms Broaddrick, Ms Ward Gracen, Ms Willey, Ms Jones, to name a few)--is a rapist and a serial assaulter of women. That may not, in the minds of the American Prospect, rise to the level of impeachability, but it certainly makes him an incarnation of evil.

---

PRIVATIZING FOREIGN POLICY :

Saudis paid terrorists $200 mil., suit says (Chicago Sun-Times, August 26, 2002)

Saudi Arabian princes paid Osama bin Laden and the Taliban $200 million to spare targets in the oil-rich Persian Gulf state, according to court papers from the recent $1 trillion lawsuit filed by 900 relatives of Sept. 11 victims, the New York Post reported Sunday.

The suit, filed Aug. 15 against members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and Islamic charities, alleges the payoff funded al-Qaida terror training in Afghanistan, the Post said.

According to the paper, the lawsuit alleges the deal was hammered out in two meetings between top Saudi princes and officials from al-Qaida, Pakistan and the Taliban.

Here's an example of what we meant when we said that this lawsuit may remove control of the American/Saudi relationship from the hands of the State Department's Arabists. And this, one suspects, is just the beginning....

---

THE TRAGEDY OF GENERAL EISENHOWER :

If you've the time and the inclination, I posted a review of Carlo D'Este's terrific new biography of Eisenhower over at Brothers Judd Classic. I had an epiphany when reading its final pages (it only goes through the War) and would be interested in feedback from y'all. The thought occurred that far from being a triumph, Eisenhower and America's victory in WWII represents a uniquely American tragedy.

---

WHAT MAKES A NATION GREAT? :

IN DEFENSE OF THE NEOCONS (Patrick Ruffini, 8/25/02)

Neoconservatism is both more diverse and expansive than Orrin imagines it to be. The peculiar brand of McCainite "national greatness" belief he correctly attacks is pretty much limited to Kristol, Brooks, and a few hangers-on. I would argue that its very authenticity is brought into question by Brooks, perhaps the most consumeristic public policy writer in America today. As one who celebrates the marked benefits commercial capitalism has brought us, how is he in any position to bemoan the avariciousness of business interests when they are brought to bear on the political system? Even Charles Krauthammer, whom Orrin singles out as archetypical of neoconservative belief, has a view of government that is diametrically opposed to the incoherent "national greatness" ideology of Kristol and Brooks. He goes so far as to say that public apathy breeds smaller government and is thus healthy for the political process.

[...] Traditionally, the neocon obsessions have been with foreign policy and social issues usually lacking a sharp moral dimension, such as welfare, education, and race relations. It is on those issues that the neocons have led us in new and innovative directions — strongly opposing the Soviet Union, questioning Great Society social programs with their perverse incentives towards dependency, and espousing a color-blind ideal. The neocons have also been fairly liberal on immigration, and the GOP is now leaning on the work of pro-immigration neocons like Ben Wattenberg and Michael Barone to shape party ideology.

Mr. Ruffini, as one would anticipate, makes some excellent points here, but I'm not sure he ever refutes the main points of the original essay. Firstly, while the crusade against radical Islam has certainly become the focus of the administration, George W. Bush has cast it in theoconservative terms, rather than neoconservative, with continual references to evil and the starkly Manichean vision of a war between good and evil. More importantly though, to the neocons at least, it seems unlikely that this conflict will last for terribly long. The Middle East appears to be on the verge of an implosion, one which may occur even if we leave the region entirely. This has become the most effective argument against war with Iraq, not that war would be wrong but that it would be superfluous. Between the economic situation there, the growing power of the Kurds in the North, the efforts of the expatriate Iraqi opposition to form a coherent and cohesive alternative to Saddam, and seemingly reliable reports about the demoralization and dissatisfaction of the Iraqi military, it looks like Saddam is living on borrowed time. He certainly can't threaten his neighbors much, because if he tried to deploy his army he'd risk mutiny and rebellion from within his own country. So what should be the neocons easiest sell for the next step of the "national greatness" project has already hit a snag. It still seems probable that we'll take Saddam out, but it is not a given and should we do so it will be because he's evil not because he's any real military threat.

---

BURN TO SHINE :

Though painfully aware that this recommendation will be of rather limited utility, one nonetheless feels compelled to offer it, if for no other reason than as an act of gratitude to the artist : should you ever happen to find yourself compelled to drive alone from Boston to NH in a brand spankin' new Suburban with the rear window shot out, Burn to Shine by Ben Harper is a particularly fine disk to crank up until your floorboards vibrate.

---

SO TRUE :

Wild boy : Spandau Ballet did more than provide a soundtrack for XR3i-driving Essex casuals in the 1980s. At least that's what Gary Kemp, the band's creative force, tells Paul Lester (The Guardian, August 23, 2002)

Gary Kemp is a man on a mission. He wants to force a reappraisal of Spandau Ballet, to rescue them from retro-kitsch hell and show that they were more than the sum of their recent appearances on I Love The 1980s TV nostalgia-fests and School Disco compilations.

The former guitarist and songwriter for the band that epitomised that decade has just assembled a three-CD anthology called Reformation. It will, he hopes, challenge the assumption that Spandau Ballet were establishment-toadying clothes horses who served as prototypes for today's anodyne pop idols Gareth Gates and Will Young.

We're still waiting for the Kajagoogoo reappraisal...

---

IS HE SERIOUS? :

Is He Up to It? (Jim Hoagland, August 25, 2002, Washington Post)

Those who predict that Bush 43 will not come up with an effective diplomatic strategy to support a new gulf war may be dealing in a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Bush cannot show that he has convinced Colin Powell of the wisdom of his Iraq strategy, how can he convince the nation and the world? That is the question that needs to be asked openly and debated clearly, not in sub-rosa fashion.

This sentiment seems ridiculous. Is Colin Powell really the measure of geopolitical wisdom in the modern world? More generally, does any president really have to convince a subordinate that something is proper? It might be helpful here to recall that when Harry Truman wanted to recognize the new state of Israel he was vigorously opposed by Secretary of State George Marshall, who even Powell's fans would have to admit was a man of far greater accomplishment. General Marshall even threatened to resign. But Truman did what he thought was right and history has vindicated his judgment. If General Powell feels similarly strongly about the need to preserve Saddam Hussein, let him resign when the decision is made to go to war. There's no dishonor in acting on your beliefs.

---

OBJECT IN BINOCULARS IS EXACTLY AS CLOSE AS IT APPEARS TO BE :

Birders Journal: Attack of the Flying Goshawk (Robert Winkler, August 23, 2002, National Geographic News)

Taking a step or two more, I froze to the piercing cry—klee, klee, klee, klee!—of a northern goshawk. Finally, my eyes caught a large bird of prey spreading two broad, stiff wings. But it was not preparing to escape. This bird's object was attack.

The goshawk dropped from its perch and shot straight at me, somehow streaking through the trees without stirring a branch. Its battle cry crescendoed as it veered off only feet from my head, landing on a branch that gave me an unobstructed view.

I focused my binoculars on this imposing hawk, the incarnation of wildness. In the genus Accipiter—short-winged, long-tailed hawks that prey heavily on other birds—females are larger than males. The robust bird filling the glass of my binoculars was undoubtedly a female. She bristled with wild energy, glaring at me with orange eyes made fiercer by a broad white eyebrow stripe. Now and then, she flinched. The blue jays still dove at her.

Klee, klee, klee, klee!—she came at me again. I ducked reflexively as this formidable raptor with a four-foot wingspan swooped down on me at, by my estimate, 30 miles an hour.

Maybe the eagles really would have carried Gandalf away?

---

SO MUCH FOR BUSH THE PROTECTIONIST :

Administration plans to push ahead with free trade (MARTIN CRUTSINGER, August 25, 2002, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The administration said Friday that it plans to push ahead to complete free trade negotiations with Chile, Singapore, Central America and Morocco now that Congress has given President Bush the negotiating authority he needs to strike agreements.

One of the most important skills to develop in watching politics is the ability to filter out the true signal from the background noise. The traditional press isn't very good at it, so it's no surprise that bloggers aren't either, but this is an issue on which bloggers displayed a lack of even a basic understanding of the political process.

---

BOOKNOTES :

Michael Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (C-SPAN, 8 & 11pm)

---

TRICK OF THE LIGHT :

Riding the Light in Wyoming (VERLYN KLINKENBORG, August 25, 2002, NY Times)

Sometimes I think the West is just a trick of the light.

A really nice, short essay

---

FLY :

The Dixie Chicks Keep the Heat on Nashville (BILL FRISKICS-WARREN, August 25, 2002, NY Times)

In the early 1990's, the Dixie Chicks were a cowgirl revival troupe playing for tips on the Texas dance hall circuit. By the end of the decade, they were Nashville, and pop, superstars. Their albums "Wide Open Spaces" and "Fly" sold more than 10 million copies each. They won a clutch of Grammys. Their 2000 tour grossed more at the box office than those of Bruce Springsteen and Britney Spears. Most striking of all, the Dixie Chicks achieved success not by cleaving to the conservative dictates of the country music industry but by taking risks that could just as easily have been big mistakes.

The three women — Natalie Maines and the sisters Emily Robison and Martie Maguire — cultivated their own sense of fashion, favoring post-punk, neo-hippie styles over the more conventional ensembles worn by their female counterparts. They insisted on playing their own instruments instead of employing the usual session musicians. They played banjo (Ms. Robison) and fiddle (Ms. Maguire), instruments often dismissed as quaint by country radio programmers. They sang about dicey topics like "mattress dancing" and doing away with an abusive spouse. Displaying a "love it or leave it" attitude like that of Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson and the other "outlaws" of the 70's, the Dixie Chicks reinvigorated the moribund Nashville music scene of the late 90's.

"Home," the album they'll release on Tuesday on their new Open Wide Records label, an imprint of Sony Music, is likely to shake up and challenge the Nashville establishment further, suggesting that it has lost touch with its roots.

How many times in music history has a genre's biggest crossover act been one of its most innovative? Or is it always so?

---

THE SKY IS GRAY :

Odds pile up against Republican defeat of Californian governor (Christopher Parkes, August 24 2002, Financial Times)

Although the campaigning season usually begins after Labor Day, Bill Simon, the cash-strapped, Republican neophyte, has been under the gun since the spring primary, in which he beat Richard Riordan, the moderate former mayor of Los Angeles and the president's personal choice.

Mr Simon did not so much beat Mr Riordan: rather he was hand-selected by the wily Mr Davis, who saw the self-proclaimed "proud conservative, pro-life" businessman as a far more delectable dish.

After a primary campaign dedicated entirely to bashing Mr Riordan, Mr Davis quickly turned his arsenal on the hapless Mr Simon, who helpfully shot himself in the foot - repeatedly.

Working with his fourth campaign manager, last week he saw his support crew depleted by a dozen because he could not afford to pay them. Now his proudest claim - to be the experienced, successful businessman California needs - has been turned against him.

Having always found silly the idea that a Republican could win this race, I think this article tries overhard to place blame and find novel reasons for the inevitable.

---

NOT THAT MUCH ANARCHY! :

Sacco and Vanzetti Put to Death Early This Morning (NY Times, Aug. 23, 1927)

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti died in the electric chair early this morning, carrying out the sentence imposed on them for the South Braintree murders of April 15, 1920.

Sacco marched to the death chair at 12:11 and was pronounced lifeless at 12:19.

Vanzetti entered the execution room at 12:20 and was declared dead at 12:26.

To the last they protested their innocence, and the efforts of many who believed them guiltless proved futile, although they fought a legal and extra legal battle unprecedented in the history of American jurisprudence.

With them died Celestino f. Madeiros, the young Portuguese, who won seven respites when he "confessed" that he was present at the time of the South Braintree murder and that Sacco and Vanzetti were not with him. He died for the murder of a bank cashier.

The six years of legal battle on behalf of the condemned men was still on as they were walking to the chair and after the current had been applied, for a lawyer was on the way by airplane to ask Federal Judge George W. Anderson in Williamstown for a writ of habeas corpus.

The men walked to the chair without company of clergy, father Michael Murphy, prison chaplain, waited until a minute before twelve and then left the prison.

Sacco cried, "Long live anarchy," as the prison guards strapped him into the chair and applied the electrodes. He added a plea that his family be cared for.

Which begs the obvious question : if you believe in anarchy how can you complain about the legality of your execution.

---

JUST KEEP STIRRING THE POT... :

Deep Iraqi involvement in killing of arch-terrorist Abu Nidal (Douglas Davis, 8/24/02, The Jerusalem Post)

A widespread investigation by Jane's World Insurgency and Terrorism has revealed deep Iraqi involvement in the killing of Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, whose death from several gunshot wounds was announced in Baghdad on August 16.

The conclusion is based on the sources of the London-based journal in Ramallah, Amman, Beirut, Baghdad, London and Washington.

According to the journal, the assassination is an indication of the mounting pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as the US ponders military plans to curtail his rule.

Any such moves, notes the journal, would involve anti-regime elements inside Iraq playing an important role in turning the tide against the Saddam: "He has therefore moved to eradicate those dangerous elements, both as a preemptive measure to protect his position and as an example to other prospective internal enemies still at large."

There's really no bad reason to kill Abu Nidal.

---

THEY'RE LIKE GIGANTIC CHICKENS ON CRACK :

Starving emus hit Australian crops (Kathy Marks, 18 August 2002, Independent uk)

Mobs of famished emus are wreaking havoc in the Australian Outback, crashing through fences and devouring crops as they flee the country's worst drought in decades.

Some farmers have had just enough rain to plant one crop, only to watch their annual income disappear into the emus' capacious bellies. The towering, flightless birds can eat 2lb of grain a day. They have migrated south in their thousands, laying waste to large tracts of agricultural land.

The problem is so serious that farmers are calling for a widespread cull of emus, which are a protected species and appear on the national coat of arms alongside the kangaroo. Hungry kangaroos are also invading farming country, but emus are more destructive and compete with livestock for food.

They make good boot leather.

---

FATAL, OR MERELY FATUOUS, ATTRACTION? :

Treadmills of His Mind (Maureen Dowd, 08/25/2002, The New York Times )

I don't know enough about what the president is up to on Iraq. But I know too much about what the president is up to on a run.

"It's interesting that my times have become faster right after the war began," Mr. Bush tells Runner's World in an exclusive interview. "They were pretty fast all along, but since the war began I've been running with a little more intensity. It helps me to clear my mind."

So the bad news is: we haven't caught Osama. The good news is: W.'s times have improved.

"Usually I run six days a week," the magazine's leggy cover boy expounds.

Ms Dowd's obsession with W's fitness is becoming truly frightening and it's rather unprofessional. Imagine for a moment that William Safire began mentioning in his column how attractive a female politician looked and did so over and over again. Would the Times really stand for such a thing? You can see the Safire column now : "As I sit in my office, eating Chubby Hubby, and watching a continuous loop tape of Benzhir Bhutto, I'm struck both by what a bad leader of Pakistan she'd make and by how shapely her body is." How many such mentions of her physique before he was called into Howell Raines's office.

---

BASEBALL'S ANNUS HORRIBILIS CONTINUES :

Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhelm Dies (AP, Aug 24, 2002)

Knuckleballer Hoyt Wilhelm, the first reliever elected to the Hall of Fame and the last pitcher to throw a no-hitter against the New York Yankees, has died.

---

GRAY LADY DOWN :

New York Times under fire over stance on Iraq (Stephen Robinson, 24/08/2002, Daily Telegraph)

Leading hawks in Washington who back a military attack on Iraq have turned their guns on the New York Times, charging that America's most influential newspaper is deliberately distorting its news coverage to undermine the case for war.

There have been rumblings of concern within the Bush administration and rival sections of the press for some weeks, but the dismay has broken into the open with some trenchant criticism this week of alleged appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times, reflecting the views of its predominantly liberal, metropolitan readership and editorial staff, has long been hostile to the Bush administration and to Mr Bush's presidential candidacy in 2000, with its leaders and star columnists almost unanimously hostile - and frequently scathing - about him and his circle.

But the charge is now more serious that the paper's news columns have been turned into propaganda instruments of the anti-war party.

They're certainly free to choose sides if they wish to become an advocacy paper, but they should do so openly. Why doesn't Howell Raines just disavow objectivity as an ideal since he seems uninterested in it in practice?

---

Torricelli's Support Ebbs After Rebuke (LEDYARD KING, Gannett News Service, August 24, 2002)

A poll this month by Quinnipiac University in Connecticut and Torricelli's own polling show the race a tie. In Quinnipiac's polling, Torricelli's job approval rating has dropped from 41 percent in March to 28 percent in August. [...]

After spending more than $1 million on ads this month apologizing to constituents, Torricelli said this week that he is "quite confident" about re-election because his progressive views on gun control, abortion and the environment resonate among New Jersey's suburban base.

"Because I made some mistakes, New Jersey is not going to elect Doug Forrester," he said. "This state is a tax- cutting, pro-environment, pro-education, pro-choice, pro- gun control state and I reflect what I think are the views of most middle-income people in New Jersey, Democrats and Republicans."

First of all, the GOP should force some tax cutting votes in Congress this Fall and make the Senate Democrats kill them. Make the Toricellis and Landrieuxs put their votes where their mouths are.

---

THE SICK MAN IS EUROPE :

Swiss malaise : Why Europe is sick at its coreM (Paul Erdman, Aug. 22, 2002 , CBS.MarketWatch.com)

[T]poster boy for the economic malaise that is increasingly enveloping Europe is its former star performer, Switzerland.

The pillars of that country's unique post-World War II prosperity are today crumbling, one after another. What that country may end up with is a socialist state devoid of entrepreneurship, behind the curve in technology, burdened with an aging population and declining educational standards. As if this were not bad enough, as a result of revelations of Swiss cooperation with the Nazis during World War II, and its continuing practice of using bank secrecy to attract dirty money from every crooked corner of the world, it is a nation that is also increasingly regarded as amoral, a pariah.

It's not possible to exaggerate just how serious the decline of Europe may be. It is a sign of lunacy that people have recently been moving money from American stock exchanges to Europe. America may have had a tech bubble but the belief that the EU has a future is itself a speculative bubble fueled by irrational exuberance.

---

IN-HOUSE WARMONGER AT THE TIMES :

The Loyal Opposition (BILL KELLER, August 24, 2002, NY Times)

The last time America dispatched soldiers in the cause of "regime change," less than a year ago in Afghanistan, the opposition was mostly limited to the people who are reflexively against the American use of power. There were pundits who whispered "quagmire" and allies whose applause for the effort was one-handed, but the outright opposition came from isolationists, the doctrinaire left and the soft-headed types Christopher Hitchens described as people who, "discovering a viper in the bed of their child, would place the first call to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."

These fringes are again aroused against intervention in Iraq, but the chorus this time is much bigger. This time the casus belli is murkier, resting not on the harboring of mass murderers but on the novel (for America) doctrine of pre-emption, and on a threat whose urgency may be unknowable. This time the potential for something going badly wrong is far greater. Iraq is different, moreover, because much more clearly than Afghanistan it is not a war of containment but a war to radically alter the status quo — both by removing a menace to civilization and, though this goal is undeclared, by creating a pocket of democracy in a region where democracy is an unsettling prospect to many of our friends, let alone our adversaries.

This time, therefore, reluctance flourishes in the heart of the establishment, if the establishment can be said to have a heart.

From its title, which fairly begs to be read sarcastically, to its dismisssal of those who opposed the Afghan War to its questioning of the business interests that might make a guy like Brent Scowcroft oppose action against Saddam, this is the most virulently pro war piece we're likely to see from a NY Times employee, other than Safire, who doesn't count.

---

EMBRYO-YO : :

Embryo fight 'may undermine law' (BBC, 24 August, 2002)

The body which regulates fertility treatment in the UK has criticised an attempt by two women to prevent former partners from ordering the destruction of their frozen embryos.

Natallie Evans and Lorraine Hadley are challenging a law which says both parties must consent to the storage and use of embryos created by IVF.

Their lawyer says destroying the embryos will rob them of the chance to have children.

But Ann Ferudi, from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, said the current rules state both parties must give their consent before the treatment can go ahead.

She said: "If this challenge were to be successful it would undermine many of the principles around which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was based.

"People have to give their express consent to treatment and the challenge could affect the way the act is interpreted."

Both Ms Evans and Ms Hadley say embryology law means both parties must consent to the embryos storage and use, and say their case could have broad implications for other couples on IVF treatment.

Principles? If a law forbids you to carry an embryo to term that was created for that purpose maybe the law's the problem, not the women challenging it.

---

QUOTH THE RAVING :

US terror suspect 'beaten in custody' (Emma Simpson, 24 August, 2002, BBC)

For the first eight months Mr al-Marabh was held in a special unit at New York's Metropolitan Detention Centre, along with, he said, 40 other detainees.

Speaking from custody elsewhere in the state, he told me he was held in isolation and went on hunger strike in protest against his confinement in a tiny cell.

"It was like nothing worse than hell and I did five times hunger strikes, asking for a lawyer, for a judge," said Mr al-Marabh.

He says that he was punished for his hunger strikes, forced to sleep on a urine soaked mattress for 10 days, without enough water to wash himself.

He also alleged that he was beaten twice.

The first incident, he said, was last November.

"On 7 November they beat me, they hid everything and then they refused to take any notes, they crack my finger and they beat my head.

"It's been too hard, I've been taking medication. My brain is not functioning any more, I forget a lot and I get shocks at night because they used to bang the door and they never let us sleep."

So he's been on medication, can't remember things, and his brain isn't functioning anymore, but the BBC quotes him in its headline?

---

CAN JEWS BE CONSERVATIVES ? :

We got an especially thoughtful email from David Cohen, which he's kindly given his permission to post.

In your neo-con post, you raise three questions that are of particular interest to me: what does it mean to be Jewish in America? What beliefs define political conservatism in the US? Can there be Jewish conservatives?

The first question is difficult, mostly because Americans don't like to talk about the issues that must be discussed to appreciate the place of Jews in America. For example, we almost never say out loud that the fundamental basis for American culture is Christianity and that the United States is a Christian nation. On one level, the truth of this proposition is self-evident: most Americans believe in God and most believers -- by far -- believe in the divinity of Jesus. Moreover, this understates the influence of Christianity in American life, for even many of those who don't think of themselves as Christians, and I'm simply going to ignore the differences between the various Christian sects, are culturally Christian, celebrating Christmas and Easter, even if they don't otherwise pay attention to the religious calendar. They try to pass this off as secular American culture, but this just proves my point -- American culture is based upon Christianity.

Indeed, the general assumption in American culture is that people are Christian, albeit secular Christians. For example, the secular calendar is simply the religious calendar hidden behind a series of vapid phrases like Spring Break, Winter Vacation, the Holidays, etc. Television shows have Christmas episodes in which characters who have not theretofore shown any religious inclinations are shown celebrating around a tree and singing carols to the newborn king. It is true that, in a sort of naive balancing, Christmas is linked with Hanukah (and Ramadan and Kwanzaa) but even the prominence of Hanukah, a relatively minor holiday that falls in the winter and, fortuitously, included a tradition of giving small amounts of money to children, is almost entirely a culturally Christian phenomenon. (That is, Jews wouldn't make too much of it if they weren't surrounded by celebrating Christians.) Until recently, it was very common for non-Christians to be wished Merry Christmas in December, a well-wishing, by the way, that only a churl could resent and which I much prefer to the vapid and fundamentally dishonest "Happy Holidays."

Moreover, despite the somewhat desperate attempts to paint the Founding Fathers as deists, the history of the discovery and settlement of North America and of the ideological, political and military foundation of the United States is the history of a self-consciously Christian enterprise. Quite a bit is owed, of course, to the English Enlightenment, but it is impossible to imagine either the Enlightenment or the writing of the Constitution without the Protestant reformation with, among other things, its ultimate emphasis on congregationalism -- with apologies to our Anglican friends -- and on the direct relationship between the individual and God.

There is, obviously, more to say on this subject, but you are not, I think, someone who needs a great deal of convincing. So, having established that ours is a Christian nation, we must now ask whether a Jew can truly be an American. There are plenty of people who say no. I say yes. But my answer is largely solipsistic: I feel myself to be fully an American, and since I cannot directly experience your Americanism or that of other Jews, I am left with my conviction. You can just take me word for it.

But if my word will not suffice, my conviction is not entirely untestable. Jews have been American citizens for as long as there has been a United States. George Washington, no less, said that Judaism is no bar to citizenship, and who am I to argue with him. I owe no allegiance to any foreign prince or potentate and while I wish Israel well, it is more because of what I believe as an American than what I believe as a Jew. Indeed, the things I believe as an American fully support my American identity: I was created equal to any other man, I, too, have been endowed by my creator with inalienable rights, the government of the United States was created to secure my rights. None of these tenets rise or fall because I am a Jew.

Moreover, the mere fact that America is a Christian country implies a role for the Jews. The relationship between Christianity and Judaism is, of course, complex and the historical relationship between Christians and Jews has, let us understate, been troubled. But Jesus was a Jew. Mary was a Jew. Many of the church fathers were Jews. There could not have been a new testament without an old. In fact, I fully believe that one reason for the difference in America's relationships with Judaism and Islam is that, for Christianity to be true, Judaism must also be true, but Islam cannot be.

Finally, Jews form a part of American life. We have served in the military, we vote, we participate in public debate, we serve in Congress and the Courts and by so doing we, along with and inseparable from all other Americans, have made the country what it is. America would not be America without Jews, just as blacks, whites, Asians, Christians, railroad workers and dime novelists could not be removed without the whole becoming lesser.

Discussions of religion are difficult; reconciling all the difference strains of conservatism to come up with an American Ur-conservatism may be impossible. Contemporary American conservatism, after all, almost spans the entire political spectrum of 18th century Britain, with both (classical) Liberals and Tories being called conservative. The best I can do is set out my own lists of beliefs that conservatives must hold. I have not attempted to show their derivation, because that I think is a separate question and would require a long disquisition into Burke, Kirk and Hayek that I don't feel like taking on right now. Not all people who call themselves conservatives may agree with all of the following statements, but I wouldn't accept as conservative anyone who does not believe the following:

*Human nature has not changed from Adam to Eminem and is not trustworthy.

*Power corrupts.

*Each individual should be allowed as much sovereignty over his person and property as possible, and free choice should only be curtailed when necessary to protect others from substantial, tangible and immediate harm.

*Man's ability to reason is severely flawed because he cannot see all of the ramifications of his actions.

*Traditional societal arrangements, while not perfect, reflect a historical genius for stability that must be respected and should be changed only when absolutely necessary.

If this statement of principles is correct -- and I'd be glad to hear about additions or subtractions -- then I see no reason that Jews can't be conservative. Some of these do depend, at least for me, on religion as a basis, but I see nothing here that can only be derived from Christianity.

Nevertheless, traditionally Jews in the United States have been liberal and the idea of a Jewish conservative has been rejected by both conservatives and Jews. It has always been something of a mystery to me that, after the Holocaust, Jews weren't almost cognitively suspicious of big centralized government and, for that matter, zealous supporters of the Second Amendment, but there you are. I think there are a couple of reasons for the Jew's historic avoidance of conservatism. First, Judaism in America is urban and urban populations tend more towards liberalism. Second, most Jewish immigrants came to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from eastern Europe, where the governments were implacably hostile to Jews and to be a dissident was to be a socialist. Third, given the nature of Christian/Jewish relations in Europe, it is perhaps natural for Jews to avoid a philosophy that is, in part, defined by its Christian roots. To the extent that modern conservatism derives from English liberalism, well, not many Jews came here from England. Finally, conservatism tends to be associated with country clubs and a WASP elite from which Jews have been excluded, another reason for alienation.

However, with changes in conservatism, particularly the semitophilism of the evangelical Christian right, and changes in Jews, mostly through increased assimilation, Jews are becoming more and more conservative. This is, in part, why I think the reasons you give for the rise of neoconservatism are a little too reductive. Israel, military might and bourgeois values are important, but I think the neocons can agree with most if not all of my conservative tenets.

This is not to deny that part of the reason for the movement of Jews to conservatism is because of Israel. Two quick stories will make my point. Last weekend I got together with a friend of mine, Muslim, born and raised in the US with Egyptian parents and now working in London. We were discussing the middle-East and he complained about American policy being skewed by all the "right-wing Jews". When I objected that I was the only right-wing Jew he knew, he confessed that by right-wing he meant Zionist. I think there is a good amount of truth here. Second, I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh in my car when an ad came up for the Forward. The ad was clearly pitched to conservatives. I'm certain that five years ago, it did not occur to the Forward to advertise on Rush Limbaugh.

Both of these stories illustrate the power of Israel's current predicament to help Jews identify with conservatism. But it is equally important to note that situation in the middle-East has equally driven non-Jewish conservatives to support Israel. In other words, the importance of Israel's current situation is that it demonstrates, to Jews and to conservatives, the power and truth of conservative thought. This demonstration is responsible for moving both Jews and conservatives closer together. Israel shows the strength of democracy, it shows the failure of socialism and it shows that there is evil in the world that neither answers to reason nor rewards faith in the innate goodness or perfectibility of man. If Israel is right, than liberalism is wrong.

So more and more Jews are open to conservatism. There is nothing inherent in conservatism, at least as I've defined it, that prevents Jews from being true believers. Will their (our) conservatism look in all aspects like that of the paleocons or theocons. Of course not, not least because some paleocons and theocons will define conservatism as not being open to Jews. But can conservative Jews make common cause with Christian conservatives? Absolutely. Is this Jewish conservatism any less conservative than Christian conservatism? I think not.

David Cohen

---

SAY IT AIN'T SO, BERNIE :

Deconstructing Osama : Bin Laden is still popular in the Arab world. Why? (BERNARD LEWIS, August 23, 2002, Wall Street Journal)

The role of the Middle Eastern Robin Hood, unlike his Western prototype, is not to rob the rich and give to the poor, though some such expectation may lurk in the background; it is rather to defy the strong and to protect--and ultimately avenge--the weak. For Osama bin Laden and his merry men, the Sheriff of Nottingham is their local potentate, whichever that may be. The ultimate enemy, King John, lives far away, as he has always done--in Constantinople and Vienna, London and Paris, and now in Washington and New York.

This vision, comforting though it may be to those who hold it, is flawed at both ends. King John was not a democrat, and Robin Hood was not a terrorist. We live in a different world, and at a different level of reality. Those who cherish such delusions will sooner or later suffer a painful but salutary awakening.

It's terribly disappointing to see the great Bernard Lewis totally biff the meaning of the Robin Hood legend.

---

EVENTS ARE IN THE SADDLE AND THEY RIDE THE NEOCONS :

What is a Neocon? (Derek Copold, 8/18/02, The Texas Mercury)

The label 'neoconservative' has become something of a muddle. At one time it referred to an ex-leftist, someone who had rejected his youthful dalliance with socialism or, more often, communism. Not any more, these days a neoconservative can be anyone, regardless of background. For now, the question of how this came to be is immaterial; I only note that it is so. To be a neoconservative, all one need do is subscribe to a certain set of ideas and positions about foreign and domestic policy. [...]

[I]f a public figure favors an activist, Wilsonian foreign policy, strives to create a sense of national and moral purpose along 'traditional' lines through centralized means, and generally opposes attempts to restrict immigration, then he is a neocon.

Friend Copold has written a provocative, though I think not entirely accurate column here, on the nature of neoconservatism. What I believe to be missing is an appreciation of the vast difference between neocons and theocons, a divide that has been most spectacularly illustrated in a colloquium in the pages of the magazine First Things--The End of Democracy?; in the split over the 2000 Presidential nomination, with theocons supporting George W. Bush, while neocons went batty for John McCain; and in the desperate attempts (and failures) of neocons to muster an anti-cloning argument devoid of any religious bases.

---

MY WHAT BIG EARS YOU HAVE :

Jealousy Trouble? Measure Your Lover's Ears (Reuters, Aug 22, 2002)

If you are worried about jealousy ruining your love life, here's the latest scientific advice: try measuring your partner's ears. Or feet.

Researchers have found that asymmetrical people are more likely to be jealous in love than those who are symmetrical.

Scientists have long shown that people whose faces and bodies are the same on both sides are considered more attractive and have an easier time attracting mates.

The wife'll be happy to know the left ear is exactly the same length as the left foot and the right ear and foot only differ by a quarter inch.

---

ANCHORING THE VAST WASTELAND :

Out There : Windswept, inept, Ashleigh Banfield hits the road. (TUNKU VARADARAJAN, August 22, 2002, Wall Street Journal)

Every Monday to Thursday, from 10 to 11 p.m. EDT, MSNBC thwacks its viewers on the head with a cudgel called Ashleigh Banfield. Ms. Banfield was recently described by Vogue as "the anchor who is changing the way we watch the news." She has, the magazine continued, created "a new genre of broadcasting--a kind of raw, take-you-there, experiential reporting." I'm not sure what Vogue meant by that last bit of molasses, but my translation reads, Unprepared, verbose and incapable of complex analysis.

What we have here is the exaltation of the ditz.

We like her; plus, this is kind of a double standard. No way is she any ditzier than Rather, Brokaw or Brian Williams.

---

IF YOU SEND AN IRAQI SOLDIER INTO THE DESERT ON A MOTORCYCLE, DOES HE COME BACK?

U.S. accused of rigging war game : Defeat of 'Iraq' ensured (Jan Cienski, 8/21/02, National Post

The quality of U.S. preparation for a possible attack on Iraq is being called into question by a retired Marine Corps general who says recent military games -- the largest ever held by the Pentagon -- were rigged to ensure the forces posing as the Iraqis would lose.

The games were "almost entirely scripted to ensure a [U.S. military] 'win'" said General Paul Van Riper, commander of the opposing "Red" forces, who quit in disgust halfway through the exercise.

He told the Army Times newspaper he was concerned the U.S. would send troops into combat using doctrine and weapons systems based on false conclusions drawn from the war games. [...]

Instead of using radios to send orders, which the Blue forces could intercept, Gen. Van Riper relied on motorcycle couriers.

When the Blue fleet sailed into the Persian Gulf, Gen. Van Riper sent apparently harmless small planes and boats into the area. After the Blue commander issued an ultimatum to surrender, Gen. Van Riper issued his attack orders via the morning call to prayer broadcast from his country's mosques.

His unconventional forces wreaked havoc on the Blue fleet and sent much of it to the bottom. The officials in charge had to halt the exercise and "refloat" the Blue fleet to allow the games to continue.

This is patently absurd. After the USS Cole explosion there are no harmless boats and who would allow any planes other than our own to fly in a war zone?

---

LIFT EVERY VOICE AND SING :

Ehrlich reaches out to blacks with fund-raiser at nightclub : Effort to woo Democrats gaining ground, some say (Tim Craig and Sarah Koenig, August 22, 2002, Baltimore Sun)

In an effort to broaden his appeal in the black community, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. staged a fund-raiser and rally last night at a downtown Baltimore nightclub in an attempt to win over traditionally Democratic voters.

He even sang "Ain't No Stopping Us Now" as several hundred people, most of them African-American, ate Swedish meatballs and chicken wings at the $100-a-ticket event.

Ehrlich, the expected Republican nominee, and his running mate, Michael S. Steele, the Maryland GOP chairman, told the crowd at Hammerjack's they intend to fight for black voters as they take on likely Democratic nominee Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

Hopefully they're serious and plan on fighting for black votes every day, not just once in awhile at staged events.

---

EUTHANASIA, YES! :

Joan Baez Serenades Tree-Sitters (AP, 8/22/02)

Folk singer Joan Baez delivered a surprise serenade to two environmental activists who have spent months perched in towering redwoods owned by Pacific Lumber Co. [...]

The 61-year-old singer dropped by Monday to offer her support. She made a similar visit to Humboldt County in 1999 to meet Julia "Butterfly'' Hill, who spent two years in a redwood she dubbed "Luna."

Cutting these trees down would be a mercy killing at this rate.

---

I AM GEORGE BAILEY... :

My late husband is a real diamond geezer (Tim Reid, August 23, 2002, Times of London)

DIAMONDS may be a girl's best friend, but now you can turn your best friend into a diamond.

A company in Chicago claims that it has developed a process for turning cremated human remains into diamonds that can be worn as jewellery.

...now, officially, worth more dead than alive.

---

THIS'LL MAKE YOUR SKIN CRAWL :

Michael Jackson adds 3rd child, recycles name (The Associated Press, August 22, 2002)

The latest thriller from Michael Jackson: Word is he has a third child.

People magazine reports that Jackson has a 6-month-old boy, whom he calls Prince Michael II. He reportedly introduced the baby to his magician friends Siegfried and Roy backstage at their Las Vegas show on July 30.

Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.

---

APRES W QUE? :

REACHING OUT WORKS (Patrick Ruffini, 8/20/02)
Mr. Ruffini has a typically sage take on the surprisingly good poll numbers for the GOP among Latino voters.

---

RESTORING OUR REASON TO LIVE :

Hasbro restores 'Kung-Fu grip' (AP Online, 8/21/02)

Hasbro hopes to grab toy collectors by restoring the legendary "Kung-Fu grip" to some new GI Joe action figures, the toy company announced Wednesday.

Hasbro introduced the gimmick in 1974, to capitalize on the popularity of the martial arts craze of that era.

Kung-Fu grip was created by making the clenched hands of the soldier dolls out of soft rubber with individual fingers, which let the figures "squeeze" objects or the limbs of other toys.

The younger among you won't care a whit, but the elder among us are rejoicing.

---

TRIED FOR WHAT? :

Embassy Gunmen To Face German Judge (AP, August 21, 2002)

Five men who barricaded themselves inside the Iraqi Embassy and took Baghdad's acting ambassador and other diplomats hostage are believed to be Iraqis and had all applied in the past for asylum in Germany, authorities said Wednesday.

What precisely was their crime? They took over a building that is on the sovereign soil of one of the world's worst dictators. They should get a parade, not a trial.

---

WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE PARODY :

Paris prosecutor probes Jewish Web site's hate call (MSNBC, 8/22/02)

The Paris public prosecutor has launched a probe of an extremist Jewish Internet site which published a list of French personalities it deemed ''anti-Israeli'' and urged readers to attack some of them.

As part of its continuing, and largely successful, effort to turn itself into something resembling a Saturday Night Live skit, France will now investigate hate speech by Jews rather than the numerous anti-Semitic incidents and statements that have become commonplace there.

---

BONZO VS. BABY :

Jerry was a man - are they? (Ross Mackenzie, 8/21/02, TownHall.com)

The headline arrested the eye: "Is a Chimp a 'Person' With a Legal Right to a Lawyer in Court?" And the mind went immediately to Robert Heinlein's 1947 short story, "Jerry Was a Man." [..]

The world's richest woman learns that trusted chimpanzees in a made-to-order animal factory are treated as slaves, and once past their usefulness on the production line are ground into dog food. She adopts an aging chimp named Jerry, and on his behalf files suit to establish his "humanity."

The grounds? Primarily, that he can make literal and moral judgments, long deemed the separator between men and beasts. Given Jerry's demonstrated ability to distinguish between right and wrong, the court judges Jerry to be a man - thereby saving him from the grinder.

In the real world, Heinlein's science-fiction queries apply with even greater force.

Do traditional man-beast distinctions still apply? What is an animal and what is a man? What are our humanity-related obligations to animals? Do chimps have rights - and if so, what sort?

Jerry was a man. Are chimps?

Once you determine that a human fetus isn't entitled to be considered a human being and doesn't deserve human rights--contrary to thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching that human dignity derives from our being created in God's image--then questions like this become fair game.

---

MODERATE OR MOVE ON :

For Black Politicians, 2 Races Suggest a Rise of New Tactics (LYNETTE CLEMETSON, August 22, 2002, NY Times)

The defeat of Representative Cynthia A. McKinney in a Democratic primary on Tuesday--the second loss this summer by a prominent black House incumbent to a more moderate black challenger--carries implications for black politicians, and perhaps others as well, that go far beyond any single Congressional district. [...]

Many political experts said today that the victories of the two challengers showed that successful black candidates no longer had to rely solely on rhetoric and tactics of the civil rights era.

"The black electorate is increasingly well-educated, more entrepreneurial, business-savvy and politically moderate," said Jarvis C. Stewart, a
Washington lobbyist and major Democratic fund-raiser. "Many who were not raised in the era of the civil rights movement don't relate to or see the benefit in polarizing politics."

Still, it was the money from campaign contributors motivated by a single issue--one not directly related to problems and concerns in the candidates' districts--that allowed the challengers to get out their messages, a fact that has caused resentment from some black politicians.

"I definitely have some feelings about any outside group exerting this kind of influence in a race, and I've been receiving angry calls from black voters all day, saying they should rally against Jewish candidates," said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Hard to see how anybody--other than the incumbents themselves and the special interests that support them--loses in this situation. The black community gets more moderate leadership, more concerned with the 21st Century than the 19th. Republicans in Democrat dominated districts get some say in who represents them. And the wedge being driven between blacks and Jews may move Jews toward the GOP which is their more natural home.

---

FEAR OF THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS :

Author sued over Islam 'insult' (BBC, 22 August, 2002)

Prize-winning French novelist Michel Houellebecq is being sued by four Islamic organisations in Paris after making "insulting" remarks about the religion in an interview about his latest book.

The action against Mr Houellebecq, 44, is being launched on 17 September by plaintiffs including Saudi Arabia's World Islamic League and the Mosque of Paris.

Dalil Boubakeur, rector, Paris mosque Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris mosque, said Muslims felt insulted by comments in the novel Plateforme, in which a character admits to a "quiver of glee" every time a "Palestinian terrorist" is killed.

The author's lawyer, Emmanuel Pierrat, said the case is "very similar" to that of British novelist Salman Rushdie - and has said that Mr Houellebecq could be assassinated. [...]

[I]t is an interview with the literary magazine Lire during last year's launch of the book that prompted the legal action.

'Obscene words'

Mr Houellebecq reportedly said in Lire that reading the Koran is "so depressing" and that Islam is "the stupidest religion".

The scary thing is that under French law they'll likely win. Recall that last year a retired general was tried as a "war apologist" for not beating his breast enough about Algeria in his memoirs.

---

KILLS BUGS DEAD :

Europe must just love Tom DeLay's speech on war with Iraq (Sean Hackbarth, 8/21/02, The American Mind)
Our kids inexplicably demanded they be allowed to watch Bob the Builder rather than Tom DeLay's speech on C-SPAN yesterday. Luckily Mr. Hackbarth has the dope.

---

I'M TAKING MY BALL AND I'M GOING HOME :

Lennon quits after death threat (BBC, 22 August, 2002)

Northern Ireland's Neil Lennon has confirmed his retirement from international football after receiving a death threat prior to the friendly against Cyprus.

Lennon, who was due to captain the side, received the threat from a paramilitary group shortly before kick off and decided to pull out of the match on Wednesday evening.

Further proof, if any was needed, that soccer is only marginally a sport. Guys like Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron used to get death threats by the bushel basket, but they never quit.

---

HALLELUJAH! :

Scientists find way to 'type with eyes' (Steve Connor, 22 August 2002, Independent uk)

Computer scientists have devised a method of "typing" without a keyboard using clever software that creates words and sentences using eye movements alone.

Two Cambridge University researchers have shown that their invention does not result in eye-strain, is just as fast as conventional typing and results in fewer mistakes.

David Ward and David MacKay, physicists in the university's Cavendish Laboratory, are making the software freely available in the hope that computer firms will use the idea, which promises to revolutionise technology for the disabled.

In a study published today in the journal Nature, the scientists say that the system, which monitors the gaze of the user's eye to type up to 34 words a minute, is faster and more reliable than similar "on-screen" keyboards that rely on eye movements.

The software works by following the eye with a tracker and camera as it runs along a list of letters arranged in alphabetical order on the screen. When the eye fixes on a letter, the computer offers a series of intelligent choices about what the next letter should be.

Dr Ward and Dr MacKay say that it is like choosing a desired piece of text from an enormous library of books on a shelf. Instead of choosing each letter in turn, writing becomes like a navigational task.

For someone who types by the Biblical method--Seek, and ye shall find--this is great news.

---

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE! :

Saudis Plan to Sue U.S. Over Sept. 11: Lawyer (Tehran Times, 8/22/02)

A group of Saudis plan to sue the U.S. government and media organizations for the alleged psychological and financial damage they suffered in the aftermath of September 11, their lawyer said on Wednesday.

"Tens of Saudi nationals seriously plan to file lawsuits against U.S. government, civil and media entities, the majority of whom are students who had been attending American universities and were forced to leave," Saudi Lawyer Katib al-Shamri said. [...]

Hundreds of Saudis have been questioned by U.S. authorities investigating the attacks.

Washington has named 15 Saudis among the 19 hijackers.

Shamri, a member of an international legal committee set up to defend detainees at a U.S. base in Cuba, also called on the United States to allow families of more than 100 Saudi nationals held there to visit their sons.

The prisoners were captured in the U.S.-led war against Al- Qaeda, blamed for the September 11 attacks, and against the taliban government that sheltered them in Afghanistan.

"Most of the Saudi detainees are innocent and were carrying out charity and humanitarian work in Afghanistan.

Others are very young and were fooled," Shamri said. He called on U.S. authorities to charge the detainees or release them.

Bring it on, baby. Just wait'll all this stuff gets aired out in open court, there'll be nothing left of the relationship with Saudi Arabia, no matter how many Arabists there are in the State Department.

---

IT AIN'T METE, IT'S EMOTION :

Reparations in Disrepair: It may be a good cause, but you wouldn't know it from the latest demonstration on the Mall. (Alex P. Kellogg, 8/19/02, American Prospect)

Chances are that August 17, 2002 won't go down in history as a particularly pivotal day for the pro-reparations movement. Not only did the Millions for Reparations Rally -- held on a small patch of the Mall immediately in front of the nation's capital for seven hours -- fall well short of a million participants. The event also indicated why formal legal channels, rather than popular demonstrations or legislative action, may be the best way for the descendants of America's slaves to pursue compensation for centuries of slavery and discrimination in the United States.

One of the most jarring aspects of the rally was the alarming rhetoric flowing from center stage. "I heard black people get happy on pay day," shouted Hashim Nzinga, the national chief of staff for the New Black Panther Party. "Well it's pay day!" he continued excitedly, before introducing Malik Zulu Shabazz, the 34-year-old party chairman. Shabazz's group, it should be noted, has been denounced by members of the original Black Panther Party and its heirs for some of its more reactionary views and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Shabazz followed Nzinga's stereotype-laden comments with a bit of race baiting: "You've heard of pin the tail on the donkey? Well now it's time to pin the tale on the honkey!" Then Shabazz suggested that it was also time for his adherents to "pass the ammunition" and get ready for battle. Shabazz closed his speech with a plug for a new rap CD he'd just released. [...]

As a reparations supporter, I was highly disappointed by all the grandstanding and racially charged rhetoric spewing forth from the main stage. For the first time in my life, I saw where the argument against cries of victimhood from within the black community could have some validity. [...]

To the central question of the afternoon -- namely, "how much they owe us" -- the answer generally came back as some nebulous, astronomical and amorphous amount, oddly enough often invoked as an actual paycheck (something more mainstream reparations advocates have cautioned against).

This is an unusually honest bit of nitwittery, but the idea that the legitimate economic case for reparations was crowded out by racial denagouguery completely misses the point. There is no economic case. By any measure you can come up with you have to conclude that, in purely economic terms, blacks have benefitted greatly by being brought to America. As a legal matter, there just are no economic damages in the case.

---

THE AXIS OF GOOD HITS HOME :

Indian-Americans help unseat US lawmaker (CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA, AUGUST 21, 2002, Times of India)

The African American incumbent (Rep. Cynthia McKinney) was not shy of expressing her opinion on the subcontinent either--mostly ill-informed repeats made at the behest of the Pakistani and Khalistani lobby, according to Indian-Americans.

A sample: The Indian government is responsible for terrorism against its own people. It engineered the massacre of bus passengers in Kashmir and the blowing up of a passenger airliner.

Community leaders said she recorded that kind of "unsubstantiated nonsense, usually peddled by disgruntled and discredited conspiracy theorists," in the Congressional Record.

But it was when she began talking about the imminent breakup of India because of its "17 different separatist movements" that the Indians of Georgia lost it for her and banded together.

One prominent activist sent out an e-mail to 3400 Indian-Americans in the area reporting her remarks (under the subject line "Balkanisation of India advocated by Rep. Cynthia McKinney") and urging them to work for her opponent, a local judge named Denise Majette.

Led by a prominent dotcommer in the area, they were soon holding fund-raisers for Majette, who like McKinney is also African-American. They chipped in with $20,000, although much larger sums came in later from Middle East groups--the Jews backing Majette and Arabs and Muslims supporting McKinney.

Indian-Americans contributed in other ways too. Several volunteers worked full week for Majette's campaign. She was invited as the chief guest for an Indian-American beauty pageant. A motel owner turned his electronic billboard next to the main highway into her campaign sign.

It was much after the Indian-American effort began that the Jewish lobby rolled into town. But the two sides joined hands for a phono-thon and pooled other resources for the campaign.

We've been following how the developing alliance of the U.S., Russia, Turkey, India, and Israel has effectively surrounded the Islamic world in a chokehold. It's interesting to see how a Judeo-Indian alliance may have helped defeat pro-Arab Representative Cynthia McKinney right here in America.

---

HISTORY'S OVER :

Democracy's Quiet Victory (JOSHUA MURAVCHIK, 8/19/02, NY Times)

A remarkable chain of events in recent months offers cause for cheer amid the bleak headlines of violence and economic distress. It suggests that democracy is completing its triumph as a global norm, endangering the remaining pockets of authoritarianism.

A decade ago, Samuel Huntington coined the label "third wave" for the trend of democratization that had begun in Portugal in 1974. The first wave had lasted from the American revolution until the breakup of empires at the end of World War I; the second followed from decolonization after World War II. Each of these waves was followed by an ebb tide as fascism spread over Europe in the 20's and 30's and Communism and forms of autocratic socialism took hold in the third world in the 60's and 70's.

Mr. Huntington's metaphor invited expectations that the third wave, too, would recede. Something quite different has happened. Sure, many of the former Soviet republics are stuck in dictatorship. But more telling is the case of Argentina, where the politicians are dithering as the economy collapses, yet the generals have made no move to reclaim power - or the situation in Eastern Europe, where former Communists fill the statehouses yet no one tries to undo democracy. Freedom House reports that the number of freely elected governments in the world has continued to climb, reaching 121 of the world's 192 independent countries this year.

Democracy has become an expectation, its claims hard to resist.

Perhaps the main reason not to go to war with Saddam, though none of the opponents seem to recognize it, is that states like Iraq are doomed anyway. And not just Iraq but Palestine, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia too. May as well throw in Communist China too while we're at it. The combination of their inability to satisfy the material wants of their peoples and the fact that, thanks to the telecommunications revolution, those same people can see exactly how much abundance free nations enjoy, must eventually destabilize these governments to the point where they can not tamp down domestic unrest. George W. Bush has already demonstrated one of our greatest weapons when he simply wrote off Yassir Arafat. We should adopt a similar attitude towards all these countries, an air of disdain for the temporary dictatorship they labor under and an eager anticipation of the inevitable day when they will be free.

---

BLUE STATE FUN :

Queer “Settlers” Land on Berkeley Starbucks, Analogy to Israeli Colonists by QUIT! (SF Indy Media, August 18, 2002)

About 25 queer settlers descended on a downtown Berkeley Starbucks on Saturday, August 17, claiming Berkeley as “a city without people for people without a city.” The group, organized by Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!), posted a banner proclaiming the reclaimed cafŽ “Queerkeley – A Prophecy Fulfilled.”

They also erected homes (transformed “Palestinian civilian homes reclaimed from another street theatre action), lawn furniture, and signs reading, “It Works In Palestine, Why Not Here?” and “It’s Ours Because We Say So.” [...]

The group selected Starbucks for the location of their first settlement in Berkeley because Starbucks founder and CEO, Howard Shultz, is a major supporter of the Israeli state and the corporation has become the prime target of an international boycott of corporations with ties to Israel. “Since Mr. Shultz clearly believes it is okay for one group of people to grab land belonging to another and say they have a right to it, we figure he won’t mind if we take some of his,” a QUIT leaflet explains.

Of course if they tried to forcibly settle in an Islamic state they'd be persecuted for their sexuality.

---

TREES DIED, THAT THIS INSIPID COLUMN MIGHT LIVE :

Coup De Crawford (Maureen Dowd, August 21, 2002, NY Times)

We used to worry about a military coup against civilian authority. Now we worry about a civilian coup against military authority.

It's the reverse of the classic movie "Seven Days in May," about gung-ho generals trying to wrest power from an "appeasing" president. In "Thirty-One Days in August," gung-ho presidential advisers try to wrest power away from "appeasing" generals.

In the 1964 movie, the generals' code for their military coup was a bet on the Preakness. In the 2002 version, W. signaled his civilian coup by telling an A.P. reporter his vacation reading was "Supreme Command," a new book by Eliot A. Cohen, a conservative who favors ousting Saddam. In his book, Mr. Cohen attacks the Powell Doctrine and argues that civilian leaders should not defer to "the fundamental caution" of whiny generals on grand strategy or use of force.

Note though the one thing that's stayed the same even forty years later--it is conservatives who are evil. If the generals want to fight communism, they're evil conservatives. If the politicians want to fight radical Islam, they're evil conservatives. It is only, and ever, the appeasers who are the good guys. In fact, this column seems to argue that the Constitution and civilian authority over the military should take a back seat to appeasement. What a strange hateful little woman...

---

BROTHERS JUDD v. 3.0 :

The blessed Other Brother is nearing completion of a major redesign of the Brothers Judd book review site. If you get a chance today and have the time and inclination to check it out, we'd be very appreciative of your feedback. Some features may not be operative yet--some message boards and the search engine aren't fully functional--but especially in terms of design and ease of navigation we could use your help. Thanks and thank you Stephen, for all the work.

---

TIME KEEPS ON SLIPPING... :

Real Time : The pace of living quickens continuously, yet a full understanding of things temporal still eludes us (Gary Stix, August 13, 2002, Scientific American)

The essence of time is an age-old conundrum that preoccupies not just the physicist and philosopher but also the anthropologist who studies non-Western cultures that perceive events as proceeding in a cyclical, nonlinear sequence. Yet for most of us, time is not only real, it is the master of everything we do. We are clock-watchers, whether by nature or training.

The distinct feeling we have of being bookended between a past and a future--or, in a traditional culture, being enmeshed in the Great Mandala of recurring natural rhythms--may be related to a basic biological reality. Our bodies are chock-full of living clocks--ones that govern how we connect a ball with a bat, when we feel sleepy and perhaps when our time is up.

These real biorhythms have now begun to reveal themselves to biologists. Scientists are closing in on areas of the brain that produce the sensation of time flying when we're having fun--the same places that induce the slow-paced torpor of sitting through a monotone lecture on Canadian interest-rate policy. They are also beginning to understand the connections between different kinds of memory and how events are organized and recalled chronologically. Studies of neurological patients with various forms of amnesia, some of whom have lost the ability to judge accurately the passage of hours, months and even entire decades, are helping to pinpoint which areas of the brain are involved in how we experience time.

Recalling where we fit in the order of things determines who we are. So ultimately, it doesn't matter whether time, in cosmological terms, retains an underlying physical truth. If it is a fantasy, it is one we cling to steadfastly. The reverence we hold for the fourth dimension, the complement of the three spatial ones, has much to do with a deep psychic need to embrace meaningful temporal milestones that we can all share: birthdays, Christmas, the Fourth of July. How else to explain the frenzy of celebration in January 2000 for a date that neither marked a highlight of Christ's life nor, by many tallies, the true millennium?

We will, nonetheless, continue to celebrate the next millennium (if we as a species are still around), and in the meantime, we will fete our parents' golden wedding anniversary and the 20th year of the founding of our local volunteer fire department. Doing so is the only way of imposing hierarchy and structure on a world in which instant messaging, one-hour photo, express checkout and same-day delivery threaten to rob us of any sense of permanence.

I know we're all supposed to feel really pressed for time nowadays, but just consider for a moment how many more hours a day our forefathers had to work just to provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families. It's humbling.

---

WE GOT ISSUES :

A legacy of questions from this heroic Pope (William Rees-Mogg, August 19, 2002, Times of London)

There are several potential difficulties, which will not be resolved in his reign but will eventually have to be resolved. There are issues from the Second Vatican Council still to be decided, and issues which arise from the global cultural changes to which he attaches great importance. [...]

Above everything else, there is the question of the rights of women, the most profound of all the human rights claimed in the second half of the 20th century. Unusually, John Paul II seems unsure of his own mind on this issue. He moved one step forward in 1995, with his sympathetic letter to the Beijing World Conference on Women, but two steps back with Ad Tuendam Fidem (In the Defence of the Faith) with its commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger. That document attempted to put 'definitive' but 'non-infallible' teachings, such as those which reject the ordination of women, outside the boundaries of discussion. For Cardinal Ratzinger, there seems to be no such thing as loyal disagreement.

That dam will not hold. In the 19th century a great pride of 'Pio Nono'` Catholicism was that Catholic doctrine and practice never changes, and has never changed. The truth is the opposite. The faith is constant, but from the earliest days, certainly since the time of St Ambrose and St Augustine, the Church has been in a continuous process of reform and development. If it had not been it would long since have died.

That process will inevitably continue. Pope John Paul II is a great Pope, an heroic Pope, a man of compassion and grace, from my perspective perhaps the greatest leader I have ever met. But his judgment will not decide how the Catholic Church may develop in the 21st century any more than Pius IX could have stopped the hand of John XXIII when he took the critical decision to call the Second Vatican Council. Even in Rome no generation can bind the conscience of its successors.

Lord Rees-Mogg redeems himself for last week's anti-Rumsfeld lunacy with a nice piece on the Pope.

---

NEITHER :

Mr. Coffee? Mr. Freeze Dried? : DiMaggio or Williams: Pick One (Allen Barra, August 21 - 27, 2002, Village Voice)

Both Ted Williams (San Diego area) and Joe DiMaggio (San Francisco Bay area) were Californians, among the first great Far Western ballplayers. They were the two greatest everyday players in the game from the late '30s to 1950. DiMaggio-cool, aloof, controlled, and dignified-was often referred to as "the Cary Grant of baseball," though considering his shyness and taciturnity, Gary Cooper probably would have made a more appropriate comparison. Ted Williams-taller and rangier than Joe, open and volatile-was more like John Wayne, though given their respective war records, it would be fairer to say more like the characters Wayne played. They were friendly competitors, the greatest stars of the oldest and most bitter rivals in American professional sports. The answer to the question "Who was the most valuable?" might well be an answer to the question "Who was the greatest player of all time?"

That, of course, is just silly. Babe Ruth was as good a hitter as Williams and a better fielder and baserunner (until late in his career). But he was also a Hall of Fame level pitcher before he switched to playing the field full time.

---

NO COMPLAINT :

He Made Our World Universal, Chaim Potok : 1929-2002 (Ari L. Goldman, Jerusalem Report)

Potok spoke more clearly and more directly to me than Bellow or Roth or Malamud. I didn't know Nathan Zuckerman or Alexander Portnoy. They didn't go to my yeshivah or hang out in my shul. They weren't from my world. But Danny and Reuven and Asher were.

Potok showed us that we could make literature out of our own lives. Here was the shul, there was the bais medrash, here was the rebbe, there was the stickball game. Is that my father or Reuven's making Kiddush? Is that my mother or Danny's lighting Shabbos candles?

Bellow, Roth and Malamud's characters walked away from Judaism, but Potok's characters were destined to struggle. They could neither break away nor stay. They had to forge their own way and, most important, their own faith.

One of my favorite Potok vignettes comes from "The Book of Lights," which was published in 1981 and was based on the author's years as a United States Army chaplain in Korea in the 1950s. The main character, again a struggling Jew, comes upon a Buddhist religious ceremony and asks with wonder: "If that is sacred, then what is it that we do? And if what we do is sacred, then what is this that they are doing?"

It is the kind of moment that many of us have experienced when going beyond the borders of our own faith. Potok's ability to portray that moment was just one of the reasons why his books found an audience beyond the struggling yeshivah boys like myself who felt liberated by his writing.

And what made Mr. Potok such a great author is that you didn't need to go to yeshiva or shul for Danny and Reuven to affect you.

---

CALVIN 1, RUSH 0 :

So today on the Rush Limbaugh show, a guy named Calvin called in and he had an excellent idea that Mr. Limbaugh dismissed too brusquely. Calvin suggested that we that we need to know what Saddam's been up to since he kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq and that we need a good provocation to get folks to support an attack on Saddam. Perhaps most perceptively he suggested that we combine these two things and just go ahead and send an inspection team to Iraq.

---

BLACK QUEEN :

Blitzed by Russia's pawn star : She's 18 years old, dark-eyed, raven-haired - and a grandmaster. Nigel Farndale takes on Alexandra Kosteniuk, the pin-up of world chess (Daily Telegraph, 14/08/2002)

Not long (enough) ago, the editor of the Telegraph bullied me into facing three overs from Shoaib Akhtar, the world's fastest bowler. The object of the exercise was that I, possibly the world's feeblest batsman, should describe what it is like to have a hard leather object hurtle towards you at 100 miles an hour. On Wednesday, in a similar spirit, the editor arranged for me to play a game of chess with Alexandra Kosteniuk, the women's World Vice-Champion - that is, the second best female chess player in the world.

The 18-year-old Russian recently took a game off the legendary Anatoly Karpov; she has been playing since she was five, when her father gave up his military career to coach her full-time; and she became a grandmaster at the age of 14 (indeed, she has written an autobiography called How I Became Grandmaster at Age 14).

All you need to know about me is that I can bat much better than I can play chess.

I've got no problem with smart, beautiful women. The wife and Margaret Thatcher are both smarter than me and both snappy items. But a fab babe who can whip you in chess is too much...

---

ARE THE EUROPEANS STILL DEMOCRATS? : :

Democracy takes a back seat (Kirsty Hughes, 14 August 2002, Open Democracy)

The prospects for engaging Europe's citizens in the debate on the future of the Union are still hostage to the power politics of the member states.

The real risk is that democracy is going to get short shrift both in the European Union (EU) Convention and in the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). This, of course, is not the declared aim. But in a little noticed comment to the Convention in April, Giscard d'Estaing bluntly asserted that while "people often say that Europe must be closer to its citizens, this is not exact - Europe must be more understandable by its citizens."

Nor is Giscard's approach unfamiliar in Brussels, where the patronising view is often heard that if only the public understood the EU better, they would support the EU and its institutions much more. The opposite may well be true; if the public had a better view of its inter- and intra-institutional wrangles and machinations, they might well be seriously appalled.

There's a current vogue in Europe for calling the United States the great threat to global democracy. But the real question confronting the Atlantic Alliance is about Europe's commitment to democracy. Is it possible to reconcile the movement towards European Union, a government by unelected bureaucrats, with the Western tradition of representative democracy? And if Europe no longer believes in democracy, if it is to be governed once again by elites, then it may be time to ask ourselves if our interests have not inevitably begun to diverge?

---

HOPEFULLY A VICTIM'S FATHER WILL MEET HIM AT THE GATE WITH A .45 :

Police scrambling to block early prison release of confessed serial killer (PAM EASTON, Aug 18, 2002, Associated Press)

The murders were as random as they were vicious: stabbings, hangings, stranglings, drownings. The women didn't know each other or the hooded man who, according to one survivor, enjoyed the killing so much he was "clapping and dancing."

Police eventually caught up with Coral Eugene Watts but couldn't connect him to the savage crimes in Texas and Michigan.

Desperate to close the cases, prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. In 1982, Watts admitted he killed 13 women - "They had evil in their eyes," he said - but he went to prison for burglary with intent to commit murder.

He was sentenced to 60 years, and prosecutors, police and the judge thought that was enough.

Now, a quirk in the Texas legal system may short-circuit their intentions. Mandatory release laws aimed at relieving prison crowding require Watts' be discharged on May 8, 2006, unless he loses good behavior credits that he has accumulated in prison. He will be 52.

Watts is believed to have killed dozens of women, and authorities in Texas and Michigan are scouring old files, archives and evidence folders for any shred that might tie him to an open case for which he didn't receive immunity in the plea.

"Everybody knows he is going to kill again," said Houston police Sgt. Tom Ladd...

Couldn't figure out whether "burglary with intent to commit murder" is a capital offense, though since this guy pled to it one doubts it. But cases like this one are why even skeptics like us find it hard to oppose capital punishment. The uncertainty of probation and other such elements makes the finality of execution seem necessary.

---

FLAME ON :

Iran's Annual Inflation Rate Hits 15.9 Percent (TEHRAN TIMES, 8/20/02)

The Consumer Price Index (Inflation Index) in Iranian urban areas reached 199.8 points by end of Khordad (June 20) this year. It indicates an annual inflation rate of 15.9 ending in Khordad.

According to figures issued by the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), the CPI average in the first three months of this year reached 196.4, showing 12 percent increase compared to a year before.

This is a story to watch because hyperinflation could be the match that sets the Middle Eastern tinderbox afire.

---

"NEVER EXPECTED" ? :

Experts Scale Back Estimates of World Population Growth (BARBARA CROSSETTE, August 20, 2002, NY Times)

Demography has never been an exact science. Ever since social thinkers began trying to predict the pace of population growth a century or two ago, the people being counted have been surprising the experts and confounding projections. Today, it is happening again as stunned demographers watch birthrates plunge in ways they never expected.

Only a few years ago, some experts argued that economic development and education for women were necessary precursors for declines in population growth. Today, village women and slum families in some of the poorest countries are beginning to prove them wrong, as fertility rates drop faster than predicted toward the replacement level - 2.1 children for the average mother, one baby to replace each parent, plus a fraction to compensate for unexpected deaths in the overall population. [...]

As a result, United Nations demographers who once predicted the earth's population would peak at 12 billion over the next century or two are scaling back their estimates. Instead, they cautiously predict, the world's population will peak at 10 billion before 2200, when it may begin declining.

Conservatives and neoconservatives (Ben Wattenberg for one) have been sounding the alarm about the pending population implosion for at least twenty years now. and the thing to keep in mind is this : there are innumerable instances of countries growing their economies while their population explodes, but to the best of my knowledge we know of no case where a country has been able to sustain economic growth while its population declines. We need only look at Japan to see what happens when even a modern industrialized nation stops growing its population. Economic decline follows, just as surely as night follows day.

---

N-SYNC :

MIDDLE EAST POLITICS IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE RACE (W. James Antle III, August 20, 2002, Enter Stage Right)

[O]ne of the main reasons I didn't bring up this whole mess in my article - even though I suppose it could have bolstered my case that conservatives should stick with Smith - was that stating the criticisms of Sununu and then defending those who make them against charges of ethnic politics would have bogged down the entire piece when I did't really think it was necessary to make my point. I don't question Sununu's patriotism or loyalty. I would not even classify him as "anti-Israel." But I would say that Smith's votes on certain issues that relate to the Middle East and immigration policy are more to my liking and more in synch with the views of most conservatives.

The "whole mess" that Mr. Antle refers to is questions about how John Sununu, Jr. has voted on Israeli/Palestinian issues, a question that we reaised here : LIKE FATHER LIKE SON? His point is valid; it can become a kind of "When did you stop beating your wife?" question if people keep asking if Mr. Sununu is anti-Israel.

---

SACCO NOT SOCKO :

Murder for Mature Readers: Palestine's Comic Book (Lewis A. Fein, August 20, 2002, Jewish World Review)

Walk into a comic store and childhood memories refresh themselves: muscular displays of heroism by Superman, acrobatic elegance from Spiderman and vigilante justice by Batman. But, between the angular sketches of Captain Marvel or the melodic toughness of Mighty Mouse, exists a more sinister - a purposefully less innocent - comic book -- Joe Sacco's Palestine (only now recently mass marketed among mainstream booksellers as an abridged version of his earlier propaganda).

Yet, Sacco's interpretation is not a legitimate counterpoint to, say, Art Spiegelman's "Maus," the critically acclaimed Holocaust memoir. And, even though Spiegelman himself offers positive reviews for Sacco's work, such praise - praise limited to one's artistic abilities and liberal theology - is beside the point: Spiegelman chronicles history with an artist's precision; Sacco reinvents truthful facts with a denier's deliberate blindness.

Gay characters? Pro-Palestinian? What the heck has happened to comic books?

---

LOOKING INTO THE KRISTOL BALL :

Bush's Summer Reading List Hints at Iraq (Dana Milbank, August 20, 2002, washington Post)

Looking for signs about President Bush's thinking on an Iraq attack? Check out his vacation reading.

This vital intelligence comes from an interview with the industrious Associated Press reporter Scott Lindlaw, who went on a brush-clearing, pickup-riding, sweating-and-bleeding tour of the Bush ranch outside Waco last week. The president disclosed that he has been reading "Supreme Command," a new book by Eliot A. Cohen, a neoconservative hardliner on Iraq with the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

In his reading choice, Bush seems to be following the advice of Bill Kristol, the arch-neoconservative who has been using his Weekly Standard magazine to chide Bush for being too soft on Saddam Hussein. It is Kristol's blurb, after all, on the back cover of Cohen's book suggesting: "If I could ask President Bush to read one book, this would be it." Former Quayle man Kristol, suspected of playing puppeteer to a number of hawkish officials in the Bush Pentagon and National Security Council, appears to have added the marionette-in-chief to his act.

You can just see the headlines in France and the Middle East : Shadowy Jewish Svengali Controls Bush's Mind.

---

TODAY'S BEST STORY, EXCEPT... :

A List of Guests Throws Light on the Bush Style (ADAM NAGOURNEY, August 19, 2002, NY Times)

There are many ways to judge how different President Bush is from the man he succeeded in the White House. One is where this president chooses to spend his vacation: on the dry and secluded flatland of his ranch near here, a cultural world away from the white-wine swillers of Martha's Vineyard, as Mr. Bush put it last week in a tart put-down of the island where Bill and Hillary Clinton spent their summers.

But an equally revealing contrast came in the form of a list, issued by the president's aides Friday night, of the 160 friends, family members and supporters who have enjoyed overnight stays in the White House in the first 20 months of this Bush administration.

If Mr. Clinton's overnight list spoke volumes about his presidential style--from the glamour of his guests to the ignominy of the use of the Lincoln Bedroom as a fund-raising tool--the Bush list, like his choice of this sleepy furnace of a town as a getaway spot, suggests just how low-key and unostentatious Mr. Bush has sought to appear. [...]

Mr. Clinton's guests recall ambling evenings filled with an assortment of dignitaries, intellectuals and celebrities, often going late into the night. It was not unusual to see Mr. Clinton lead guests to the White House mess for a late-night snack and for some intense discussion on any one of a number of weighty problems.

By contrast, Mr. Bush keeps his nights short and simple: dinner by 7, coffee on the Truman Balcony and bed by 10, with a decided preference for smaller groups than was common under Mr. Clinton. The evenings are notable, a few of Mr. Bush's guests said today, for their lack of pretension or gravity. Several said that except for the agents outside the room, they could have been having dinner in almost any dining room in America.

"Anyone who puts on airs and tries to get puffed is going to get punctured mighty quickly," David Sibley, a Republican former Texas state senator and a close friend of Mr. Bush's who has stayed both at the White House and at Mr. Bush's ranch here, said by cellphone as he headed for church this morning. "Whether it's his house in Dallas or it's the White House, they are very much the host and hostess."

Overall this is a nice assessment of the very different lifestyle that the Bushs have brought to the White House, but what's with the "sought to appear"?

---

THE GREAT ABSENCE :

Pope Says Modern Mankind Is Usurping 'God's Place' (Frank Bruni, August 19, 2002, NY Times)

Pope John Paul II, at the highlight event of a profoundly emotional visit to his native land, told a crowd of at least two million Poles here today that mankind was going dangerously astray by letting scientific advances and cultural liberalism eclipse God's will.

"Frequently man lives as if God did not exist, and even puts himself in God's place," the pope said, using his homily during an outdoor Mass of breathtaking dimensions to make the most pointed and topical remarks of his three-day homecoming.

"He claims for himself the Creator's right to interfere in the mystery of human life," he added, speaking in Polish and referring to a range of issues that clearly included abortion, cloning and euthanasia. "Rejecting divine law and moral principles, he openly attacks the family."

The blame for this, he went on to say, lay partly with "the noisy propaganda of liberalism, of freedom without truth or responsibility." [...]

In his homily, he deplored the way that modern civilization, in his view, "wishes to determine life through genetic manipulation and to establish the limit of death."

He said people were trying "to silence the voice of God in human hearts" and to "make God the great absence in the culture and the consciences ofpeople."

It's quite common to read in libertarian and leftist defenses of things like cloning that the opposition of Christians and other conservatives is a function of our fear of the new. That's quite accurate. I for one do fear that the world they seek to make will be a loathsome place.

---

INGRATE! :

ALL FOR GORE IN 2004 : We'll take Al Gore's populist schtick again if that will prevent the self-righteous, warmongering Joe Lieberman from running for president in 2004. (David Corn, August 16, 2002, AlterNet)

Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut who was Gore's ticket-mate, has pledged he will not enter the 2004 fray if Gore does. But if Gore demurs, Lieberman is ready to pounce. And who -- except the DLC and Mrs. Lieberman -- wants that?

Let me first note some Lieberman positives. He has tended to have a strong record on environmental matters. He recently joined with Republican Senator John McCain to introduce legislation that would set up an independent commission to investigate intelligence failures related to Sept. 11 -- a move that was a slap in the face of the congressional intelligence committees, which rarely go far enough in investigating and overseeing the intelligence agencies. He can, at times, be a sharp opponent of the Bush Administration. (He called Bush's recent photo-op economic confab "more of a valley than a summit.") And he has kept the flame of Enron alive -- though barely -- as chairman of the governmental affairs committee, which is investigating the Enron mess (but not as quickly as many Democratic partisans would prefer.)

Yet none of that compensates for Lieberman's negatives. There's his self-righteous and quasi-censorious opposition to explicit music, movies and television shows. There's his self-righteousness about most things. There's his warmongering. (He recently called for Congress to grant Bush the authority to remove Saddam Hussein and leave it to Bush and the Pentagon to decide how to do that.) And there's his coziness with the DLC. But what moves me to alter my position on a Gore sequel is Lieberman's ingratitude.

One would imagine that two years ago at this time Mr. Corn was writing about what an ingrate Al Gore was being by running away from the Clinton record.

---

IT USED TO BE OUR PASTIME TOO :

Japan's national pastime (Marvin Olasky, 8/20/02, Townhall.com)

Barring a minor miracle, American Major League Baseball players and owners are hurtling toward an Aug. 30 strike date. But here at Koshien Stadium, baseball life goes on for the fervent fans of the Hanshin Tigers.

Fans at this 55,000-seat ballyard wear karate gi (robes) and headbands in the yellow and black Tiger colors. White-gloved cheerleaders lead the crowd in vibrant chants and rollicking songs. Fans learn different songs for each home team batter and greet favorites with homemade banners. One fan greeted a player from the United States with a huge banner made up of many American flags.

And fans sing the Hanshin fight song, "The Wind of Mount Rokko." Here's a rough translation of one stanza: "Powerful bats and skillful pitch achieved a thousand times/ Trained with every discipline here at Koshien/ Crowned with constant victory glorious, matchless feat/ Always proud, invincible Hanshin Tigers/ Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Hanshin Tigers/ Hooray, Hooray, Hooray, Hooray." Some children learn the song before they learn Japan's national anthem.

Perhaps the best thing that could happen to baseball is a three or four year shutdown that would destroy it as a viable television entertainment and rid the game of money. Get it back down to sixteen teams with no playoffs, just the World Series. No national tv contract. No Nike ads. No homerun derby. Just baseball.

---

WE SHALL NOT SEE HIS LIKE AGAIN :

Yeager To Retire From Military Flying After October Airshow (Leigh Anne Bierstine, Aug 19, 2002, Space Daily)

Aviation legend retired Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager visited Edwards Aug. 12 and 13 to chat with airmen around the base and to prepare for his opening flight at the Edwards 2002 Open House and Air Show Oct. 26. [...]

Reflecting on his 60 years of flying, Yeager said he has been "very, very lucky" in being afforded the opportunity to fly military aircraft for six decades. After retiring from the Air Force with more than 34 years of service, including in World War II and Vietnam, he continued flying as a consultant test pilot here, logging time in the F-15 and the F-16 Falcon as well as other aircraft.

However, it appears Yeager's time flying military aircraft may be coming to a close after his approaching open house mission.

"I have decided that during the open house and airshow I'll make a sonic boom in the F-15, but sixty years is long enough for me to be flying military airplanes," Yeager said.

The retired general is quick to point out that he is not giving up flying all together. He plans to continue flying P-51 Mustangs and various light aircraft.

Perhaps it's not fair to him, but whenever we think of General Yeager we'll see Sam Shepard striding out of the shimmering desert after that terrifying crash in The Right Stuff.

---

The Greatest Conversationalists of All Time : From the salons of Paris to the villages of Hawaii, ten

Great conversationalists are often, but not always, great talkers. The men and women honored here stand out for the way they fostered great conversation—as brilliant speakers, as powerful listeners, or as figures who masterfully facilitated the exchange of ideas. Drawing upon the wisdom, skill, and joie de vivre they brought to the simple act of talking, we can all learn a thing or two about the art of conversation.

SOCRATES (469-399 B.C.E.)
THE SEVEN SAGES OF THE BAMBOO GROVE (circa 250 C.E.)
MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546)
CATHERINE DE RAMBOUILLET (1588-1665)
SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE (1772-1834)
GERTRUDE STEIN (1874-1946)
CARL ROGERS (1902-87)
LUBA PETROVA HARRINGTON
BILL MOYERS
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

We'll go with :

---

WHAT COURT? :

Bush's Court Crusade (Tom Malinowski, August 16, 2002, The Washington Post)

Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine at the start of the 2000 Presidential campaign, George Bush's future national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, promised a "disciplined and consistent foreign policy that separates the important from the trivial." It is becoming hard to square that commitment with the Bush administration's strange and single-minded crusade against the International Criminal Court. [...]

Of course, the administration will argue that this is necessary to protect Americans from a rogue international court. But even if the ICC does go badly wrong, the most powerful nation in the history of the world surely will have the resources to defend itself against 18 judges in Holland who will have no army, police or independent enforcement power. The unlikely possibility that someday, somewhere, some American might be investigated by this court is no reason to threaten allies in the middle of a war, or to sanction fragile democracies whose success is important to America.

Privately, many administration officials see this. But they seem trapped by their anti-ICC rhetoric, unable to end a reckless quest that has done more to hurt America than it could ever do to undermine this court. Those who share the president's original, more pragmatic world view must somehow get this message through: It's time to stop sacrificing the important to the trivial. The ICC tail must stop wagging the dog of American foreign policy.

Don't know about your local paper, but in the one here this column appeared amidst numerous others and letters all announcing that an American attack on saddam Hussein would be completely unjustified under International Law. So here are two questions for "human rights" activists, like Mr. Malinowski, and other supporters of the ICC :

(1) If not Saddam, who?

(2) If not America, who?

If Saddam Hussein is not precisely the kind of person who should be hauled before an International Criminal Court then who should be? And if the internationalist community isn't serious about going and getting such criminals then what's the point of the Court? And, realistically, if the United States doesn't go get such people then who will? After all, the only reason Slobodan Milosevic is on trial at The Hague is because the United States finally intervened in the Balkans. Left to their own devices, the European nations, who are the most vociferous supporters of the ICC, showed absolutely no stomach for even stopping Milosevic from killing people, never mind for arresting him.

---

TELL IT TO HARVEY :

The logic of empire : The US is now a threat to the rest of the world. The sensible response is non-cooperation. (George Monbiot, August 6, 2002, The Guardian)

As the US government discovers that it can threaten and attack other nations with impunity, it will surely soon begin to threaten countries that have numbered among its allies. As its insatiable demand for resources prompts ever bolder colonial adventures, it will come to interfere directly with the strategic interests of other quasi-imperial states. As it refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of the use of those resources, it threatens the rest of the world with environmental disaster. It has become openly contemptuous of other governments and prepared to dispose of any treaty or agreement that impedes its strategic objectives. It is starting to construct a new generation of nuclear weapons, and appears to be ready to use them pre-emptively. It could be about to ignite an inferno in the Middle East, into which the rest of the world would be sucked.

The United States, in other words, behaves like any other imperial power. Imperial powers expand their empires until they meet with overwhelming resistance.

For Britain to abandon the special relationship would be to accept that this is happening. To accept that the US presents a danger to the rest of the world would be to acknowledge the need to resist it. Resisting the United States would be the most daring reversal of policy a British government has undertaken for over 60 years.

We can resist the US neither by military nor economic means, but we can resist it diplomatically. The only safe and sensible response to American power is a policy of
non-cooperation. Britain and the rest of Europe should impede, at the diplomatic level, all US attempts to act unilaterally. We should launch independent efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis and the conflict between Israel and Palestine. And we should cross our fingers and hope that a combination of economic mismanagement, gangster capitalism and excessive military spending will reduce America's power to the extent that it ceases to use the rest of the world as its doormat. Only when the US can accept its role as a nation whose interests must be balanced with those of all other nations can we resume a friendship that was once, if briefly, founded upon the principles of justice.

Notorious idiot George Monbiot is the latest Brit ready to go to war with the U.S. The most amusing thing about his column, besides the conceit that we'd even notice if Britain pursued a policy of noncooperation, is the notion that all it would take to get rid of Saddam and bring peace in Palestine is for Britain to buckle down to some serious diplomacy. What colour do you suppose the sky is in Mr. Monbiot's world?

---

WHO'S FUNDING THESE STUDIES? :

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder(Ananova, 18th August 2002)

A new study has established that beauty may be in the eye of the beer holder rather than the beholder.

Scientists in Scotland say they have found proof of the so-called "beer goggles" effect, following a study involving 80 students.

The researchers wanted to measure the phenomenon by which members of the opposite sex become more attractive as one drinks more alcohol.

They discovered that men and women who have drunk a moderate amount of alcohol find the faces of the opposite sex 25% more attractive than their sober counterparts.

Duh?

---

IGNOBLE NOBELIST :

Mandela to observe Fatah leader's trial (Jonathan Steele, August 15, 2002, The Guardian)

In a major embarrassment to Israel, Nelson Mandela has agreed to observe the trial of a Palestinian leader formally indicted yesterday on charges of murder and terrorism.

A lawyer for Marwan Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian legislative council and secretary general of the Fatah movement in the West Bank, revealed he had been in South Africa last week to invite the former president to the trial.

"He said he was enthusiastic about coming," Khader Shkirat said. He quoted South Africa's most famous political prisoner as saying: "What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me. The government tried to de-legitimise the African National Congress and its armed struggle by putting me on trial."

Mr. Mandela's continual pronouncements on Palestine prove you can let the terrorist out of prison but you can't get the terrorism out of the prisoner.

---

FOR THIS THEY NEEDED A STUDY? :

Moms and dads differ on kid's pain (Peggy Peck, 8/19/02, UPI)

A study from Finland suggests mothers and fathers react differently to a child in pain -- dads are more likely to think the child should suffer in silence, while moms tend to reach for the baby aspirin.

"Generally, fathers were more likely to think that children could be faking pain and they were also more likely to think that children should learn to live with the pain," [Researcher Paivi] Kankkunen said in an interview with United Press International. She added that both mothers and fathers also thought "boys should be encouraged to tolerate the pain without pain medication." Parents also said it was more acceptable for boys to engage in risk-taking play that might result in injury, but were less likely to support such activities by girls.

In related news, the sun will rise tomorrow.

---

IN THE HANDS :

Slaughter's 'Dash' gave Cards a winning hand in 1946 (Dick Heller, 8/19/02, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Fifty-six years later, it remains one of the signature plays in baseball history - at least for those who care about baseball history.

Oct. 15, 1946, Sportsman's Park in St. Louis, Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals tied 3-3 in the eighth inning of Game 7 of the World Series. Enos "Country" Slaughter is on first base for the Cardinals with two out when Harry Walker bloops an apparent single to left-center field.

Running on a 3-2 count, Slaughter takes off before the ball is hit. He should advance only to second base on the weak hit, but the quick start enables him to turn the corner toward third.

Center fielder Leon Culberson, subbing for the injured Dom DiMaggio, does not have a strong arm, but he gets to the ball and makes the relay to shortstop Johnny Pesky. With his back to the infield, Pesky does not see Slaughter recklessly rounding third and heading home. He wheels around and hesitates - and with that, Slaughter scores the winning run of the 43rd World Series, sliding home well ahead of Pesky's hurried throw to catcher Roy Parmelee. [...]

Said Dom DiMaggio, whose defensive prowess in center field equaled that of big brother Joe: "I was sitting in the dugout after leaving the game, and we tried to get Culberson to move over [toward left] a little more because Walker was a notorious left-field hitter. Leon really did nothing wrong, but if he had been playing over a little more, it might not have gotten to that point. I often wonder, 'If I had been out there, would we have won?'"

William Sulik sent this especially good column about Enos Slaughter. To be a Red Sox is to believe that when the key moment comes we'll always have a Leon Culberson there rather than a Dom DiMaggio. In fact, there's a popular theory in New England this Summer : the possibility of a baseball strike is entirely dependent on the position of the Sox in the standings. If the Sox are out of the playoffs the strike will be avoided. If they get hot and catch the Yankees the strike is a certainty.

---

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON? :

Keep Mr. Smith in Washington (W. James Antle III, August 19, 2002, Enter Stage Right)

Some species eat their young. Do conservatives eat their elders?

The question comes to mind in the race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire. Sen. Bob Smith, a two-term senator with three terms in the House prior to that, is facing a Republican primary challenge from Rep. John Sununu, son of the former governor and chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush. Both men are conservatives, although Sunnunu tends to emphasize economics and Smith tends to emphasize social issues. But Smith has consistently been an outspoken defender of so many conservative causes that it makes you wonder why a conservative challenger is running against him at all, much less one who has been endorsed by National Review.

Smith has been a leader in challenging wasteful government spending. He has fought battles against policies and agreements that compromise U.S. national sovereignty. He is unapologetically pro-life and a tireless defender of the Second Amendment. Smith, a former high school teacher first elected to Congress in 1984, considers himself a political disciple of Ronald Reagan.

Yet many conservatives openly hope for his defeat.

This is a pretty good overview of the odd GOP primary here in NH. But I'd dispute that last notion and add one thing. It's not so much a matter of conservatives hoping that Bob Smith loses--he actually, despite his brief flirtation with a third party, remains personally popular. But Mr. Antle is right when he later says that there's a feeling that Mr. Sununu will have an easier time beating Jeanne Shaheen in the general. If Mr. Smith loses that will likely be the chief reason, rather than any dissatisfaction with his political stances.

---

THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE SAUDS :

This weekend we offered a couple of doubts about H.D. Miller's recent assertion that the Sauds' reign in Arabia is more stable than it appears from here. He has now been gracious enough, despite being in the middle of moving, to respond.

---

Here's a link to the shark photo, for those being brought here by Google searches :

BRUCE BITES BIRD BOGUS :
Shark "Photo of the Year" Is E-Mail Hoax (Stentor Danielson, August 15, 2002, National Geographic News)

A photograph that has been circulating on the internet showing a shark leaping out of the water to attack a helicopter, is a fake. The composite image, which claims to be National Geographic's "Photo of the Year," was spliced together from a U.S. Air Force photo taken near San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge and a photo of a shark from South Africa.

Still a cool photo (they've got it posted if you follow the link above).

---

BLAME AMERICA FIRST :

NEA delivers history lesson (Ellen Sorokin, 8/19/02, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

The National Education Association is suggesting to teachers that they be careful on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks not to "suggest any group is responsible" for the terrorist hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people.

Suggested lesson plans compiled by the NEA recommend that teachers "address the issue of blame factually," noting: "Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise."

But another of the suggested NEA lesson plans — compiled together under the title "Remember September 11" and appearing on the teachers union health information network Web site — takes a decidedly blame-America approach, urging educators to "discuss historical instances of American intolerance," so that the American public avoids "repeating terrible mistakes."

"Internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and the backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf War are obvious examples," the plan says. "Teachers can do lessons in class, but parents can also discuss the consequences of these events and encourage their children to suggest better choices that Americans can make this time."

You know, the Jesuits used to say : Give us the child and we'll give you the man. Why do we continue to turn our children over to public schools whose ideology has gradually become antithetical to Western Civilization?

---

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR :

Democrats Worry About Iraq as Issue : Debate on War Seen as Diversion From Economy (Dan Balz, August 19, 2002, Washington Post)

Iraq is emerging as the wild-card issue of the 2002 election, with Democrats nervously watching a growing debate over whether the United States should launch a war to oust President Saddam Hussein, fearful that it could shift attention away from the economic issues that now dominate their agenda.

History suggests that the issue of possible war with Iraq will have little influence in the outcome of November's midterm elections -- particularly if there is no military action before the election. But in a post-Sept. 11 environment, history may not be a reliable guide. As Democratic pollster Peter Hart puts it, the "push-pull of American politics in 2002 has been between patriotism and pocketbook."

If patriotism is dominant in November, Democrats have reason to worry. With public concern over pocketbook issues rising, Democrats have been optimistic about their chances of gaining House and Senate seats in November. Now they are assessing what impact possible military action -- or even an intensified debate about it -- might have on voters' attitudes. [...]

Democrats face a dilemma on Iraq, arguing that a public debate about whether to go to war is in the national interest while knowing that the issue could work more to the benefit of Republicans. The call for more debate comes mainly from Democratic leaders and those with an eye on running for president in 2004. Rank-and-file candidates appear more interested in keeping voters focused on the economy. [...]

Democrats like the lay of the land they see now, sensing opportunities that did not exist a few months ago. But they know things could change quickly.

"What will make 2002 so interesting," pollster Hart said, "is that it is a year that started out on a very flat plain and then got twisted upside down and came into this period of the summer with a clear dynamic. The question is will we go into the last 100 days with a brand new dynamic -- and that we don't know."

If politics has one rule that's more basic than any other, it's this : don't get your party on the wrong side of an issue that polls 66-33. Any question on which 2/3rds or more of the American people can actually agree on an answer is going to end up resulting in the answer they choose, whether sooner or later. And that's roughly where Americans break down right now on the question of whether war with Iraq is justified. That's despite years having gone by without a provocative action from Saddam and despite our being almost a full year removed from the emotional response to 9-11. Democrats then, whose call for a "debate" is a thinly veiled attack on the idea of the war itself, not only find themselves drawn to the "wrong" side of this issue but have to hope that Saddam and al Qaeda both behave themselves, otherwise that poll differential could hit 80-20 or even higher.

---

GIVE US JAMES M. OR JIM, NOT JAMES :

We received a charming e-mail recently from a fellow who posted a devastating critique of our (my) rather shallow Henry James reviews to the JAMESF-L mailing list. Haunted by guilt, as befits a Jamesian, at the surreptitious nature of his attack, he sent a copy. It reads in part :
A Blog Takes On Henry James (Casey Abell)

[I] happened to have landed on a blog called The Brothers Judd when I followed a link on some political topic. This site offers a rather conventional blog, but it also features something interestingly titled "Book Reviews."

Hm, did HJ [Henry James] land among the reviews? I clicked the Book Reviews link and found The Turn of the Screw among the list of recommended books. The Judd Brothers (who after a very short while seemed to consist only of Orrin Judd) gave the book a B rating on an A to F scale. That's really pretty good by his exacting standards, as I discovered when I clicked on The Turn's link. Seems that Mr. Judd doesn't have much good to say about a whole lot of books. Joyce's Ulysses receives an "F times googolplex" rating, and a lot of other works with imposing reputations get trashed almost as badly.

And it also seems that Mr. Judd isn't bothered by the hobgoblin of little minds. Despite his recommendation of The Turn as "just a good creepy little tale," he also thunders: "This revival of Henry James has to stop. I can not put this any more plainly: his books are not good." HJ's most famous and best-selling book must be a glaring exception to this anathema.

Even within his review of The Wings of the Dove, Mr. Judd can't seem to remember what he wrote a few paragraphs ago. He praises The Wings for "a terrific plot set up," which he describes in enthusiastic detail. But just a couple paragraphs later, he calls the book worthless from page four on. Maybe he thought the entire plot was set up in the first three pages. Maybe he just watched the movie.

Mr. Judd's objection to James looks to be mostly political. His harsh words on the novelist: "What is there that a repressed (or closeted) homosexual,who loathed his own country, has to tell us, that we need to hear?" I thought that the ancient bigotry against James for his expatriation and eventual naturalization in Britain had died off in the 1930s. But some folks cling to old prejudices. As for the homosexuality charge, it continues to amaze me that some people judge authors on what they are supposed to have done (or not done) with their genitalia. Judging writers on what they wrote rather than on who they f***ed (or didn't f***) appears to be a more reasonable approach.

Mr. Judd also refers to James's works as suffering from "twisted emotional dementia." But somehow the author of such demented works receivedseventieth birthday greetings and handsome testimonials (a golden bowl, Sargent's portrait, Derwent Wood's sculpture) from some 270 friends. Maybe they were all demented, too. I wonder how many will celebrate Mr. Judd's seventienth.

It's plain that Mr. Judd has read, at the most, three books by James: The Ambassadors, The Wings of the Dove, and The Turn of the Screw. I doubt that he's even aware of the enormous range of HJ's fiction, criticism, travel writings and social essays, though that doesn't stop him from pronouncing all of HJ's books bad - except for the book Mr. Judd likes, which happens to be the one book most casual readers know Henry James by.

A final thought: Mr. Judd once again demonstrates what an interesting psychological test The Turn is. A glance at his blog shows that Mr. Judd lands far to the right on sociopolitical issues. Sure enough, his interpretation of The Turn follows what I have called Option One: the ghosts are real and are corrupting the "potentially wicked" children. That's exactly the interpretation you would expect from an arch-conservative secure in his ideology. It's the mirror image of Option Five (the governess is evil, the ghosts don't exist, the kids are blameless) which was presented a few years ago in the Henry James Review by a high-school teacher with an ideology as far left as Mr. Judd's is far right.

Sure, it's not a perfect correlation. But a critic's reaction to The Turn often tells us more about the critic than about the story. Edmund Wilson was the most famous example, but countless others have followed.

All of his criticisms seem valid at a glance. I do recommend Turn of the Screw (available on-line here) but have never read anything else by Mr. James that was not excruciating. The experience of reading him is so unpleasant that I've not delved much deeper that his most famous story and a few novels. As I said in my review, Wings of the Dove has the makings of a great noir--James M. Cain, Jim Thompson, or any number of other great American writers would have worked wonders with the set up--but Mr. James squanders it.

---

DING DONG :

Ruthless Palestinian militant reported dead : Abu Nidal dies under ‘mysterious circumstances’ in Baghdad home (MSNBC, August 19, 2002) 

Palestinian guerrilla commander Abu Nidal, one of the world’s most wanted men, has been found dead in his Baghdad home with gunshot wounds, Palestinian sources said on Monday. Over the last three decades Abu Nidal earned a reputation as the most ruthless of all Palestinian guerrilla commanders and his terror group carried out attacks against Western targets as well as moderate Palestinians.

ABU NIDAL, 65, a sworn enemy of Yasser Arafat and any Palestinian leader who sought accommodation with Israel, led a dissident Palestinian militant organization high on Washington’s list of groups considered terrorist.

It was blamed for attacks in 20 countries in which hundreds of people were killed or wounded, mostly during the 1970s and 1980s.

A senior Palestinian official said Abu Nidal had died under “mysterious conditions” and it was unclear whether he was killed or committed suicide.

In a related story, meteorologists reported there was a palpable lessening in the stench of evil that hangs over Baghdad today. The forecast calls for further clearing.

---

FRANKENFISH MUST DIE :

State officials begin to poison snakehead : Three ponds with "alien" fish treated (The Associated Press, August 18, 2002)

Maryland officials took steps Sunday to rid the state of the notorious snakehead fish by choking the Chinese natives with oxygen-killing herbicides.

"This is the beginning of the end for the snakehead fish," said Heather Lynch, Department of Natural Resources spokeswoman. "Time is up."

Why does the confidence with which she says that make one suspect the northern snakehead will become as ubiquitous as sunfish in a few years?

---

PRETZEL ILLOGIC :

Why Isn't Fast Track . . . Faster? (EDMUND L. ANDREWS, August 18, 2002, NY Times)

This month, he won a hard-fought battle when Congress narrowly approved a bill that gives the administration "fast track" authority to forge big agreements to lower trade barriers. The law prohibits Congress from tinkering with the deals - it can only ratify or reject them - and most trade experts say it is essential for establishing American negotiating credibility. [...]

The trouble is, the United States has created more problems by its own recent backsliding. By drastically increasing subsidies, the new farm bill has strengthened protectionist forces in Europe, where subsidies are much higher. [...]

The United States, one of the world's most open economies, generally benefits from an expansion in global trade. [...]

Supporters of the Bush administration, and even some foreign trade diplomats, say the president needed to compromise his free-trade instincts on both farm products and steel to win passage of fast track, known officially as Trade Promotion Authority. No country wants to waste time hammering out an agreement only to be forced to negotiate again with Congress.

"The passage of T.P.A. was essential," said Matthew Baldwin, a senior policy adviser to Pascal Lamy, the European Union's top trade negotiator, referring to fast-track authority.

But many trade experts wonder whether President Bush paid too high a price to pacify protectionists. [...]

Despite the complaints, most countries are desperate to gain greater access to the giant American market. Mr. Bush may have sullied his free-trade credentials when he capitulated to steel producers and farm groups, but many foreign diplomats say they have no choice but to keep seeking the best deal they can get.

As one diplomat in Geneva put it: "We don't like what they did on steel, and we don't like the farm bill, but we just have to deal with it."

Is it possible to contradict the premise of your own article any more frequently and forcefully than that? The story is supposedly about how the compromises the administration in order to get the trade bill through may have crippled the negotiations in advance, but Mr. Andrews then goes on to show that our negotiating partners have higher levels of protection, that the ones Mr. Bush added may have been necessary to get the bill through a reluctant Congress, that the bill was vital, and that we're such a huge market that despite all the grumbling folks have no other option than to go along with us anyway. So what the heck is the point of his story? Shouldn't it instead be a piece about how cannily the administration played the issue? Oh no, wait, it's the New York Times. Never mind.

---

WHEN DOES THE DVD COME OUT? :

REVIEW : of Possession (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times)

[T]he movie is not a serious examination of scholarship or poetry, but a brainy romance. In a world where most movie romances consist of hormonal triggers and plumbing procedures, it's sexy to observe two couples who think and debate their connections, who quote poetry to each other, who consciously try to enhance their relationships by seeking metaphors and symbols they can attach to. Romance defined by the body will decay with the flesh, but romance conceived as a grand idea--ah, now that can still fascinate people a century later.

It's a great book; glad to see they didn't butcher the film.

---

BRIAN, IS THAT REALLY YOU? :

BOOKNOTES : The Poet and the Murderer by Simon Worrall (C-SPAN, August 18, 2002, 8pm & 11pm)
Looks like a change of pace for tonight's show.

---

WEDGE ISSUES :

Saudis Cry Foul over U.S. Sept. 11 Lawsuit (Fahd al-Frayyan, August 18, 2002, Reuters)

Several Saudi banks and Islamic charities named in a lawsuit by families of Sept. 11 victims vehemently denied Sunday any role in funding terrorism and blasted the case as an attempt to extort Saudi wealth abroad.

The suit has sparked rare calls by commentators and newspapers in the kingdom to review traditionally strong Saudi-U.S. ties. Saudi Arabia has yet to comment officially.

Offended that the lawsuit named members of the royal family, including Defense Minister Prince Sultan -- the third highest official in the kingdom -- many Saudis accused Washington of putting pressure on the Gulf Arab state to make it conform with U.S. policies on Iraq and the Middle East.

Once you start digging around in these guys' files you never know what you're going to find and then things may get really ugly. It could be that this lawsuit will be the determining factor in separating U.S. and Saudi interests.

---

REDEEMING NEVILLE :

The elusive case for a US-Iraq war (Helena Cobban, August 15, 2002, CS Monitor)

For any US President, the initiation of war against another country is momentous. If the aim of such a campaign is, as President Bush states on Iraq, the revolutionary goal of bringing about "regime change," then the stakes are even higher. Before he launches this campaign, Mr. Bush must seek the formal backing of Congress. And he must spell out clearly not just his goals in Iraq, but also his precise casus belli, or his reasons for voluntarily taking the country - and the world - into this war.

President Saddam Hussein's record as a repressive, totalitarian ruler is unquestioned. But it does not provide a valid reason to wage war against him and Iraq.

Why isn't that a valid reason? Obviously we aren't required to go to war against every repressive totalitarian, but given our 20th Century experience with totalitarians, why isn't the fact that they oppress and murder their own people, and more often than not become a threat to their neighbors, sufficient? Why do we hold up the appeasement of Hitler at Munich as one of the tragic errors in human history if we don't believe we have a right to do anything about such men until they attack us?

---

SAYANORA :

The Last Words (Christopher Orlet, March 2002, Vocabula)

With few exceptions, the last words of history's great players have been about as interesting and uplifting as a phone book. We may expect pearls of profundity and motivational aphorism from our expiring artists, philosophers, and world leaders, but more often we are left with dry-as-dust clichés. But is it fair to expect deep insights into life's mysteries when the dying clearly have other things on their mind - hell, for instance, or unspeakable pain? [...]

Ironically, it may have been a few forgotten scribblers who delivered history's best exit lines. Has anyone departed the scene better than minor English playwright Henry Arthur Jones, who, asked whom he would prefer to sit with him during the evening, his nurse or his niece, replied, "The prettier. Now fight for it." Or actor Edmund Gwenn's terse "Dying is easy. Comedy is difficult." And you have to admire the single-mindedness of purpose in the last words of French grammarian Dominique Bouhours: "I am about to - or I am going to - die; either expression is used."

Here's a site with a bunch more : Last Words

---

A SECOND ACT? :

The Secret History: Whatever happened to Donna Tartt? (Boyd Tonkin, 21 May 2002, The Independent)

Beyond any doubt, the [new] book will surprise readers who expect more of the Tartt recipe as before. She has disclosed that "when I was writing this book I was thinking very much about Stevenson, whom I love, very much about Treasure Island and the pirates". She has called it "a book about children - but not for children. It's a... scary book about children coming contact with the world of adults, in a very frightening way." The ride will be scary, perhaps, for Bloomsbury's shareholders as well.

At least Tartt has made it to this second hurdle. The story of modern American literature is littered with promising names who fell after the first. In 1952, Ralph Ellison shocked white society with his exposure of the black plight in Invisible Man, only to slide into a bruising life-long tussle with the sequel, left uncompleted at his death in 1994. No book in publishing history has ever sold faster than Gone With The Wind, which Margaret Mitchell followed up with... precisely nothing. In 1960, Nelle Harper Lee from Alabama produced one of the 20th century's best-beloved novels, To Kill a Mockingbird. Then she settled back into small-town seclusion, writing nothing more (unless, that is, you're prepared to credit the fascinating notion that she had a hand in the true-crime classic In Cold Blood by her childhood playmate, Truman Capote).

It could be something in the humid Southern air that mocks the Yankee urge to endless productivity.

The prospect of Stevenson filtered through The Secret History raises expectations even higher than they would normally be for a novel that's taken ten years. Let's hope she can pull it off.

---

FIRST, DO NO HARM :

Aloofness Puts Bush on Right Side of History (James P. Pinkerton, August 15 2002, LA Times)

What did you think of President Bush's Waco economic forum? The media didn't think much of it. All day Tuesday, CNBC anchors could barely report on
the event without smirking. Just hours after it ended, Slate.com's headline gibed, "Fake Forum." The next day, the Washington Post's "analysis" was headlined this way: "A Sunny Thing Happened at the Bush Forum / Tough Economic Issues Get Little Attention."

The overall gist of the reportage is that Bush is so detached from ordinary Americans that his reelection-minded advisors felt they needed to stage a show to fool people into thinking he really does care.

But maybe detachment is not so bad. Maybe it's what we need.

History proves that leaders who kept their eyes on the fundamentals of economic growth did a lot better than those who tried to micromanage every problem. [...]

The success of the economy depends on the noninterference of politicians. That was the great insight of 18th century French economists, who saw that kings and queens weren't helping by meddling.

So they came up with the economic equivalent of sang-froid, which is laissez faire, or "let people do as they choose." And two centuries of economic history proves that the cool detachment of the state--leaving people the space to figure things out for themselves--is superior to warm-and-fuzzy intervening.

Well, one pundit got it.

---

THE FERTILE SOIL :

The poisonous Protocols : Umberto Eco on the distinction between intellectual anti-semitism and its popular counterpart (The Guardian, August 17, 2002)

Intellectual anti-semitism as we now know it originates from the modern world. In 1797, Abbé Barruel wrote his Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du jacobinisme to show that the French revolution was a plot of the Knights Templar and the freemasons. Later it was an Italian, Captain Simonini, who suggested to him that it was above all the perfidious Jews who were acting behind the scenes. It was only after this point that the argument surrounding international Jewry began, and the Jesuits seized on it as an argument against the sects of the Carbonari. The controversy raged throughout Europe, but found its most fertile soil in France, where Jewish finance was now identified as an enemy to defeat. The controversy was certainly fuelled by Catholic legitimism, but it was in secular, political circles that the ill-famed Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion slowly took shape. These were then published in Russian Tsarist circles and were finally used by Hitler.

The Protocols were a rehash of serialised fictional material, and prove their own unreliability, since it is hardly credible that "the baddies" would reveal their fell purposes so blatantly. The Elders even declare that they intend to encourage sport and visual communication to dupe the working class (a passage more reminiscent of Berlusconism than Judaism). Nevertheless, though rough and ready, this was intellectual anti-semitism.

It is when, as now, intellectual and popular anti-Semitism coincide that they become truly dangerous.

---

DOING YOUR ENEMIES' BIDDING :

If We Must Fight . . . (Zbigniew Brzezinski, August 18, 2002, washingtonpost.com )

There is a right and a wrong way for America to wage war. Obviously, if it is attacked, America must respond with all its might. The same is true if an ally is
attacked. But the issue becomes much more complex if a threat, but not an attack, is involved. America must then consider carefully the consequences of its actions, both for itself as the world's preeminent power and for the longer-term evolution of the international system as a whole.

The United States may have to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq because the potential nexus between conspiratorial terrorism and the weapons of mass destruction that Hussein is said to be producing cannot be blithely ignored. But war is too serious a business and too unpredictable in its dynamic consequences -- especially in a highly flammable region -- to be undertaken because of a personal peeve, demagogically articulated fears or vague factual assertions. [...]

Ultimately what is at stake is something far greater than Iraq: It is the character of the international system and the role in it of what is, by far, the most powerful state. Neither the White House nor the American people should ignore the fact that America's enemies will, whatever happens, do everything possible to present the United States as a global gangster. Yet without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy. America must thus walk a fine line in determining when, in what circumstances and how it acts as such in initiating the use of force.

If we're going to be portrayed as a "global gangster" regardless of what we do, then why not follow the most efficient course of action, rather than trying to appease our enemies? And if Saddam is continuing his drive to produce weapons of mass-destruction then what can this phrase mean "what is at stake is something far greater than Iraq: It is the character of the international system"? How many Israelis would have to die in an Iraqi attack before Iraq became more important than the "character" of the "international system"? Maybe most importantly, if the "character" of that system is such that we leave a Saddam in place when we have justification and means to dispose of him, then is it a character we should seek to preserve?

---

ARMEY MAKES THE MAJORS :

Armey May Be Leaving, but Isn't Going Quietly (ADAM CLYMER, August 18, 2002, NY Times)

The Bush White House does not appear seriously bothered by Mr. Armey's recent comments. After all, they hardly compare to what he said when the president's father decided to back tax increases in 1990: "I think the president's been victimized by bad advice from the people that work for him, and, frankly, I'm disappointed that he doesn't understand that the better alternative for the American people is to have fiscal responsibility and disciplined spending patterns in Washington."

They certainly do not compare to his answer when asked if he would have resigned if he had been caught in an affair with an intern, as Mr. Clinton was. He said resignation would not have come up because "my wife would have been standing over my dead body and she would have been saying, `How do I reload this sucker?'

People often wonder why Republicans "moderate" even their most closely held beliefs once they get to Washington, a phenomenon that conservatives refer to as "catching Potomac Fever". Here's a pretty good example of why going wobbly is so attractive. In the 18 years he's been in the House the NY Times probably hasn't printed two favorable sentences about Dick Armey. But all he had to do was wonder aloud about the need to attack Saddam Hussein and suddenly he gets a puff piece like this from no less a source than Adam Clymer himself.

---

CHANGE IS BAD :

Harwell's Small Talk Will Be Sorely Missed (William Gildea, August 18, 2002, The Washington Post)

Ernie Harwell is an American treasure. He is an inventor (a bottle-can opener, a World Series "fact wheel"). He's an actor, having appeared in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Paper Lion." He was a Marine in World War II. As a boy, he delivered newspapers on a route that included the home of Margaret Mitchell, who wrote "Gone with the Wind." He shot a hole-in-one, he had a racehorse named after him, he sang a duet with Pearl Bailey. He was baptized in the Jordan River. All of that is in his
1985 autobiography "Tuned to Baseball," an out-of-print gem. But he didn't tell us those parts. They were included in a delightful foreword written by his wife, Lulu. Ernie and Lulu have been married 61 years, and he believes they're going the distance. "She's getting used to me," he said.

From at least NJ to IL you can tune in Tigers games at night, and whether in the car or in your bedroom with a radio clandestinely hid beneath the covers, you can hear Ernie Harwell. Or at least you can for a few more months. Then Mr. Harwell too will be gone.

---

CAN WE AFFORD ANY MORE "TRIUMPHS"?

But What's The Legal Case For Preemption? (Bruce Ackerman, August 18, 2002, washingtonpost.com)

Among other things, the first Gulf War was a triumph for the rule of law. Before the United States fired a single shot, the president had gained the formal
approval of both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. Congress. In waging war against Saddam Hussein, he was not invoking some novel presidential doctrine. He was enforcing the U.N. Charter's explicit prohibition against any state using force to cross another's border. In intervening to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, he was upholding a central tenet of modern international law.

The first President Bush has often been derided for lack of vision, but these actions created a precedent that gave legal substance to his "new world order." In the aftermath of the Cold War, Bush was establishing the principle that America could deal with threats to world peace without recourse to an imperial presidency. He was inaugurating a new era in which major wars were not to be launched by presidential fiat, but only after the considered approval of representatives of the nation and the world.

The second President Bush has surrounded himself with advisers who condemn this vision as a harmful delusion. It is not enough for them to correct his father's mistake in failing to march on Baghdad; it is no less important to destroy the checks and balances his father constructed on the road to war. In the face of the father's multilateralism, the son is constructing a double unilateralism -- freed from the restraints of the Security Council abroad and Congress at home, the imperial presidency claims the authority to strike preemptively at any danger.

Suppose for a moment that the U.S. had imposed no-fly zones over Nazi Germany in Spring 1945 and enforced them for over ten years but hitler remained in power in August of 1956. Would we consider this a "triumph"? Or perhaps Hitler is too inflammatory a figure, and Nazi Germany too extreme. Suppose that instead of nuking Japan we'd just imposed a blockade on the home islands and in 1956 still found ourselves with a fascist government in control. Would this be a "triumph"? These examples may seem far-fetched, but suppose we'd had to go to some international governing body to get permission to invade the German homeland or to bomb Japan, would the Soviets have granted such permission?

---

BLACKLISTING AND BERTIE, NUKE & LOUISE :

Writer blacklisted for wartime blunder : Wilson insisted on burying the hatchet and knighting PG Wodehouse shortly before his death (John Ezard, August 16, 2002, The Guardian)

The humorous writer PG Wodehouse finally got a knighthood only a few weeks before his death at the personal insistence of the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, it emerged yesterday.

Wilson disregarded the disapproval not only of his own honours committee but of his foreign secretary, James Callaghan, files released yesterday by the public record office show.

They disclose that a similar history of enduring hostility over Wodehouse's radio broadcasts as a prisoner in Nazi Germany destroyed earlier moves in 1967 and 1971 to honour him as one of the greatest humorous writers of the century.

Unlike the cases of Ezra Pound or Jane Fonda, the indiscretion of P. G. Wodehouse has always seemed sad and even somewhat silly rather than sinister. Here's how George Orwell characterized the unfortunate affair in his essay : In Defence Of P. G. Wodehouse (George Orwell, 1945)

WHEN the Germans made their rapid advance through Belgium in the early summer of 1940, they captured, among other things, Mr. P. G. Wodehouse, who had been living throughout the early part of the war in his villa at Le Touquet, and seems not to have realised until the last moment that he was in any danger. As he was led away into captivity, he is said to have remarked, "Perhaps after this I shall write a serious book." He was placed for the time being under house arrest, and from his subsequent statements it appears that he was treated in a fairly friendly way, German officers in the neighbourhood frequently "dropping in for a bath or a party."

Over a year later, on 25th June 1941, the news came that Wodehouse had been released from internment and was living at the Adlon Hotel in Berlin. On the following day the public was astonished to learn that he had agreed to do some broadcasts of a "non-political" nature over the German radio. The full texts of these broadcasts are not easy to obtain at this date, but Wodehouse seems to have done five of them between 26th June and 2nd July, when the Germans took him off the air again. The first broadcast, on 26th June, was not made on the Nazi radio but took the form of an interview with Harry Flannery, the representative of the Columbia Broadcasting System, which still had its correspondents in Berlin. Wodehouse also published in the Saturday Evening Post an article which he had written while still in the internment camp.

The article and the broadcasts dealt mainly with Wodehouse's experiences in internment, but they did include a very few comments on the war. The following are fair samples:

* "I never was interested in politics. I'm quite unable to work up any kind of belligerent feeling. Just as I'm about to feel belligerent about some country I meet a decent sort of chap. We go out together and lose any fighting thoughts or feelings."

* "A short time ago they had a look at me on parade and got the right idea; at least they sent us to the local lunatic asylum. And I have been there forty-two weeks. There is a good deal to be said for internment. It keeps you out of the saloon and helps you to keep up with your reading. The chief trouble is that it means you are away from home for a long time. When I join my wife I had better take along a letter of introduction to be on the safe side."

* "In the days before the war I had always been modestly proud of being an Englishman, but now that I have been some months resident in this bin or repository of Englishmen I am not so sure. ... The only concession I want from Germany is that she gives me a loaf of bread, tells the gentlemen with muskets at the main gate to look the other way, and leaves the rest to me. In return I am prepared to hand over India, an autographed set of my books, and to reveal the secret process of cooking sliced potatoes on a radiator. This offer holds good till Wednesday week."

The first extract quoted above caused great offence. Wodehouse was also censured for using (in the interview with Flannery) the phrase "whether Britain wins the war or not," and he did not make things better by describing in another broadcast the filthy habits of some Belgian prisoners among whom he was interned. The Germans recorded this broadcast and repeated it a number of times. They seem to have supervised his talks very lightly, and they allowed him not only to be funny about the discomforts of internment but to remark that "the internees at Trost camp all fervently believe that Britain will eventually win." The general upshot of the talks, however, was that he had not been ill treated and bore no malice. [...]

There is an old saying that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick, and the mud has stuck to Wodehouse in a rather peculiar way. An impression has been left behind that Wodehouse's talks (not that anyone remembers what he said in them) showed him up not merely as a traitor but as an ideological sympathiser with Fascism. Even at the time several letters to the press claimed that "Fascist tendencies" could be detected in his books, and the charge has been repeated since. I shall try to analyse the mental atmosphere of those books in a moment, but it is important to realise that the events of 1941 do not convict Wodehouse of anything worse than stupidity. The really interesting question is how and why he could be so stupid.

It may be appropriate never to forgive a traitor, but as human beings we have to allow people to be merely stupid, so long as their intent is not evil.

---

FOG OF FRIEDMAN :

Fog of War (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, August 18, 2002, NY Times)

It's the first rule of warfare: never launch a war that you can't explain to your people and the world on a
bumper sticker. If it requires an explanation from a Middle East expert on CNN, you're on the wrong track. The Palestinians could never explain why they were killing Jews to end an occupation that the U.S. and Israel were offering to end through diplomacy. There is only one bumper-sticker phrase that can explain such behavior: "Death to Israel." And if that is their real strategy, then a war to the death it will be. If it's not, then what have they been up to?

Attention President Bush: What is your bumper sticker for justifying war with Iraq? I've heard a lot of different ones lately: We need to pre-emptively attack before Saddam deploys weapons of mass destruction. We need to change the Iraqi regime to give birth to democracy in Iraq and the wider Arab world. We need to eliminate Saddam because he is evil and may have been behind 9/11. We need to punish Saddam for not living up to the U.N. inspection resolutions.

All of these are legitimate rationales, but each would require a different U.S. military and diplomatic strategy. If the Bush team is serious about Iraq, it needs to zero in on one clear objective, produce a tightly focused war plan around it and then sell it - with a simple bumper sticker - to America and the world. If the Bush administration's different factions - which are as divided as the Palestinians' - can't do that in advance, they shouldn't move.

When you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there - just ask the Palestinians. But when you're talking about an unprovoked war to dismantle a government half a world away, any road just won't do. You need a clearly focused end, means and rationale.

Because we certainly don't want to pick up a newspaper two years from now and read that there was just a heated meeting of Bush advisers about what the war in Iraq was supposed to be about.

Okay...it's a tad disturbing that it's taken multiple Pulitzer winning, Middle East expert, columnist to the cognoscenti, Tom Friedman this long to figure out that the point of the Second Intifada is that the Palestinians don't just want their own state they want Israel. But surely he can fgure out the bumper sticker for the Second Gulf War just by reading his own column. If not, let's help him : Death to Saddam.

---

ART MADE EASY :

St John the Baptist, Caravaggio (1602) (Jonathan Jones, August 17, 2002, The Guardian)

Distinguishing features: The body of Saint John slices through the surface of this painting. Flashes of brightly lit flesh - on his neck, shoulder and legs - seem to shear through the dark canvas.

It is a painting torn apart by light and sexuality. Something is very wrong. And something is wrong, too, with art historians' desire to see Caravaggio as a conservatively Catholic painter who used realism to intensify an orthodox message. He is nothing of the kind here. This painting is heterodox - perhaps not theologically, but aesthetically: its effect is not pious. Even at the level of iconography, something is askew: why does this Saint John hug a horned ram when his symbol is supposed to be the lamb? Horny beasts are figures of lust.

Stranger still is the way the boy looks directly at us, with a saucy grin on his flushed face. It is a breach of all decorum, setting up a destructive tension. He seems to laugh at his own pretence, as he curves his body to mimic one of Michelangelo's male nudes. The crumpled sheet and blanket suggest a bed in the artist's studio, not the wilderness implied by an afterthought of vegetation in the foreground.

Sensuality and religiosity are the two poles of Renaissance art. By putting them together, Caravaggio disturbs and reinvents the idea of painting itself; he discovers in painting a violent, untamed authority.

There's a neat feature at the Guardian that I'd not noticed before. Each week Jonathan Jones has a brief essay about a Portrait of the week, with a little bit about the artist, the work, and the influences that produced it. Each links to a an online version of the work in question. here's where you can find the Caravaggio.

---

CRAVEN REVIEW :

Finnegans Wake by James Joyce - in lieu of review (The Guardian, May 12 1939)

Mr Joyce's Finnegans Wake, parts of which have been published as "Work in Progress", does not admit of review. In 20 years' time, with sufficient study and with the aid of the commentary that will doubtless arise, one might be ready for an attempt to appraise it. [...]

One might imagine that Mr Joyce had used his great powers deliberately to show the language of a schizophrenic mind. He alone could explain his book and, I suppose, he alone review it.

What a cop out! That's the review of someone who hated the book, as any honest reader must, but is afraid that their peers will praise and he'll be embarrassed. How hard would it have been to just admit the book's unreadable?

---

MAUREEN BECOMES ELECTRA :

Junior Gets a Spanking (Maureen Dowd, 8/18/02, NY Times)

Oedipus, Shmoedipus.

Why cite a Greek hero when we can cite the president's favorite British hero?

In "Goldmember," Austin Powers has "Earn Daddy's Respect" on his To Do list. So the teary but still groovy spy confronts his prodigal father, played by Michael Caine.

"Got an issue?" Daddy breezily responds. "Here's a tissue."

Tissue issues between the two Bush presidents spilled into public view on Thursday when that most faithful family retainer, Brent Scowcroft, wrote a jaw-dropping op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal headlined "Don't Attack Saddam."

Mr. Scowcroft gave the back of his hand to conservatives' strenuous attempts to link Saddam to 9/11.

Bellicose Bushies have yet to offer a sustained and persuasive rationale for jumping Saddam, beyond yammering about how "evil" he is, as if he had a monopoly on that.

First of all, let me just say this again--following upon her series of essays on what good shape George W. Bush is in physically--how "buff" he is--Ms Dowd, who characterizes herself as sitting around gorging on junk food and watching George W. workout videos when she writes about the man, here offers an essay in which she imagines him being spanked. It's getting to the point where the psycho-sexual drama that throbs through her head is consuming more and more of Ms Dowd's column inches and makes one wonder if her musings might be better suited to the Village Voice than to the Gray Lady.

---

BUT THEY ACTUALLY SLEPT :

Overnight guests at the Bush White House (CNN, August
17, 2002)

Anne Armstrong, former ambassador to Britain, and Tobin Armstrong
Andi Bernstein
Tom Bernstein and wife and Henry, Samuel and Lee Bernstein and Amy Plummer
Roland Betts and wife and Jessica and Margaret Betts
Heather Marcus Bein
Texas state Sen. Teel Bivins
Will Bivins
Ken Blasingame
Susan Block
Mary Brice
Barbara Brock
Jan Bullock
The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell and wife
Alice Carrington
Dianne Cash
Jane Clarke (spelling uncertain)
Trillon Clarke
Kate Clark
Ben Crenshaw and wife
Lee Cullum
Tiffany Gauthier Divis and Paul Divis
Anne DeBois
Michigan Gov. John Engler and Michelle Engler
Don Etra and wife and Harry, Dorothy, Anna and Jonathan Etra
Former Texas state Sen. Ray Farabee and wife
Suzy Fields
Chandler Ford
Carolyn Franklin
Debbie Francis
Brad Freeman
Kinky Friedman
Billy Gammon and wife
Regan Gammon
Tony Garza
Larry Gatlin and wife
Adelaida Gonzalez
Albert Hausser and wife
Janet Heyne
Arizona Gov. Jane Hull
Katherine Idsal
Sydney Kilgore
Texas House Speaker Pete Laney and Nelda Laney
Sara Lea
Richard and Jane Levin
June McGuire
Karen McClure
Mark McKinnon and wife and family
Richard Manoogian and wife
Muggsie Mallory
Donald Margo and wife
Susan Montgomery
Johnny Morris
Lynn Munn
Tom Zenner and wife
Jennifer Myers
Janet Neath
Bill Nelson and wife
Charlie and Keith Nelson
Joe O'Donnell
Joe O'Neill and wife
Deanna Ortiz
Betty Osborne
New York Gov. George Pataki and Libby Pataki
Marge Petty
James Powell
Tom Perini and wife
Ashley Rankin
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge and Michele Ridge and family
Susan Ritchey
Tamara Rogers
Deedie Rose
Gov. John Rowland and Patricia Rowland
Penny Royall
Scott Sayers and wife
Tom Schieffer, ambassador to the Czech Republic, and Susanne Schieffer
Jan Schneider
Cathy Schoellkopf
Mary Gay Shipley
Texas state Sen. David Sibley and wife
Eric Steinfeldt and wife
Salle Stemmons
Emily Summers
Ohio Gov. Bob Taft and Hope Taft
Kimberly Teague
Margot Thomas
Clara Walmsley
Mike Weiss and wife
Peggy Weiss
Pam Willeford
Jean Works
Dr. Charlie Younger and wife

The first thing that jumps out at you about this list is that, unlike FDR and Eleanor, JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton, it seems unlikely that George or Laura Bush made the "beast with two backs" with any of the guests.

---

BRUCE BITES BIRD BOGUS :

Shark "Photo of the Year" Is E-Mail Hoax (Stentor Danielson, August 15, 2002, National Geographic News)

A photograph that has been circulating on the internet showing a shark leaping out of the water to attack a helicopter, is a fake. The composite image, which claims to be National Geographic's "Photo of the Year," was spliced together from a U.S. Air Force photo taken near San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge and a photo of a shark from South Africa.

Still a cool photo (they've got it posted if you follow the link above).

---

GOTTA LEARN TO WALK (AGAIN) BEFORE YOU CAN RUN (AGAIN) :

Suddenly Tories are asking: who is John Galt? The answer is: bad news (Michael Harrington, The Spectator)

According to the Daily Telegraph, a number of Conservative MPs and candidates are seriously planning to establish a breakaway right-wing party influenced by the ideas of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, first published in 1957. Rand is one of those strange but intriguing figures who used to hang around in the intellectual underworld of the 20th century and never entirely went away. She is still a hero on the libertarian Right in the United States, but it is rare to hear her name in English Conservative circles.

It's encouraging to see any sign of life in Britain's otherwise moribund Tory Party, even if it's just an enthusiasm for Randian libertarianism. But they might be better advised to return to Burkean first principles and try to restore the moral fiber of the nation, before bestowing freedom upon an atomized and demoralized people.

---

UNFATHOMABLE :

In the Footsteps of Heyerdahl (Richard Poe, August 16, 2002)

WHEN THOR HEYERDAHL died in April, the mass media fell oddly mute. Some readers told me that they learned of the great Norwegian explorer's death only a week later, by reading my eulogy on the Internet.

Such apathy seems hard to fathom. Every schoolboy once read Kon-Tiki and dreamed of conquering the waves as Heyerdahl had done. Perhaps, imbued with the modern philosophy of "safety first," today's journalists no longer wish to encourage such dreams.

Media apathy has likewise greeted Dominique Goerlitz - Heyerdahl's apprentice and heir apparent.

On July 20, this 35-year-old German schoolteacher landed in Alexandria, Egypt, after sailing 1,164 nautical miles in two and a half months, on an ancient Egyptian-style reed boat.

One of the first grown-up books that I ever read, when I was eleven, was Thor Heyerdahl's Ra Expedition. There was a terrific movie about the Ra, which probably is what got me interested in the story, of just such a papyrus reed boat that Heyerdahl and crew sailed across the Atlantic to show that Egyptians could have reached the Americas. Then I read the copy of Kon-Tiki that my Dad had and which, serendipitously, he would have read right around when he was eleven also. Do boys not read these books anymore? What a shame.

---

NOISY SUMMER :

DDT for West Nile? (Steven Milloy, 8/16/2002, Washington Times)

West Nile virus has killed seven people in Louisiana this year, two in Mississippi and at least 145 people in six states have been infected. A 12-year old Wisconsin boy died last week of mosquito-borne encephalitis.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says West Nile virus is in the U.S. to stay. The virus may now be found in 37 states, including every state from Texas to the Atlantic.

CDC Director Julie Geberding called West Nile virus an "emerging, infectious disease epidemic" that could be spread all the way to the Pacific Coast by birds and mosquitoes.

Louisiana has been monitoring the virus since 2000 and has one of the most active mosquito-control programs in the country - and yet is the state with the highest death toll.

It's time to bring back the insecticide DDT.

Thanks, Ms Carson.

---

CREEPING SCOWCROFTISM :

Why I oppose an attack on Iraq (Gerald Kaufman, The Spectator)

It was Cato the Elder who uttered the anathema, "Delenda est Carthago" - Carthage must be destroyed. While I do not advocate that Baghdad literally must be destroyed, I have for years believed that Saddam Hussein is one of the most dangerous men in the world. He launched a war against Iran which left millions dead. He annexed Kuwait, killing, raping, looting. He launched lethal Scud-missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and Israel. He has murdered and tortured countless Iraqi citizens, using chemical weapons to do so. He is intent on developing weapons of mass destruction; indeed, if the Israelis had not destroyed his Osirac nuclear reactor, he might well by now have nuclear capacity. He has violated a score of United Nations Security Council resolutions. If anyone on this planet can be categorised as a menace to world peace and equilibrium, it is Saddam Hussein.

When I was shadow foreign secretary I supported first the Security Council-authorised sanctions, and then the air and ground war against Saddam that brought about the liberation of Kuwait. I led (most of) the parliamentary Labour party into the Commons division lobby in support of these actions. In the 1997-2001 Parliament, as a government backbencher, I supported this country's participation in the air war against Iraq following Saddam's expulsion of United Nations weapons inspectors. I think it would be a blessing for the world if Saddam were removed from office and replaced by a regime that rejoined the world community. I have over a dozen years rejected the arguments - if they can be dignified by such an epithet - of those such as Tam Dalyell who have opposed military action against Iraq (as well as military action to liberate the Falkland Islands, military action in Kosovo and military action to remove the Taleban and root out al-Qa?eda in Afghanistan).

So, presumably, to be consistent, I should be at the forefront of those urging President Bush to attack Iraq as soon as possible, and should be pressing Tony Blair, of whom I am an ardent supporter, to line up with Bush in any military action he may take. I am afraid it is not as simple as that.

There are perfectly reasonable arguments available for not going to war with Saddam. Among them are that he's not a genuine threat anymore or that we can get rid of him without having to invade, etc... But there's something almost deranged about the formulation "I think it would be a blessing for the world if Saddam were removed from office", but "I oppose an attack on Iraq". Try shortening it--"I oppose a blessing for the world"--and explain how it makes any sense.

---

HEY, RIDLEY, YOU GOT ANY BEEMAN'S? :

Air-breathing jet flies at 5,000mph (Roger Highfield, 17/08/2002, Daily Telegraph)

Aviation has entered the era of the hypersonic jet after an air-breathing engine exceeded 5,000mph.

The "hypersonic ignition" by the scramjet is one of the most important milestones in aviation since the sound barrier was broken in 1947. The technology could slash the cost of launching satellites, which rely on huge supplies of oxygen on board.

It also raises the possibility that, one day, passenger aircraft could fly from London to Sydney in a few hours.

The first detailed analysis of data from the launch last month in Australia shows that the scramjet, which has no moving parts, had reached 7.6 times the speed of sound (Mach 7.6). Hypersonic travel starts at Mach 5.

Yeah, but did the pilot have any busted ribs?

MORE :
*NASA "Hyper-X" Program Demonstrates Scramjet Technologies

---

LEATHERFACE, COME HOME! :

'Texas chainsaw' murder suspect to be extradited (Times of London, August 16, 2002)

District Judge Timothy Workman, sitting at Bow Street Magistrates Court in Central London, agreed to a request by the US Government that Dr Robert Kleasen, 69, should be sent back to Texas for a retrial for the murders of Gary Darley and Mark Fischer. [...]

Kleasen was found guilty of murdering Mr Fisher and spent two and a half years on death row in Texas before his conviction was quashed. He was originally acquitted on appeal in 1977 because of an illegal search warrant. [...]

Kleasen is thought to be the inspiration behind the horror film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The day after the two victims went missing, a band saw in a taxidermist¹s shop, to which Kleasen had access, was found to contain human tissue and hair on its blade.

Even the basic story may not be as bizarre as this sidebar : Profile: Robert Kleasen (Times of London, August 16 2002)

In the early 1970s he was expelled from the Mormons for battering a young Mormon woman in Denmark and from Lebanon after attempting to enlist in the Palestine Liberation Army.

Imagine that; there was a time when it may have been possible to be too nutty to be a Palestinian terrorist.

---

DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES! :

Germany's blueprint for labour reform (BBC, 16 August, 2002)

Unemployment and the economy are the key battlegrounds of Germany's election, and a commission of experts has fuelled the debate by presenting its blueprint for creating more jobs.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has already promised to back the proposals, which he hopes will give him an advantage in next month's election, but it is unclear when they might become law. [...]

Some of the report's more radical suggestions - including plans to cut unemployment benefit - have been watered down following union opposition. [...]

Under the current benefits system, unemployed people can receive 67% of their former salary for up to 32 months and then 57% of their salary for an unlimited period.

That is just freakin' absurd. Why would you do your job if you can get 2/3rds of your salary for not doing it?.

---

HOUSE OF THE SETTING SAUDS :

Why the Sauds Will Stay, Part Two (H. D. Miller, August 14, 2002, Travelling Shoes)

[N]o matter how angry the American street, no matter how bad the demographics, no matter how bad the deficits, or the per capita income, or the ridiculous, gold-plated lifestyles of the princes, the House of Saud will maintain control as long as the American government supports them. And the Americans aren't leaving the Sauds to fend for themselves anytime soon. So get that idea out of your head. [...]

Most of the regular reasons cited [for "why the Americans aren't leaving the Sauds to fend for themselves."] have at least some measure of truth: Oil is important. The personal relationship between the Bushes and the Sauds carries some weight. The Arabists in the State Department have a voice. The military is used to working with the Sauds. All of this things matter to some extent

But the most important reason why the Sauds aren't leaving, is that the U.S. government, at all levels and all branches, hates, hates, hates uncertainty.

Now, far be it from me to argue with Mr. Miller. He actually knows whereof he speaks while I'm merely overly read. And casual reading is no substitute for genuine knowledge. But I couldn't help noticing three stories over the past few days that, in addition to problems that Mr. Miller has already addressed, seem to lay out a potential road map for how we'd get to the point where the U.S. government would disfavor Saud stability :
Difficult times for Saudi Arabia : Saudi Arabia's oil revenues are shrinking (Frank Gardner, 11 August, 2002, BBC)

The country's biggest problem is the economy - there simply are not enough jobs to go around.

A huge portion of the national budget is swallowed up by civil service salaries, often for people who put in two hours work a day in token jobs that contribute little to the economy.

Meanwhile, oil revenues are shrinking in real terms, while the population is growing at nearly 4% a year.

Saudis 'should reconsider US ties' (BBC, 16 August, 2002)

A Saudi newspaper close to the government has called for a review of the kingdom's long-standing and close relationship with the United States.

9/11 families sue Saudi princes, firms (MSNBC NEWS SERVICES, 8/16/02)

Relatives of some of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack filed a $100 trillion class-action lawsuit Thursday against Saudi officials and institutions, charging that they financed Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

THE SUIT, modeled after action filed against Libya in the Pan Am Flight 103 disaster, seeks to cripple banks, charities and some members of the Saudi royal family, as well as gain vengeance for the families of those who perished, the plaintiffs said.

So, if we add together all of the various problems confronting the Sauds, here's what we get :

(1) Succession problems--elderly and ill rulers and a plethora of ambitious princes has been a recipe for unrest since the first king took his throne.

(2) Political differences among the princes : there seem to be two (at least two) broad factions within the Saud family, one that's pro-Western, the other more closely aligned with radical Islam.

(3) The decline of oil : whether quickly or gradually, oil is destined to decline in importance and therefore in value. Vast reserves of oil in Russia and Central Asia and new technologies and fuel standards in the developed world are going to inevitably hammer the Sauds, who depend on oil revenue to fund their kingdom and make it palatable to the people of Arabia.

(4) Privatization of American foreign policy : between the rising chorus of anti-Saud rhetoric in the American media and the massive lawsuit filed by 9-11 families, private citizens are poised to become such an irritant to Saudi/American relations that the official views of our State Department just won't matter much anymore. It's easy to dismiss the potential effects of this lawsuit, but the information that could be brought forward, as we saw in things like the Libya suit, the tobacco suits, and the MicroSoft trial, might be enormously embarrassing. In addition, it could become impossible for Saudi princes and government officials to travel in the West for fear of being hauled into U.S. courts to answer subpoenas.

(5) Regional instability : It certainly seems like Arab leaders have made an implicit promise to their people, one that it has been possible to believe in since the Oslo Accords, that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be settled fairly soon and in Palestine's favor. This promise seems increasingly dubious. Not only that but Israel seems to have become more radicalized over the past year or so and more willing to use force against its enemies. This is on display now in Palestine but could soon be evident in Lebanon, Iraq, perhaps even Syria in the not too distant future. At the same time the United States appears intent on affecting a regime change in Iraq, quite possibly through force, and is applying pressure for regime change or reform from Egypt to Pakistan. Besides proving humiliating to the Islamic world in general, these kinds of impositions of Western will upon Muslim governments must call into question the permanence of all such regimes and make revolutions which are now unthinkable at least appear plausible.

Any one of these trends might be possible to deal with if you're the autocratic ruler of Saudi Arabia and possible to ignore if you're a State Department Arabist. Even a few of them converging might still be survivable and explain-awayable, for the King and the bureaucrat respectively. But can we really say with any degree of confidence that a Saudi Arabia that is being buffeted by dynastic, economic, and regional unrest at the same time that it is growing alienated from the U.S. and its oil is losing its importance to us, will still be a regime that we will seek to prop up? Recall that all of this may be occurring against a backdrop of a domestic press here in America that's growing hostile to the Sauds and potentially a widening war between America/Israel and Islam. Given all of this, wouldn't it take a pretty strong government to withstand these negative forces and is there anything that should lead us to believe that the kind of oppressive kleptocracy that the Sauds maintain in Arabia is such a strong government? Despite the inestimable Mr. Miller's assurances, I have to say, I have my doubts.

---

BILLIONS IN TRIBUTE, BUT NO APOLOGY :

Thousands To Rally for Reparations : Apology Also Sought For Slave Descendants (Manny Fernandez, August 16, 2002, Washington Post)

Thousands of African American activists plan tomorrow to bring their demands for reparations from the U.S. government for centuries of slavery and racism to the Capitol, where hundreds of slaves toiled during its construction more than 200 years ago.

"They owe us," said Lewis Andrews, a rally organizer, reciting the official theme of the Millions for Reparations rally. "We built this, but what do we get?"

Organizers said they want to focus national attention on the burgeoning reparations movement and call for compensation to the descendants of slaves for their unpaid labor and the untold horrors of bondage, the legacy of which organizers say is responsible for many of the social and economic ills facing some African American communities today.

"We're talking about a crime against our person, a crime against humanity that has gone unpaid," said Andrews, 55, a minister with the Temple of the Black Messiah in Baltimore.

Reparations advocates want the government to make good on its promise of 40 acres and a mule, made to newly freed slaves after the Civil War. For many, the modern-day equivalent of the famous pledge should include financial compensation as well as the establishment of institutions such as schools and hospitals, land and an official apology from U.S. leaders for the government's sanctioning of slavery.

I'm pro-reparations. Give every black person in America the monetary equivalent of forty acres and a mule and in exchange end all racial preferences and ban everyone who receives the one time handout from making claims for any other government benefits during their lifetimes. that seems fair and like a good way to put black claims and white guilt behind us. In the completely absurd and artificial game of racialism this would be nothing more than a mildly expensive form of one-upmanship for white folk. It would provide an ideal response for when we get Mau-Maued : "Sorry, we settled that debt. We're all even now. Remember that forty acre and a mule deal?"

---

REMOVE PAGES 352-58 AND INSERT THIS NEW ESSAY ON ALGORITHMS : :

Sen. Clinton preparing for potential presidential race (Associated Press, August 16, 2002)

Hillary Rodham Clinton has begun building a national political organization, softening her liberal image and taking a lead role in Democratic criticism of President Bush - steps toward a potential campaign to become the first woman president.

Former President Clinton speaks about his wife's run for the presidency as a matter of ``when,'' not ``if,'' say people who have discussed it with him. Several of her associates said she is eyeing 2008 as the year to run.

She's running in '04. She has to have been impressed by the warm reception she got from the Democratic Leadership Council's recent presidential candidate beauty contest, where she was by all accounts the star. The surest sign that it's gone to her head is her recent statement :

I thought, as I obviously believed, that you know, the Clinton-Rubin economic policies that worked so well during the '90s really do work well in global economy.

There was a famous incident in the Soviet Union in 1954, after Lavrenti Beria was executed, where the editors of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia sent out an expanded article on the Bering Strait and told people to cut out certain pages from the "B" volume and replace them with the new insert. The point of course was not that there was anything new to say about that august body of water, but rather that the government wanted Beria's laudatory biography removed from the record. In much the same way Hillary Clinton now seeks to airbrush her husband's vice-president, and her increasingly likely opponent in the '04 primaries, from our history.

---

HE'S NO JESSE :

A Fire Born of the Mexican Revolution (GRACE GLUECK, August 16, 2002, NY Times)

ALTHOUGH its title suggests a drowsy history textbook, "The Epic of American Civilization," a mural by the Mexican painter José Clemente Orozco (1883-1949) in the Baker Library at Dartmouth College here, has a throbbing vitality that keeps viewers' eyes wide open. Punctuated by doors, windows and other architectural bits and pieces as it runs the 92-foot length of the basement reserve reading room, the 26-panel fresco is densely packed with symbolic figures and stagy events. A blend of myth, history and contemporary comment, much affected by premonitions of the pending World War II, it aptly conveys Orozco's dour, apocalyptic vision of human fate.

The rhythmic orchestration of this montage excited the interest of Jackson Pollock, among other artists, and its thunderous presence has helped it serve, for better or for worse, as a role model for the development of public art in the United States. A narrative that pairs the legend of Mexico's founding by Quetzalcoatl, the Aztec god represented by a feathered serpent, with images from the Eurocentric period that began in the New World with the 16th-century Spanish conquest of Mexico, the mural was Orozco's most ambitious venture in the United States. (He had done two earlier murals, one at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., the other at the New School for Social Research in Manhattan.) Aside from its grim world view, the Dartmouth fresco reveals Orozco's dual artistic involvement, with Mexico's heritage and with the modern-art movements of the 20th century.

At the time (1932), Dartmouth's commissioning of a mural by a "revolutionary" Mexican artist made waves. There were accusations of extravagance, considered inappropriate during Depression days. (Over two years, the artist received $10,000, including expenses.) There were chauvinistic protests against giving the commission to a foreigner, particularly one of leftist political views. And there were outcries over the strong social commentary in the planned work, as opposed to, say, an amiable depiction of New England scenery.

To its credit, Dartmouth rose above these protests, with the help of an art faculty that saw the aesthetic and humanistic strengths of the Mexican mural movement and - not least - of the Rockefeller family, some of whom were alive to the art world's interest in things Mexican. (Nelson A. Rockefeller, a 1930 Dartmouth graduate, wanted Diego Rivera to do the job, although in 1933 he fired Rivera for including Lenin in a mural at Rockefeller Center and had the portrait removed.) Now, nearly 70 years after the Dartmouth mural's completion, the college's Hood Museum of Art has mounted "José Clemente Orozco in the United States, 1927-1934," a show of the artist's work during his second visit to this country, including the two years devoted to the mural.

Geez, I always assumed a student--and not a very talented one--did it.

---

THE DEVIL'S DUE :

The African exception : Experience in one sub-Saharan country shows that overseas aid is not the only prerequisite for growth (The Economist, Mar 28th 2002)

WHICH country has had the fastest growth in income per person over the past 35 years? A few hints: it's not an East Asian "tiger", such as South Korea or Singapore, nor an oil-rich Gulf state, nor China or the United States. The answer is Botswana, a landlocked former British colony in a region marked by poverty. [...]

Botswana serves as a useful case study in getting the details right. Sadly, this defies simple prescriptions. Some on the political left might attribute Botswana's success to egalitarianism. Not quite: inequality there is as severe as it is in Colombia or Brazil. Those on the right would like to point to a laisser-faire regime. Wrong again: the government spends a hefty 40% of GDP. [...]

Perhaps Britain's most valuable legacies, besides the English language, were the law and contract procedures. [...]

Wealthy and secure, the elite pursued sensible policies, such as a customs union with South Africa, and a currency pegged to the rand. [...]

Botswana's experience suggests that poor countries must try to align the incentives of the elite with those of the masses, much as companies in rich countries try to tie managers' rewards to those of shareholders. It also backs the view of Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist, who has proposed a stronger approach to land titling in poor countries. Where countries receive aid, Botswana's experience suggests that profitable goals include better courts and legal systems; and that one good use of cash is to fight diseases.

The authors here seem rather confused about "those on the right". One of the central beliefs of conservatism has long been that Law and order is a prerequisite for freedom. The "laisser-faire" of which the article speaks is appropriate, for example, within the context of an American system, a republic, which as John Adams said is "a government of laws, and not of men". But it is this recognition that the orderly administration of the law must precede freedom that has frequently led conservatives to support authoritarian regimes as a transitional form on the way to eventual democracy. It seems unlikely that any conservative would be as surprised as are the authors that Botswana's legacy of British law has played a central role in making it an exception to Africa's general decline.

---

WRATH OF KHAN :

'Curse' of Genghis Khan's secret tomb strikes again (Damien McElroy, 17/08/2002, Daily Telegraph)

A legendary curse that has protected the tomb of Genghis Khan from discovery for 800 years appears to have struck again after an American expedition that
claimed to have located the grave abruptly pulled out of Mongolia.

The whereabouts of the remains of the 13th century warlord who united the tribes of Mongolia before conquering territory from Russia to China is one of archaeology's last great mysteries.

According to legend, the tomb will never be found.

The Genghis Khan geo-historical expedition obtained a permit from the Mongolian government in June to dig at Oglogchiin Kherem, 200 miles north of the capital, Ulan Bator.

But the mission, organised by a former gold trader, Maury Kravitz, and a University of Chicago historian, John Woods, suddenly ended this month after encountering a string of unfortunate "accidents". [...]

Before his death in 1227 Genghis Khan supposedly gave out elaborate orders to ensure that the grave was never discovered.

According to one account, 1,000 foot soldiers were killed at the site to prevent them disclosing the site.

When 800 more soldiers returned to Karakorum, the ancient Mongol capital, they too were slaughtered. Some say that thousands of horses were raced over the grave to obliterate any trace of the burial.

We're thinkin' movie...

---

ARMEY VS. ARMY :

As previously noted, the Times story of the other day seems to be far less than first meets the eye : Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy (TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER, August 16, 2002, NY Times). But the one interesting comment from a Republican who actually is a Party leader was House Majority Leader Dick Armey's :

"My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants," Mr. Armey said. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."

Now, from what I could recall from memory, Mr. Armey has opposed most American interventions in recent years and the White House response to his remarks seemed to jibe with the idea that this was something we'd expect of Mr. Armey, rather than some radical break with his past and with the administration. And his own spokesman suggested that Mr. Armey even had to be coaxed into supporting the initial 1991 war against Iraq : Bush mum on plan for attacking Iraq (Dave Boyer, August 10, 2002, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Armey spokesman Terry Holt said the majority leader's remarks are "consistent with where he was in 1991," prior to the U.S.-led invasion in the Persian Gulf war. He said Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney called Mr. Armey and made the case to him, and the lawmaker eventually supported the administration's decision to go to war. Mr. Armey believes "the bar is very high when you go to war," Mr. Holt said.

Curiosity piqued, I took a necessarily haphazrd Google around the 'net to see what else I could find out about the new darling of the normally internationalist Left. Here are a few highlights.
The U.S. can't go it alone (Bob Mccord, November 05, 1999, Arkansas Times)

The defeat of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the Senate was scary. [...]

It's not the only evidence of isolationism among Republicans. They voted against sending troops to Kosovo, they stopped draft registration, they refuse to pay the dues the nation owes the United Nations, their budget bills cut foreign aid by 14 percent and they won't agree to pay for negotiating the peace settlement in the Middle East. One of their leaders, Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, said: "I've been to Europe once. I don't have to go again."

Freedom, Responsibility and Foreign Policy (Dick Armey, Remarks as prepared for delivery before The School for Advanced International Studies, June 19, 1997)

I'm not sure this is appropriate for this august institution, but let me begin by telling a story from Spy magazine. Spy, as you know, is a journal run by truly sick individuals that I of course have never read. Well, one day a few years ago some prankster at Spy decided to call members of Congress and quiz them on foreign issues. These interviews generally went well until he asked, "Congressman, what do you think of U.S. policy concerning the Republic of Freedonia?" As all of you know, Freedonia does not exist -- except as the fictional country in the movie The Mouse that Roared. Unfortunately, that did not stop several members from offering their considered opinion on the subject anyway. "I think our policy there needs thorough reexamination," and so on. Very embarrassing.

For the record, if they had asked me that question, I would have cheerfully admitted I don't have a clue about Freedonia or a lot of other places for that matter. I have never made any pretense to expertise in international affairs. In my previous lifetimes as an economics professor and a member of the loyal minority in Congress, I could have told you more than you'd want to know about price theory and capital gains differentials (and probably did). But to this day I'd be lucky to even give you the current name of Zaire -- I mean, Congo.

Statement by Rep. Dick Armey on Authorizing the Deployment of U.S. Troops to Kosovo (Delivered on the House Floor, March 11, 1999)

Mr. Speaker, we do have an enduring interest in a peaceful Europe. What happens in the Balkans is important to our security. We must do all we reasonable can to prevent further killing and suffering in these troubled lands.

But I cannot in good conscience support the proposed deployment we're debating today. I believe it has been poorly considered and is unlikely to achieve our desired ends.

I make this objection on purely practical grounds. Its central flaw is that depends on negotiating an agreement with the Serbian dictator -- the very man who is responsible for the Balkan horrors in the first place. He is a brutal killer, and we can have no confidence that he or his followers will respect any agreement that might be reached.

On the other side, will be the Kosovar Liberation Army, a new formation with little experience in these matters. Its cause may be noble, but there's little reason to hope its leadership will be able to discipline its members. The agreement will, after all, come far short of their desire for true independence.

Our troops may thus find themselves opposed by freelance opponents on both sides of this brutal conflict, opponents undisciplined by any central authority. The resulting bloodshed may produce events that are far more destabilizing than those the Administration fears today. This could be another Somalia.

For these and other reasons stated today I believe this deployment is unwise and must be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take a fresh look at our policy towards the world's outlaw governments -- not just in Serbia, but in Iraq, North Korea and elsewhere. These rogue regimes, are without question, the greatest security threat we face today.

The Administration response to them has been haphazard containment efforts, loose arms control arrangements, or other negotiations.

Containment and negotiation, however, can do little to solve the underlying problem--the very existence of these regimes.

What we need is a new version of the Reagan Doctrine of the 1980s. A policy that seeks not to contain these regimes -- but to replace them with democratic alternatives.

Last year, Congress began to shape exactly such a policy towards Iraq with our passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. We need to consider similar legislation for other rogue states including Serbia. [...]

The lesson of the Cold War should be clear: True peace, justice and security come not from negotiating with inhuman regimes, but transcending them. Even the most enduring dictatorship can melt before the power and ideals of the United States.

THE BOOMERANG EFFECT (Justin Raimondo, September 20, 2000, Antiwar.com)

The lies of politicians often come back to haunt them, but rarely has a brazen fib boomeranged so quickly. The Bushies may have thought that Warner-Byrd was dead and buried, but rumors of its death turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. Looks like it's been resurrected by those mischievous House Republicans, who restored it to their version of the 2001 military appropriations budget. The measure would cut off money for nearly 6,000 United States ground forces in Kosovo by April 1, unless Congress votes for an extension - and once again the Bush camp is trying mightily to drive a stake through its heart. The House and Senate versions of the budget must be reconciled before Congress adjourns for the year, and this is the last sticking point. "We feel pretty strongly about it," said Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader. "The question is, how long will we have people over there, and when will we have a clear definition of what they're doing?" With the same fine appreciation for legalistic hairsplitting displayed by our current President, Bush and his advisors are reiterating their "legislative overreach" argument - but not too loudly, in the hope no one will take notice, the House Republicans will capitulate in the end, as usual, and the whole issue will go away.

Bush on Spot as G.O.P. Pushes to Pull : Out G.I.'s From Kosovo (ERIC SCHMITT, 9/15/00, NY Times)

House and Senate negotiators are fighting over a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Kosovo, renewing a clash with President Clinton and putting Gov. George W. Bush on the spot again, since he lobbied Senate Republicans to drop a similar provision earlier this year.

At issue is a proposal to cut off money for nearly 6,000 United States ground forces in Kosovo by April 1, forcing their withdrawal unless Congress authorizes an extension.

Two Texans demand strings on funds to IMF (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, MARCH 13, 2000 )

Two Texas Republicans trained as economists have wedged a lever under the world's financial architecture.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Irving and Sen. Phil Gramm have had enough of the International Monetary Fund's efforts to control the world's finances.

US CONGRESS SPLIT OVER REPORT ON IMF, WORLD BANK REFORMS.

The report of the US congressional advisory commission chaired by economist Allan Meltzer calling for a sharp contraction in the IMF and the
World Bank unleashed a strong bipartisan reaction in Congress yesterday, reports the Financial Times (p.7). The report was released at a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday, says the story, noting that two leading Republican congressmen-House speaker Dennis Hastert and House majority leader Dick Armey-had earlier called a press conference to welcome the report. But it was attacked by Democratic lawmakers.

House minority leader Richard Gephardt said the Meltzer report "illustrates an extreme neo-isolationist attitude" towards the Fund and the Bank. "Instead of proposing thoughtful reform, the report takes a slash-and-burn approach."

The political impact of the report is not clear, but the welcoming of it by Armey, a longstanding IMF critic, suggests that the Republicans may try to use it to attach further conditions on the IMF as they consider legislation that would help fund a debt relief initiative for the poorest countries.

Say what you will about Mr. Armey, but that looks like a pretty consistent and principled record of isolationism to me and one on which he's been right more often than not, including one could argue in his initial opposition to the First Gulf War. Particularly notable on this list of issues is that, with the exception of Iraq, it seems likely that he's taken the exact opposite position to the editors of the NY Times on every one. Odd, isn't it, that, while Mr. Armey hasn't budged, the Times and others on the Left have suddenly seen the wisdom of the Leader's--how did Dick Gephardt put it?--"extreme neo-isolationism"?

---

RED RAIDERS OF THE CHENANGO VALLEY :

Exception to the Rule : Kenny Gamble becomes just the seventh Colgate player to be inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame (BUD POLIQUIN, August 09, 2002, Syracuse Post-Standard)

The truth of the matter is that this type of thing rarely happens at Colgate University, where the library has properly been a bigger attraction through the years than the football field.

To be sure, many fine athletes have passed through Hamilton on their way to the real world, but for the most part they've ended up in boardrooms and courts of law and think tanks. There are, however, exceptions to most rules, and Kenny Gamble is one of them.

Oh, he got his degree from Colgate, all right. And he's currently an Indianapolis-based sales director of national accounts at OnField Apparel Group, a division of Reebok
International Ltd. But along the way, Gamble evolved into the greatest of all Raider running backs and unwittingly became an immortal. You've heard, certainly, of Red Grange a Walter Payton and Bronko Nagurski and Bo Jackson and all those other giants who so brilliantly lugged footballs for their schools on Saturday afternoons. Well, Kenny Gamble Colgate's Kenny Gamble - is about to join them on the mountaintop because during monies scheduled for this weekend in South Bend, Ind., he'll be
inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame.

And if for some reason you fail to recognize just how big a deal this is, consider that only six other Raiders in their 113-year football history are
in the Hall. And the one who play, most recently, a tackle named Danny Fortmann did so 67 years ago.

[His] talent got him into the National Football League where Kenny played for three seasons (1988, '89 and '90) with the Kansas City Chiefs before the effects of a broken foot made a civilian of him. But it was those 57 touchdowns he scored for Colgate ... and the career per-game rushing average of 124.2 yards he crafted while with the Raiders ... and the 13 NCAA Division I-AA records he set while in Hamilton that will rightfully land Gamble, along with eight others, in the Hall of Fame on Saturday
Gratified? Absolutely, Kenny Gamble - 37, married and the father of a son and two daughters - is all of that. But surprised? Nah. Not with Holy Cross' Gordie Lockbaum, a peer, having been previously inducted. And intimidated by the names (Butkus, Staubach, Dorsett, Gipp, etc.) with which he'll forever be linked? No way.

''I am not enamored with that,'' Gamble said. ''I'm just not. Maybe because I played pro football, I'm hardened a bit. They're just people. They're not gods.''

They are, though, unique. And soon, Kenny Gamble will officially be so, too. And Colgate - not very used to all the hoo-ha - will be buttons-popping proud. Earl Abell and Ellery Huntington and Belford West played for the Raiders during the second decade of the last century. And Ed Tryon and John Orsi and Fortmann were all finished in Hamilton by 1935. And now, all this time later, here comes Colgate's next Hall-of-Famer. The seventh. And perhaps the best.

I'm a huge Kenny gamble fan, but as it happens I knew Ed Tryon a little--he was in the same class as our grandfather ('26)--and I think you'd have to give him the nod as Colgate's greatest player. In 1925, when Colgate was still a legitimate football power, he was an All-American, led the nation in scoring and led the team to an undefeated season. Reunions were amusing because men in their sixties would gather at his feet like kids. He was still a hero to them and a very nice man.

---

WHIZ KIDS :

What to do with 9/11 hijackers' remains (CNN, August 16, 2002)

Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of September 11 are those of nine of the hijackers.

The FBI has held them for months, and no one seems to know what should be done with them. It's a politically and emotionally charged question for the government, which eventually must decide how to dispose of some of the most despised men in American history.

Personally, I'd like to see the remains shipped to Kohler to be mixed into their porcelain for a few specially commissioned Pentagon urinals.

---

CLUB MED VS. CLUB FED :

IRAQ SECOND THOUGHTS. (Tapped, 8/16/02, American Prospect)

While Bush wines and dines his rich buddies in Texas, things are not looking so good for the administration's war plans. Colin Powell is reportedly meeting with former secretary of state (and Iraq attack doubter) Henry Kissinger, while Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to Papa Bush, lashed out against the current Iraq strategy on yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-ed page (subscription only) arguing that an invasion of Iraq would "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) has been expressing doubts as well and now Dick Armey has joined the chorus. Perhaps a genuine debate is finally underway. Tapped hopes that the president will take notice when he comes back to Washington from his vacation.

That last sentence reminds us of one of the subtle but defining differences between liberals and conservatives. Have you ever noticed how Republicans never complain about Presidents taking vacations, Congress being out of session, or even (of ever honored memory) government shutdowns. But Democrats seem to think the Earth will stop rotating if Washington is not infested by the political class. Here's the difference between a liberal and a conservative--conservatives like George W. Bush but think the nation is well served by having him on vacation; liberals loathe him but wish he was at his desk in the Oval Office, doing something, doing anything, just "governing".

---

REDIFINING NO FREE PRESS :

News Conference Ends in Melee As Press Refuses to Pay Islamists (MARC CHAMPION, August 16, 2002, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)

As news conferences go, this one sounded promising.

"The Satanic Alliance and the Islamic response," proclaimed the top line of an invitation resembling a circus flier.

It added: "The most radical leaders of the Muslim community gather to give their uncompromising Islamic stance on the U.S. crusade against Muslims."

But Thursday's news conference at London's Euston Plaza hotel turned into a standoff between two uncompromising and uncomprehending worlds -- before ending in a melee of overturned furniture and squealing car tires as the Islamists made their getaway from a frustrated press corps.

The problem? The Islamists wanted to charge a £30 ($47) entry fee, and the journalists refused to pay. Two Scotland Yard detectives sent to monitor the event balked as well. [...]

By the end of a two-hour standoff, in which the Islamist leaders were left to talk among themselves, the atmosphere was hostile. A polite hotel request for the 40 or 50 journalists to make room for the Islamists to make a quick exit was met with laughter. "Move tighter together lads," said one journalist. "We're going to charge them 60 quid [pounds] each to get out."

Qiao Yang sent this and at first I thought he must have gotten it from the Onion or something

---

What Arabs? :

Don't Attack Saddam : It would undermine our antiterror efforts. (BRENT SCOWCROFT, August 15, 2002, Wall Street Journal)

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive--with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy--and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation. [...]

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

Not sure how I missed this in the first place, but reading Patrick Ruffini's comments made it stand out. Having already theorized that Israel will nuke Iraq after Saddam's "likely" use of WMD--neither of which is a possibility that should be dismissed--and that this will unleash "Armageddon", why would the war be expensive, what exactly are we going to occupy for years, and what Muslim world is Mr. Scowcroft speaking of in later paragraphs? It's perfectly legitimate to worry about this becoming a generalized war of the West (America and Israel) against Islam and about our side resorting to nuclear weapons rather than trying to invade and subdue the entire region, but realistically if this does come to pass, what will remain of the Arab Middle East when the smoke clears? One doubts there will be much, which makes the rest of General Scowcroft's essay rather pointless.

---

THE SELECTIVELY POROUS WALL :

Save the Bigots : How to decry persecution by practicing it. (William Saletan, August 9, 2002, Slate)

The assignment to UNC students asks them to read parts of Approaching the Quran: The Early Revelations, translated by Michael Sells. In a set of study questions, the students are asked, among other things, what themes are conveyed by various Quran excerpts; whether the virtues and vices emphasized in the excerpts are skewed or incomplete; what "problems or benefits" arise from reading and discussing a text in a foreign religious tradition; and what would happen if more Americans read the book. [...]

[Conservatives] say that by assigning a Muslim text, UNC "promotes" Islam, "discriminates" against other faiths, and violates the constitutional requirement of "neutrality" toward religion. Glover isn't anti-Muslim; he says he's just trying to stop UNC from pushing "a one-sided pro-Islamic reading requirement" in "an obvious attempt to put a positive face on what many people believe to be a very evil religion." And what exactly makes the assigned book unduly pro-Islamic? According to Glover, the book's flaw is that it "leaves out any mention of other passages of the Koran in which Muslim terrorists find justification for killing non-Muslims." [...]

What do these complaints add up to? Let's see: The university is coercing students by requiring them to write about why they don't want to write about any of the open-ended questions the university asked them to write about. The assigned reading (never mind the 19 optional readings) is unconstitutionally pro-Muslim because it's insufficiently anti-Muslim. And it's insensitive not just to require such reading, but to allow it.

This is what "intimidation," "discrimination," and "sensitivity" have come to. Words that once accurately described cross burnings, housing covenants, and slurs are now being used to describe the superficial emotional wounds that come from living and debating in a free society. This dilution is being perpetrated not just by the left but by the right as well.

Conservatives often complain that many leftists practice censorship in the name of defeating it. That's true. But the hypocrisy goes both ways. Religious bigotry isn't gone. It just goes by the name of religious freedom.

This column seems deeply disingenuous, for surely Mr. Saletan knows that the core case against the reading is far simpler and more reasonable than those he spins out. The question is : would there be any objections to a public school requiring students to read Christian texts? If not, then by all means allow what seems like a worthwhile exercise in learning about Islam. If so, then why the double standard, unless it comes from anti-Christian bigotry?

---

DOES MUSIC HAVE A RACE? :

Elvis led way in copying black music (Kevin L. Carter, Aug. 16, 2002, Philadelphia Inquirer)

As we pause from our busy lives to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Elvis Presley's death, it must be noted that as creative and influential as this brilliant-but-tragic man was, he does not deserve to be called, as he is by so many, the King.

Sure, Elvis was a figure of transcendent influence in pop music. He was, at least in his earlier years, an electrifying performer. He is known for the ability he had to combine disparate elements of black and white Southern music (country, blues, rockabilly) into a driving, compelling and, most of all, popular style.

But that, ironically, is one of the problems.

Since the dawning five centuries ago of this multiracial amalgam we call American culture, the same patterns have emerged. All people have created wonderful works of art, but too often in the case of music that comes from mixed African and European roots it has been this way: blacks create, and whites discover, rob, buy or steal, then market and profit from the creations.

You know, he's right. I'd never looked at it that way before. It's ridiculous to call Muhammed Ali the "Greatest" when he was merely an inerloper in a white man's game. And there's no way that Michael Jordan can be the best basketball player ever--that honor is reserved for Bob Cousy or somebody--because he really just made a white sport popular by blackening it. Well....you see where this kind of thinking leads, right?

---

TOP REPUBLICANS? :

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy (TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER, August 16, 2002, NY Times)

Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.

These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.

Gotta love the Times; if these guys were top Republicans don't you think maybe they'd have jobs? Until last week, the Left wanted to try Kissinger for war crimes, now he's the voice of reason and moderation.

---

WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN :

Rethinking the unthinkable, amid Iraq fears (Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz)

Beset by a proverbial 10 plagues of military, economic and social woes, Israel is feverishly preparing for the specter of the real thing: an ancient, extinct disease that could be reincarnated by scientists and delivered by the cutting-edge of Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

And if the specter of a smallpox attack were not enough, Israelis awoke Wednesday to a new mega-worry: the knowledge that the Atomic, Biological and Chemical warfare gas mask kits that every Israeli has kept squirreled away in back cupboards since Saddam rained Scud missiles on the Jewish state in the 1991 Gulf war is lacking what may be a crucial defense against the effects of nuclear fallout.

For six weeks in early 1991, Israelis became accustomed to carrying the kits everywhere they went, some decorating the small cardboard boxes as fashion statements or with stickers declaring defiance of the Iraqi president, who retaliated for attacks on Baghdad by then-president Bush with missile salvos against Tel Aviv. [...]

Various doomsday scenarios have been put forward for as to the possible effects of a smallpox attack on the Jewish state. Although no one knows for certain either if reconstituted smallpox could actually be delivered as a weapon - or whether it even exists, except in nightmares - experts have suggested that the highly contagious, lethal disease could devastate Israel's population, and migrate far afield to wreak havoc on the world at large.

Somehow, one finds it unlikely that Israel will hold off on retaliating this time. Nor should they.

---

TEMPUS FUGIT :

'We are asking God for US to attack Saddam' (Daily Telegraph, 16/08/2002)

[D]angers aside, people in Shoresh, all Kurds, appear unanimous in hoping that, the obvious risk aside, the current situation does not last much longer. Farouk, 20, said: "We are asking God for America to attack Saddam. All of us will stand against Saddam."

Seems like only a week ago the accepted wisdom was that the Kurds were blissfully happily with Saddam and opposed a U.S. attack, or maybe that was only in the NY Times.

---

THIN STEAK :

The Right Flank : The Steak That Soaks Up Flavor (Russell Cronkhite, August 14, 2002, The Washington Post)

I defy you to find a better cut of beef for a quick weeknight marinade and a turn on the grill than flank steak. Many a night I've picked up a flank steak after work and had it sizzling on the grill by dinner time.

Flank steak has an extremely loose grain so it can readily absorb the flavors of a favorite marinade or spice rub in as little as two hours. Not only is flank incredibly marinade-friendly, but its near perfect thickness means it can be grilled quickly over high heat to ensure a well-seared, crispy exterior without sacrificing a tender, juicy interior. The timing is perfect in that the steak manages to pick up a slightly smoky aroma but there's no fuss with indirect grilling.

My only complaint about flank? It is so closely associated with grilling that it can be difficult to find during non-summer months. What a shame. Even when tossed under the broiler, flank is virtually failproof.

But just in case, here are a few flank insider tips...

The recipes and hints that Mr. Cronkhite provides are all well and good, but we used to just soak 'em in Catalina Dressing overnight and pop 'em on the grill.

---

NOT EPHEMERAL :

Brothers : On Opening Day, You Remember the Gifts that Even Time Cannot Take Away (Andre Dubus, Oct. 8, 1997, Salon)

At a baseball game in Fenway Park, I feel like a boy, watching grown men on a playing field, and watching grown men and women in their seats in boxes and the grandstand, and faceless bodies across the field in the bleachers; watching them watch, cheer, eat, talk, drink; watching them go up and down the steps, for food, drinks, or the restrooms. The sound of the crowd is steady, the calls of roaming vendors rising higher, as the cries of certain people do: those who yell at umpires, players, managers and those who call to the players, Good eye; you can do it, as if they -- we, I do it -- had been infielders years ago, when the voices of infielders were part of the game, calling to the pitcher, Come babe, come boy, we used to say in spirited voices, our bodies poised, our weight on our toes, our gloves ready. During ballgames at Fenway Park, strangers talk to each other about the game; people cheer when one catches a foul ball; vendors standing on steps hear an order from someone sitting in the middle of the row; the buyer hands money to someone in the next seat, who passes it on; the paper and coins move from hand to hand to the vendor who places in these hands popcorn, hot dogs, peanuts, beer, soft drinks. Sometimes at Mass I think of Fenway Park, for at Mass there is the same feeling of good will: People are there because they want to be, and I feel among friends who share a passion.

For me, baseball is real in a deeper way than much of what I do. I do not begin a baseball season hoping the Red Sox win a pennant and the World Series. I enjoy each game. Next day I wait with excitement for the game on television that night or afternoon. Then I watch what happens and what does not happen in a moment. I rarely concentrate on a moment of anything but writing and exercise and receiving Communion. Yet watching a game I do. A batter steps out of the box, looks to his left at the third-base coach; the coach moves his hands, touches his arm, his chest, his face, his cap; the batter steps to the plate; the catcher's right fingers signal to the pitcher; the pitcher shakes his head; a runner on second creeps away from the base, glancing at the shortstop and second baseman; the catcher signals again, the pitcher nods, brings up his hands, kicks, throws. I watch the ball, and the batter. The ball is moving 93 miles per hour, but there is time for me to focus on it, maybe hold my breath, enough time so that it feels like waiting; then I am amazed: the batter not only hits the ball, but times his swing so well that he pulls it, a line drive right of the third baseman who somehow has time to dive for it, but he does not touch it; he is lying on the ground, the ball hits the grass a hundred feet behind him, as the left fielder sprints toward it, to stop it before it bounces and rolls to the fence.

The reality I am watching is moments of grace and skill, gifts received by men who do not turn away from them, but work with them for the few years they are granted. One spring the batter will not be able to hit a fast ball, the pitcher will not be able to throw one; the gifts are gone, as if they existed independent of men, staying with one for a time, then moving on to another, a boy in the womb, and when he is in elementary school you can already see that he has it.

A Zen archer does not try to hit the target. With intense concentration he draws the bow and waits; the target releases the arrow, and draws it to itself. A few summers ago, during an All-Star Game, retired pitcher Steve Carlton visited the television broadcasting booth. One of the announcers askedhim if hitters had ever intimidated him. He said he had ignored the hitters and played an advanced game of catch with his catcher. "It's an elevated form of pitching," he said. I have told this many times to young writers, and have also told them that Wade Boggs watching a pitch come to the plate, starting his stride and swing, probably does not know his own name, for his whole being is concentrating on that moving white ball. I could have said this about any good hitter, or fielder, or pitcher: men whose intense focus on a baseball burns their consciousness of the past and future into ashes blown quickly up and away from the field. This happens over and over in a game, and these moments are so pure they may be sacred; and they are not ephemeral; they seem so, because they exist in Time; but so did my friend Jim Valhoul; a river took his life, but it did not take the life he lived.

The entire story, by one of our greatest short story writers, is online. It's terrific.

---

WE CAN DEBASE ANYTHING :

A Flawed Crusade for Holocaust Justice : a review of THE VICTIM'S FORTUNE Inside the Epic Battle over the Debts of the Holocaust By John Authers and Richard Wolffe (Neal Sandler, Business Week)

Fifty years after the end of World War II, a small group of American Jews launched a campaign to resolve one of the most complex issues of the Holocaust: the plundering of the property of European Jewry by the Nazis and their accomplices. In time, the aggrieved would win some monetary redress and a good deal of publicity for their cause. But as John Authers and Richard Wolffe show in The Victim's Fortune, what began as a crusade for justice led quickly, and perhaps inevitably, to an unseemly squabble over money and representation. The authors, both of the Financial Times, have provided a well-written account of a fascinating, convoluted set of events.

An interesting review--it sounds like the book makes some of the same points that folks have made in the Comments section about the ugly battle for repayment of Holocaust debts.

---

HOPEFULLY, AL DOESN'T SPORT FISH :

Big Money, Big Fish Reel 'Em in at White Marlin Open (Angus Phillips, August 11, 2002, washingtonpost.com)

Recession? What recession?

If Alan Greenspan needed reassurance on the struggling U.S. economy, he should have come to the beach last week to grab a glimpse of the 29th White Marlin Open, where a record 402 gleaming offshore fishing boats chased prize money in the millions.

That's right, millions. On registration day last Sunday, organizer Jim Motsko, who started the Open in 1974 as a local contest with 57 entries and $20,000 in guaranteed prizes, was so busy processing entries he barely had time to come up for air. At day's end he tallied up the proceeds and found that anglers from the Carolinas to New York had ponied up a staggering $2.1 million in entry fees and "calcutta" wagers, much of it in cash.

"Don't worry," he said when a visitor keenly eyed haphazard piles of bags and boxes in the registration tent, "it's already deposited in the bank."

All around was a scene of beer-drinking merriment and fiscal excess.

Doesn't mean we don't need a rate cut...

---

A RAIN KING WORLD :

Why Martha 'needs' more (Amitai Etzioni, 8/13/02, CS Monitor)

A study by social scientists Frank Andrews and Stephen Withey found that the level of one's socioeconomic status had meager effects on one's "sense of well-being" and no significant effect on "satisfaction with life as a whole."

Other studies show that while at low incomes the amount of income does correlate strongly with happiness, the correlation soon levels off after a comfortable level of income is attained. Even more to the point, economic growth does not significantly affect happiness. Social psychologist David Myers reports that while after-tax income (adjusted for inflation) almost doubled between 1960 and 1990, nearly the same percentage of Americans were "very happy" during this time (35 percent in 1957 and 32 percent in 1993).

People who understand this phenomenon tend to engage in voluntary simplicity; they scale down consumption, engage in do-good activities in their spare time (which expands as they realize they need not bring home clients and stuffed briefcases), and enjoy families and friends more.

In extreme cases, people quit their high-paying, high-stress jobs, move to the countryside, and pick up carpentry or gardening. In less extremecases, people cut back on their hours, move to part-time jobs, or retire relatively young. Still others scale down purchases of prestige items.

There is no evidence that those who adopt the voluntary simplicity culture are less prone to commit white-collar crimes; however, so far none of those who were caught include a single one of those postmodern, moderate hippies.

Thankfully the new Suburban should protect me from hippie accusations as I squire the kids around.

---

Today's word of the day from Wordsmith is interesting :

valorize (VAL-uh-ryz) verb tr.

To maintain the price of a commodity at a high level through government action.

[From Portuguese valorizar, from valor (value, price), from Medieval Latin, from Latin valere (to be strong).]

Valorizing is, in fact, price-fixing by government. A few other words that derive from the same root (wal-) are valence, valiant, valid, value, avail, and convalesce.

"This leads to a tendency for realized earnings to fall below the level that would validate or re-valorize the capitalized values of corporate equities and debt service costs."
James Ronald Stanfield and Michael Carroll, The Monopoly Capital School And Original Institutionalist Economics, Journal of Economic Issues (Reno, Nevada), Jun 1997.

---

WHAT THEY MISS WHEN THEY FLYOVER :

At Iowa State Fair, Bush and Democrats Argue About Economy (Dan Balz and Mike Allen, August 15, 2002, Washington Post)

Food seemed to be the fair's main attraction, and the candidates indulged. Gephardt and Harkin met outside the pork producers' tent for a quick news conference to denounce Bush's plan to let younger workers put some of their Social Security taxes into private accounts, then flipped 16-ounce pork chops for television crews.

Nearby, Vilsack and his wife, Christie, munched on what she called "a walking pork chop," a unique cut with the meat removed from a portion of bone so that it resembles pork on a stick. "I wanted to tantalize you with this," the governor said, and before they left, Gephardt and Harkin were chewing on them, too.

Atop a small tractor along the midway sat Lynn Smith, wearing a green skirt, white gloves, work boots and blond wig that only partially hid his salt-and-pepper beard. He was part of the eight-man team of "square-dancing tractors," a popular attraction from Nemaha, Iowa. More popular than the president? he was asked.

"I'm sure it's us," Smith said. "He came to see us, didn't he? That's what he came for."

A walking pork chop and a fried Milky Way while you watch the square-dancing tractors and you're pretty much ready to meet your Maker--I mean, what's left?

---

ALERT NERO WOLFE :

Peruvian orchid sparks an uproar : Botanists are calling it a spectacular find: It's the Phragmipedium kovachii, a new orchid discovered in the Peruvian Andes in May. (ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/14/02)

"IT'S A RICH, brilliant red purple. Big, round, well-shaped - it apparently has no odor - and one flower per stem seems to be the rule," said John Beckner, curator of the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens Orchid Identification Center in Sarasota, Fla.

"This is a sensational-looking flower, in other words," Beckner said.

Michael Kovach, a nursery owner in Virginia's Fauquier County, came upon the orchid on a mountainside where an Indian family was selling flowers. On June 5, he walked into the Orchid Identification Center with a dried and pressed specimen. [...]

Researchers at the center immediately set about drawing, describing and naming the flower, with help from Ricardo Fernandez of the Museo de Historia Natural in Lima, Peru. The findings were published in the center's scientific journal, Selbyana, on June 12. It was on the center's Web site June 18.

The next morning, Selby's spokeswoman Ilene Denton said she was amazed to find at least a dozen email messages from orchid lovers as far away as the Netherlands, Japan and New Zealand.

"It's been quite a stir," she said.

"It has huge commercial potential. It already has the orchid world in an uproar," Beckner said.

Not all of it is good.

The orchid people make the Scrabble players seem stable.

---

AN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THAT WORKS :

Robot Teaches Itself Flying Skills in Three Hours (Reuters, August 14, 2002)

A robot has taught itself the principles of flying -- learning in just three hours what evolution took millions of years to achieve, according to research by Swedish scientists published on Wednesday.

Krister Wolff and Peter Nordin of Chalmers University of Technology built a robot with wings and then gave it random instructions through a computer at the rate of 20 per second.

[A]fter three hours the robot discovered a flapping technique -- rotating its wings through 90 degrees, raising them, then twisting back to the horizontal before pushing back down.

"This tells us that this kind of evolution is capable of coming up with flying motion," said Peter Bentley, an evolutionary computer expert at University College, London.

Yes, if sentient beings give you wings you'll figure out how to use them.

---

SOMEBODY WAKE THE VP :

Giving the Country the Business (Mary McGrory, August 15, 2002, Washington Post)

President Bush's economic forum summary was a convention speech without the balloons.

It was full of applause lines and it had a villain -- in this case a balky, spendthrift Congress. Bush offered a minimalist solution: Just hang in and trust the American people. It wasn't much of a prescription for an ailing market, sinking stock prices and a meltdown of public confidence in the lords of the boardrooms. CNN kept switching to another California kidnapping and memories of Elvis. [...]

While Bush was assiduously taking notes at Waco, Cheney didn't try very hard to suppress a yawn. He just doesn't enjoy vaudeville in the middle of the day. Who could
take seriously a forum that produced an idea of having the robber barons band together and "self-police" their ranks? Bush was enthusiastic about it.

The modern political age offers so few genuine moments that you have to treasure the one's it does offer up. This idiotic, Clinton-esque economic summit reminds of one of the great moments, the campaign stop in 1992 where Bush pere told a group of NH employees : "Message : I Care." That is all this dog and pony show was supposed to convey too. There's something heart-warming about the contempt that Bush and Cheney showed for a staged production that they clearly understood to be a publicity stunt rather than a serious attempt to brainstorm about the economy. Even more cheering is the realization that people like Mary McGrory actually believe that these forums can be useful. If you've ever had to sit through one, you'll know nothing could be further from the truth.

---

THE ASCENT OF MASHIE NIBLICK :

World according to Golf (Steve Sailer, 8/14/02, UPI)

Why does modern man (and, to a lesser extent, modern woman) spend so much money building golf courses? Why does the modern American golf course appeal
so strongly to the male eye? [...]

Surprisingly, as I found out during a conference on evolution and human behavior held in the beautiful countryside west of Moscow, a number of scientists now believe that a love of golf course-like landscapes may be hardwired by evolution into many human brains.

[Dr. Irenaeus] Eibl-Eibesfeldt suggested that people, especially men, find such well-watered grasslands appealing because they were suited to our hunter-gatherers ancestors, who evolved on the grassy savannas of East Africa hunting big game.

Another lecturer at the conference, Linda Mealey, an evolutionary psychologist at Minnesota's College of St. Benedict, speculated, "Golfing seems to substitute for hunting in many men these days."

Before we get too carried away, if we accept evolution, the landfills we build must also fill some such purpose, as must a Wal-Mart, and tract housing. All behavior must be a product of, or must still serve, some survival function, both the building of a golf course and its opposite, say paving it and turning it into a parking lot . It's stories like this one that really show how infinitely plastic and therefore absurd is the theory when pushed to its logical conclusions.

---

THE DEFLATING UNIVERSE :

Credit Crunch Time : Cash-strapped businesses are what's ailing this economy. (Larry Kudlow, 8/15/02, National Review)

The classic solution to a deflationary problem such as this is to pour new cash into the economy. Immediately following the terrorist attacks on September 11, the Fed seemed to be appropriately stepping up their creation of new money. Not surprisingly, economic recovery took hold nicely in last year's fourth quarter and this year's first.

Lately, however, the Fed has lapsed into its historic obsession with short-term interest rates. Instead of lowering the fed funds rate this week - a move that would have allowed it to buy Treasury bills and inject more cash into the financial system - the Fed decided to hold the rate at 1.75%. The rate has been at this "low" level since November, but the Fed mistakenly believes that a low and steady fed funds rate infers an easy cash policy. Paradoxically, this rate-targeting led to a significant decline in the Fed's cash-creating operations right when businesses needed the money the most.

[O]ur central bank must get in on the corporate-stimulus act. The Fed must relinquish its interest-rate targeting, let the fed funds rate go where it goes, buy back Treasury bills, and get a substantial amount of fresh money moving toward cash-strapped businesses in need of a boost. Higher prices for gold and industrial commodities will tell the government bank if they are succeeding.

This seems sound other than his lingering "gold-bug" tendencies. One wonders though if the coming population implosion and the globalized economy may not make inevitable a long term deflationary trend? With ever less people chasing goods that are produced more and more efficiently and with prices continually getting hammered by competition from everywhere on Earth, where would the upward pressure on prices come from?

---

PERFIDIOUS ALBION? (via Letter from the Olde Countrie) :

George is nuts about Saddam's soft centre (Rod Liddle, August 14, 2002, The Guardian)

If we were to scout around for a country deserving of our expensive bombs we might apply five or six entirely pragmatic criteria. First, does the country possess weapons of mass destruction? Second, is its ideology aggressively hostile to our interests? Third, does it threaten the sovereignty or security of any part of Britain or a British dependency? Fourth, does it threaten our trading interests? And finally, is it inherently unstable or an inherently destabilising influence in an area where Britain has political interests?

These are, I would suggest, pretty objective criteria and if you apply them to Iraq the case for military action is, at best, highly questionable. In at least two of the above categories, the US fits the bill rather better than Iraq which, you may argue, demonstrates either the paucity of my tests or the irrationality of international relations.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that we bomb Washington, desirous though some in this country may be for a "regime change".

It appears the Independent is not alone in thinking there's little difference between Iraq and America. But let's take a look at the two rogue nations according to Mr. Liddle's criteria :

(1) WMD : Iraq and the US both have them, though only the US can deliver them globally.

(2) Ideology : Both Iraq, which believes in Saddam, and the US which believes in the continued relevance of Western Civilization, do indeed have ideologies that are hostile to Britain's, assuming it still has one.

(3) Sovereignty : This is a moot point because Britain is busily transferring its own sovereignty to the EU. Britain will soon be nought but the province of Franco-German bureaucrats.

(4) Trade : This too is a moot point because the British economy is in such decline they aren't likely to be a significant trading power for long.

(5) Stability/Interests : This is half-moot, because Britain has no foreign interests any more, indeed appears to have no interests beyond dole checks and National Health. As to the second part of the question, obviously Iraq is inherently unstable but it is no longer much of a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, nor can it be so long as Israel and America exist to contain it. On the other hand, America is--as it has always been, but never moreso than now--a hugely destabilizing force in the world. Whether in its role as Promised Land or Crusader State; whether serving as a Shining City on a Hill or confronting totalitarianism; whether pursuing a Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, or Wilsonian foreign policy; or whether just exporting our culture--America serves as an example of what government looks like at the End of History; stands ready to help when called upon; and is not hesitant about intervening when necessary. In each and every one of these ways America stands as a continuous and awesome threat to enemies of freedom in every nook and cranny of the globe--from South Korea and Taiwan, whose freedom we effectively guarantee; to Afghanistan, whose freedom we restored; to Japan and Germany, whose freedom we created; to Cuba and Vietnam and China, whose freedom we futiley, but nobly, tried to defend and even today stand ready to help revive. So, yes, America is a significant and enduring destabilizing influence, in a world too much beset by tyranny.

Mr. Liddle appears to be correct that it is America which deserves British bombs, not Iraq. But he left a few fairly important points out of his calculus. First, can Britain deliver them? Not bloody likely. Two, has Britain the will to fight America? Don't be silly--Britain wouldn't even take on Slobodan Milosevic until we were there to hold their hands and talk them through it.

---

MY COUNTRY 'TIS OF THEE :

Deep-fried candy bar a new twist on old junk (Mark Brown, August 15, 2002, Chicago Sun-Times)

One of the hot items at the Illinois State Fair this year is a deep-fried candy bar.

They freeze a Snickers, Butterfinger or Milky Way, coat it with the same batter they use for the funnel cakes and then drop it in hot grease for a minute or so.

The result is scary, messy and slides down the hatch faster than you might expect.

The problem comes when it hits bottom and you come to the sudden realization that you've just swallowed a whole candy bar in about the time it takes to lick your fingers.

Why's that a problem?

---

BLECRABS :

Scrabble champ is word perfect (Paige Wiser, August 15, 2002, Chicago Sun-Times)

How you you spell fear? In the world of Scrabble players, it's C-A-P-P-E-L-L-E-T-T-O. "If you ask Scrabble experts who's the one player they fear most sitting across from, it's Brian Cappelletto," says John Williams, executive director of the National Scrabble Association.

"He's mastered all aspects of the game. He knows all the words, he's got the right mental approach. And he's actually one of the better groomed players."

That grooming bit is more unusual than you may realize--these are someodd folk.

---

THE STUPID PARTY STRIKES BACK :

Too clever by half (Michael Barone, 8/14/02. US News)

The Republicans have come up with a clever way to use the Social Security issue. Unfortunately for them, it is, as the British used to say, too clever by half. [...]

Despite the favorable polls, many Republicans are deathly afraid of being attacked on Social Security. They know that the Social Security issue has worked for the Democrats in the past. They are not confident that individual investment accounts will work for them now, and they are pretty sure that "privatization" will work against them. [...]

Some Republicans respond to the issue by making the positive case for individual investment accounts. Others swear they are against "privatization." And now a few, cleverly, are trying to turn the Democrats' words against them...

As Mr. Barone ably points out, the GOP, by referring to Democrats' plan to invest the Social Security Trust Funds in the stock market as "privatization", may be deflecting criuticism of their own privatization plans in the short term, but is damaging the cause of privatization in the long term.

---

WALK LIKE A DUCK :

Saudi Arabia gives US the cold shoulder (Michael Evans, August 15, 2002, Times of London)

RELATIONS between the United States and Saudi Arabia have deteriorated so far that the Saudi Arabians are no longer considered allies, senior diplomatic sources said yesterday.

Saudi Arabia, once the indispensable cornerstone of US policy in the Arab world, has refused to co-operate with the war on terrorism or support President Bush’s plans to overthrow President Saddam Hussein. According to the sources, it has handed over no Intelligence of any value about the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation, which has roots in Saudi Arabia.

The final “stab in the back” for Washington was the decision to ban American bombers from attacking Iraq from Saudi airbases. That has soured relations to such an extent that the country from which America launched its 1991 invasion of Iraq is now being excluded from discussions about a post-Saddam era.

Even Syria, which in public is opposed to an attack on Iraq and has been engaged in trade and arms deals with Baghdad, is talking secretly to the Americans and the British about the role that Damascus may play in the region if Saddam is overthrown. A Syrian delegation is understood to have had discussions with British officials in London this week.

British diplomatic sources said that the Saudi ruling elite was immersed in a “dynastic battle” and was so concerned about survival that the key figures were afraid of taking any decision that would be interpreted by the people as being pro-Western and anti-Arab. It had become increasingly difficult to find anyone with sufficient clout and influence in Riyadh “to talk about anything”. [...]

“There may be no political decision yet, but militarily the US has made enough preparations to attack Iraq any time, without using any facilities in Saudi Arabia, other than Saudi airspace. It is assumed that the Saudis would not go as far as denying over-flight rights,” the sources said.

At the end of the day is there any difference between being an enemy and acting like one?

---

CANDLE AND THE WINDBAG :

It's Gloves-Off Time for an Angry Arthur Miller : Arthur Miller has always held America to a higher moral standard than it has ever achieved. So perhaps it's no surprise that with his new play, "Resurrection Blues," he's getting fed up at last. (Bruce Weber, 8/15/02, NY Times)

Arthur Miller has always held America, hopefully and critically, to a higher moral standard than it has ever achieved. So perhaps it's no surprise that now, at 86, he's getting fed up at last. His new play, "Resurrection Blues," which is having its premiere production through Sept. 8 at the Guthrie Theater here, is a bitter comedy about the world that the American century wrought, and it essentially says that we have bollixed things up so badly that a Messiah has no chance; God has fled. That the deity in the play (who may or may not represent the Second Coming) keeps changing his name--at one point it's Ralph, at another Frederico--allows Mr. Miller to save his most meaningful yuk for the end.

"Goodbye, Charlie," a chorus of characters says to him, gazing at the sky as they ostensibly witness his departure and fade from the stage themselves.

This is, actually, among the gentler and more resonant jokes in Mr. Miller's indignant and disappointingly unpersuasive work. Creeping into a number of unsatirical speeches is the playwright's plaintive unhappiness with the world he sees in the latter days of his life. As someone asks rhetorically, "Wouldn't you gladly resign from the human race if there was another one to belong to?"

It seems worth noting that the "higher moral standard" that Mr. Miller most wanted America to measure up to was Socialism and that had he and his fellow travellers had their way one of the things that we'd not have bollixed up in the 20th Century was the Soviet Union--which would still be around oppressing all of Eastern Europe. What the heck was Marilyn thinking?

---

Bush, in Shift on Egypt, Links New Aid to Rights (Peter Slevin, August 15, 2002, Washington Post)

The Bush administration will oppose any additional foreign aid for Egypt to protest the Egyptian government's prosecution of human rights campaigner Saad Eddin Ibrahim and its poor treatment of pro-democracy organizations, administration sources said yesterday.

The Ibrahim case makes it "impossible" for the administration to contemplate extra money for Egypt, according to a White House official who said President Bush will soon advise Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in writing of his decision. Existing aid programs will not be affected.

Bush's decision to criticize Mubarak and connect Egypt's human rights performance to economic aid is a notable shift in policy toward a longtime ally considered essential to U.S. efforts to calm the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

If you've been paying any attention for the past year how can President Bush telling an Arab dictator that it's time to start democratizing still come as a surprise?

---

THE EASTERN WORLD, IT IS EXPLODIN' :

Opposition group says it shot son of Hussein (Khaled Yacoub Oweis, 8/15/2002, Reuters)

''Qusay [Hussein] was an obvious target for assassination, '' said a spokesman for the [Iraqi National Congress opposition group], which is based in London and includes most of the opposition factions.

''He is the second man in command in Iraq, a war criminal who cleansed prisons and put down revolts brutally,'' the spokesman added.

Qusay Hussein heads the Republican Guards, Iraq's best trained and equipped army unit entrusted with the protection of the president. He has been promoted to the regional command of the Baath party and touted as a possible successor to Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi National Congress spokesman said Qusay Hussein was wounded in the arm when a gunman shot at his motorcade in the Mansour district on Aug. 1. Iraqi security forces clashed with the attackers, who fled the scene, he added.

''The national resistance carried out the operation in the heart of Baghdad's security district. Knowing Qusay Hussein's whereabouts shows that the regime is penetrated,'' the spokesman said.

Take an already paranoid regime; mix in talk of the Kurds leading a Northern Front assault; add rumors of war from the United States; sprinkle in a periodic assassination attempt or cruise missile barrage; bring to a boil....

---

OF DUST THOU ART :

Coveting a clone : Families facing infertility, death of loved one turn to cloning (Julia Sommerfeld, 8/13/02 MSNBC)

When Katherine Gordon's teenage daughter died in a car accident five years ago, she became obsessed with the idea of cloning her child's genes. Cristina and Vince Revert are both infertile and see cloning as the only way they can have a child who is genetically related to them. And Liz Catalan, who suffers from premature ovarian failure, wants to bear her own child but refuses to use another woman's egg--preferring to raise her own later-born identical twin.

PEOPLE LIKE Liz Catalan are not narcissists out to populate the world with their likeness. Their motivations of love and loss are a far cry from the bioengineering nightmares depicted in science fiction novels and movies.

They are simply among a small but passionate group who, due to infertility or the loss of a loved one, feel that human cloning technology would fill some void in their lives.

Ms Sommerfeld's point about narcissism seems precisely wrong. Cloning is being sold as a kind of morally neutral medical procedure that has little or nothing to do with reproduction and the psychological desires of potential parents, but these folks seem fairly typical of the real reasons people support cloning. It's not really about healing the sick but about "filling voids" in the lives of the healthy and about our selfish desire to duplicate ourselves.

---

ALGER'S FOLLY :

We got an email from Joseph Alexander Norland at Dawson Speaks asking if we'd let readers know about the following petition :

TIME TO INVESTIGATE U.N. ABUSES
We, the undersigned, petition the Government of the United States to form an independant commission of inquiry to determine how the United Nations has violated its Mandate, abused its power and resources, engaged in racism and anti-Jewish acts, and supported Islamic terrorism against the free world. We would also like this commission to determine if and how this organization can be rectified, and if such an organization in its present state deserves to exist at the American taxpayer's expense.

Since we think the U.N. should be thrown out of the U.S., we're down with that. If you agree with the petition go check out what Mr. Norland has to say.

---

CONTAGION :

Arab anger limits US battle strategy : Arab allies--including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia--are increasingly critical of US plans for attacking Iraq. (Philip Smucker, 8/14/02, The Christian Science Monitor)

Arab opposition to a US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein is growing so significantly that it may change the shape of potential US plans to launch an attack against Iraq, Western and Middle Eastern analysts say. [...]

Nabil Osman, a senior adviser to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, insists that a US-led attack against Iraq could plunge the entire region into chaos and provide what he calls "ammunition to terrorists."

"The ongoing violence in Palestine and Israel has created one big headline in the region: It reads: 'Injustice!' and Washington should not ignore that," he says. "If the US wants to safeguard its own interests it must address these tensions first - especially if it wants to be seen as an honest peace broker in the region."

Global warmth for U.S. after 9/11 turns to frost : Military plans repulse even European allies (Ellen Hale, 8/14/02, USA TODAY)

In the shock wave that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, many Americans found themselves asking why so many people in Muslim countries hate the United States. But the anti-American sentiment has turned into a contagion that is spreading across the globe and infecting even the United States' most important allies.

In virulent prose, newspapers criticize the United States. Politicians ferociously attack its foreign policies, especially the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq. And regular citizens launch into tirades with American friends and visitors.

It seems difficult to draw any other conclusion from all the stories like these two than that one of the main sources of anti-Americanism is anti-Zionism, if not actual anti-Semitism. The calls we hear to settle the Palestinian issue before dealing with Saddam seem to be nothing more than demands that we reign in Israel and tell them to give in to Palestinian demands. After all, it's not as if we hear Arabs and Europeans telling Arafat to stop the bombings of innocent civilians in Israel. Why should we take their avowed concerns over "tensions" in the region seriously if they themselves are doing nothing to alleviate them?

---

THE WAGES OF TRIBALISM :

REV. AL'S POLL VAULT (DEBORAH ORIN, August 14, 2002, NY Post)

A shocking new poll shows Al Sharpton looms as a player in Democratic presidential politics who could become the new Jesse Jackson, although Al Gore remains the favorite by a mile.

Gore is way ahead, at 41 percent, and no one else hits double digits in the battle for the 2004 nomination to challenge George W. Bush - but Sharpton is doing as well as any other Democratic wannabe.

Sharpton runs even with House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and 2000 contender Bill Bradley - all at 5 percent - and just 1 point behind Gore's 2000 running mate, Joe Lieberman, at 6.

He also tops Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota (3 percent) and the pundits' favorite, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who drew just 2 percent in the Zogby International poll of likely Democratic primary voters nationwide.

The Democrats can't continually play the race card without running the risk that sooner or later blacks will actually want a place at the Party table. If they do nominate a moderate/conservative (for a Democrat) like a Joe Lieberman, it would not be at all surprising to see Al Sharpton run as an Independent or maybe even a Green. He could draw votes from blacks and other disaffected minorities and from the far Left. That's not a winning recipe, but it might be George Wallace/John Anderson/Ross Perot territory, and that's serious bad news for the Dems. Alternatively, he can make the Democrats publicly Mau-Mau him and that too is bad news for a party that learned under Bill Clinton that it can win if it runs to the Right in the general election.

---

ATLANTIC CITY CANTOS :

Susan Sarandon blasts George W. (Jeannette Walls, August 14, 2002, MSNBC)

Susan Sarandon has added her voice to the growing chorus of celebs who are criticizing George Bush post-9/11. The "Stepmom" star is in Edinburgh, Scotland, where she's performing in a theater production inspired by the terrorist attacks, and she's had some frank words about the political climate in America. [...]

"We're not supposed to talk about how there might have been something leading up to this, that it could have been prevented, or that our actions have ramifications," Sarandon said. "We're living in a lock-down in terms of information and a certain point of view, and if you challenge that point of view, you're anti-American."

While the sentiments aren't likely to endear Sarandon to the White House, they were applauded overseas, where the increasing likelihood of a U.S. attack on Iraq has been received coolly, to put it mildly.

One has to admire the courage of Ms Sarandon, who might well be our generation's Ezra Pound.

---

HUBBLE VS. HUMBLE :

In the Beginning ... (DENNIS OVERBYE, July 23, 2002, NY Times)

It has always been easy to make fun of cosmologists, confined to a dust mote lost in space, pronouncing judgment on the fate of the universe or the behavior of galaxies billions of light-years away, with only a few scraps of light as evidence.

"Cosmologists are often wrong," the Russian physicist Lev Landau put it, "but never in doubt."

For most of the 20th century, cosmology seemed less a science than a religious war over, say, whether the universe had a beginning, in a fiery Big Bang billions of years ago, or whether it exists eternally in the so-called Steady State.

In the last few years, however, a funny thing has happened. Cosmologists are beginning to agree with one another. Blessed with new instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope and other space-based observatories, a new generation of their giant cousins on the ground and ever-faster computer networks, cosmology is entering "a golden age" in which data are finally outrunning speculation.

"The rate at which we are learning and discovering new things is just extraordinary," said Dr. Charles Bennett, an astronomer at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

As a result, cosmologists are beginning to converge on what they call a "standard model" of the universe that is towering in its ambition. It purports to trace, at least in broad strokes, cosmic history from the millisecond after time began, when the universe was a boiling stew of energy and subatomic particles, through the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies and planets to the vast, dilute, dark future in which all of these will have died.

The universe, the cosmologists say, was born 14 billion years ago in the Big Bang. Most of its material remains resides in huge clouds of invisible so-called dark matter, perhaps elementary particles left over from the primordial explosion and not yet identified.

Within these invisible clouds, the glittery lights in the sky that have defined creation for generations of humans are swamped, like flecks of foam on a
rolling sea. A good case can be made, scientists now agree, that the universe will go on expanding forever.

This is a long but very interesting article, with cool pictures. Let me preface this by admitting that I don't understand the science at all, but what strikes me about all this is just how little we know. If I could analogize, we seem like characters in the middle of a novel who have become conscious of the fact that we are fictional creations. We've managed to trace our way back to the opening words of the book, but have no idea what lies beyond there or how they got there. We can make informed speculations about where the plot of the book is taking us, maybe even anticipate the most likely ending, but can't be certain and don't really have a clue what happens after it ends. And the most important thing about it all is that everything we know or think we know is contained by the covers of the book. We don't know the author or even if there is one. We don't know if there are other books--one more book; tens of books; trillions of books... We don't know whether the book is a fantasy, a history, a morality play, or whether it was typed by those monkeys in the old probability example who eventually type Hamlet by accident. We know, in a very real sense, practically nothing.

---

A GODSEND FOR THE GREENS :

Nuclear energy reduces greenhouse effect: OECD agency (Agence France-Presse, Aug 05, 2002)

Nuclear power helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and should be seen as a useful tool in the fight against global warming under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, according to a study by an OECD agency.

"A comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from different electricity generation chains shows that nuclear power is one of the least carbon-intensive generation technologies," according to the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

Without nuclear power, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants in countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development would be one-third higher, the report said.

"This is an annual saving of 1,200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or about 10 percent of total CO2 emissions from energy use in the OECD," the NEA wrote in its report.

So we'll anticipate a big outcry from the environmentalists demanding a transition to nuclear power, right?

---

WHERE DOES THE PLANNING PART COME IN? :

Girls Link Their Use of Family Planning Clinics to Keeping Parents in the Dark (JULIE FLAHERTY, August 14, 2002, NY Times)

Most girls under 18 would stop or limit their use of sexual health services at family planning clinics if their parents had to be told they were seeking prescribed contraceptives, a new survey shows. Among the 950 sexually active girls ages 12 to 17 who were surveyed at Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin in 1999, 47 percent said they would stop using the clinic entirely and 12 percent more said they would stop or postpone testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including H.I.V.

If the folks at these clinics really counsel children as young as 12 about how to have sex and don't report them to their parents, they should be prosecuted. If they tell them they're competent to make decisions about the life and death of their babies, they should go to prison. These are girls who we don't let drive a car, drink, or smoke, but these folks tell them it's okay to get an abortion?

---

GRANDPA DIED IN HIS SLEEP...DESPITE THE SCREAMS OF THE PASSENGERS :

A Growing Transportation Gap : As Americans live longer, the number of years they are able to drive is shrinking--and causing a problem that needs to be addressed by society. (JANE E. ALLEN, August 5 2002, LA TIMES)

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are outliving their ability to drive, a new study has found, leaving them dependent on others to provide rides for several years.

"Hundreds of thousands of older people quit driving each year and must turn to alternative transportation," said Dan Foley, a biostatistician at the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Md., and lead author of the study. "I don't think sufficient attention has been paid to the transition from driver to non-driver in the aging population."

Nearly 10% of the nation's drivers today are older than 65. The aging of the baby boomers and an increase in the number of female drivers is expected to yield a growing population of older Americans living longer than they hold a driver's license.

Which misses the real point, that people are driving long past the age when they are competent. Moreover, this problem will just get worse as more folks live longer and it may prove difficult to solve through normal legislative channels because the elderly will be the dominant cohort in the population, able to dictate the law to the younger minority.

---

ALL THIS AND HAIR SHIRTS TOO :

Next time you see a monk, thank him. (Jim Zebora, August 7, 2002, Stamford Advocate)

Those called to the contemplative life have throughout history done wonders for modern civilization:

They preserved centuries of literature and art.

They created the modern sciences of genetics and aerodynamics.

They invented reading glasses.

They made beer.

That's right. Back when the world was a much grimmer place, they made a lot of it.

In monasteries and abbeys throughout Europe, and wherever the monks' missionary work would take them, a small brewery was often part of the original plans, along with residential cells for sleeping, a refectory for eating meals, and of course, a sanctuary for prayer.

Without monks, the craft of brewing might not have survived the dark ages, and certainly cognizant of that fact, the folks at Labatt USA in Norwalk are celebrating the 850th anniversary of the Abbey of Leffe in Belgium, where Leffe beer was first brewed.

They had books and beer--how grim could it have been?

---

ABOUT TIME :

Kino International Presents : Fritz Lang's Metropolis
Fritz Lang is one of the great film noir directors--Scarlet Street and The Big Heat are especially good-- though, with the exception of the classic "M", which was the first German film to use sound, you seldom see his flicks on TV much anymore. And it's likely that his most enduring influence on Hollywood comes from a picture, Metropolis , that was a disaster of "Waterworld" proportions, nearly bankrupting the film studio that produced it and failing to make money. A silent dystopian epic, Lang's art design for the futuristic film, particularly the use of massive Art Deco sets has influenced nearly all science fiction films since and music videos by folks like Madonna.

---

THE FOURTH WORLD? :

DISPATCH FROM AFRICA : 'Renaissance' for continent? : Massive initiative offers hope for poor but invites skepticism (Anthony C. LoBaido, August 11, 2002, WorldNetDaily.com)

A new initiative by the world's economic powers to revitalize Africa has become the hottest topic on the continent.

The Group of Eight most industrialized nations is launching The New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NEPAD. The initiative has raised the hopes of many Africans but also invites skepticism. Does NEPAD signal a "renaissance" for Africa's poor or is it merely a tool of the West to tightenits grip on Africa's natural resources?

The continent is awash with challenges, gripped by AIDS, colonization by communist China, civil wars, corporate raiders, mercenaries, dictators,self-induced famine, Marxism and radical Islam. The post-colonial era clearly has failed all Africans.

The recent peace initiative in Sudan is faltering. Civil war rages in Madagascar and Liberia. Congo seethes with instability. A second genocide in Rwanda is possible. Togo has had three decades of dictatorial rule. Zimbabwe and Cameroon have held some of the most fraudulent elections in modern history.

Many wonder how to turn Africa back towards the prosperity and stability it enjoyed under white colonial rule. Since the 1950s, respect for human rights generally has declined. Foreign aid accounts for 50 percent of Africa's budget and 75 percent of its infrastructure. Africa comprises 1 percent ofworld economic output, less than Belgium.

Cyclical drought, increasing water scarcity, urban drift, poor education, matriarchal tribalism, a shortage of high tech workers, massive migration toSouth Africa and economic inequality are storm clouds on the African horizon which have no quick fix.

According to a report issued by the Institute for Global Dialogue, a branch of the German Social Democracy Party, by the year 2020, Africa as awhole will exist under one of five possible scenarios. These scenarios are conflict and corporate control, unstable markets driven by globalization, a slow and continued slide into decay and anarchy, the breakup of African states into smaller units each struggling for survival, or regional renaissance led by a new visionary leadership of Africans.

Man, this is depressing. Is there any sign of hope for Africa?

---

GOOD ROCKIN' TONIGHT :

Rockabilly? It's Alive and Kicking, Daddy-O : Survivors from the rockabilly era and their next-generation disciples gathered at Damrosch Park on Sunday afternoon to show that their music can still kick. (JON PARELES, 8/13/02, NY Times)

Survivors from the rockabilly era and their next-generation disciples gathered for the Red Hot Rockabilly Party at Damrosch Park on Sunday afternoon to show that their music can still kick. From the 1950's came Narvel Felts and Jack Scott, two singers who had not performed in New York City for decades, along with two more frequent visitors, Wanda Jackson and Billy Lee Riley. They shared the four-hour Lincoln Center Out of Doors concert, with Rosie Flores, the Persuasions, Lee Rocker (formerly of the Stray Cats) and Rocky and Billy Burnette, the sons (respectively) of the rockabilly pioneers Johnny and Dorsey Burnette.

The younger musicians, by and large, played rockabilly as a style they respected and doted on, an idiom of guitar twangs and vocal yelps salvaged from a bygone era. But Mr. Riley, Ms. Jackson and Mr. Felts sang their old songs as taunts, crows of triumph, moans of heartbreak and cackles of lust, barely less immediate than they were when they were recorded. For them, rockabilly was not just a fond memory but a continuing insurrection.

Narvel Felts was still cranking out hits in the mid-70s. In particular, I think he recorded the most successful version of Willie Nelson's "Funny How Time Slips Away".

---

WHY? :

A Comic Book Gets Serious on Gay Issues : A character in DC Comics's "Green Lantern" series did something few characters in comic books do: he revealed he was gay. (GEORGE GENE GUSTINES, 8/13/02, NY Times)

In the world of DC Comics, Kyle Rayner is Green Lantern, possessor of an emerald ring, one of the most powerful weapons in the universe. He uses it to right wrongs and keep the residents of New York City safe.

His ring, however, is powerless to cope with the deadlines he faces in his civilian job as a freelance cartoonist. That's when Terry Berg, a teenage intern assigned to keep Kyle on track, entered the picture.

In April last year, eight months after his introduction to the supporting cast, Terry did something few characters in comic books do: he revealed he was gay. In "Green Lantern" No. 154, which will go on sale in September, Terry is spotlighted in the first half of a two-part story about a downside of being proudly out. He will be the victim of a gay bashing. While the comic book industry over the years has introduced gay and lesbian characters, this is the first major story line involving a gay central character of a mainstream comic book.

You know, I read comic books for almost twenty years and no one ever had sex--well, okay, the married folks, like in the Fantastic Four, presumably did. Do we really need them so sexualized that you've got gay teenagers? Isn't there a comics code authority anymore?

---

ADDING MORALLY BANKRUPT TO COSTLY & INEFFECTIVE :

Portugal assesses its softer approach to drug users : A year ago Lisbon decriminalized drug use. Views differ on whether the policy is effective. (Sara B. Miller, August 08, 2002, The Christian Science Monitor)

In the shadowy labyrinth of cobblestone streets around this port city's 12th-century cathedral, heroin addicts have long been selling drugs and shooting up.

Police had hoped that the narcotics-infested neighborhood would change after Portugal's decision to decriminalize the use of all drugs. But a year after the sweeping initiative took effect, they say the scene, and their jobs, have changed little. [...]

Portugal, a main gateway for drugs entering Europe, has among the highest per capita rates of hard drug use in the European Union, with an estimated 80,000 heroin addicts in a population of 10 million. Decriminalizing drug consumption was intended to attack the problem at its source: With users given treatment and education instead of jail time, police could devote more time and resources to catching traffickers.

While an evaluation to be released later this month by the nation's Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction points to some positive results over the past year, the frustrations, and the cost of the program, have some critics urging cutbacks.

"One of the most important things Portugal has learned this year is the importance of dissuasion," says Elza Pais, the president of the government-run drug institute.

Hard to see how legalization dissuades anyone. In fact, it does the opposite--conveying a cultural imprimatur.

---

SPARE US THE "MY STARVING PEOPLE" SCHTICK, HUH? :

IDF intelligence: Arafat's wealth estimated at 1.3 billion US dollars (THE JERUSALEM POST INTERNET, Aug. 13, 2002)

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's personal wealth is estimated at some 1.3 billion dollars, the head of military intelligence, General Aharon
Zeevi Farkash, disclosed during a meeting of the Knesset's Security and Foreign Affairs Committee Tuesday, Itim news agency reported.

Apparently, folks will pay you well for killing Jews.

---

BRING THE SMELLING SALTS FOR BOB NOVAK :

Kurds offer territory for Iraq attack (CNN, August 13, 2002)

A prominent Iraqi Kurdish opposition leader said Tuesday U.S. military forces would be "welcomed" at areas in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq to stage attacks against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Jalal Talabani, founder and secretary-general of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that after weekend meetings with top Bush administration officials, he and other Iraqi opposition leaders are convinced the United States is now serious about ousting Hussein.

"I explained to the United States officials here that the Iraqi opposition, Kurds included, ... have tens of thousands of armed people," Talabani said.

"We have more than 100,000 (Kurdish resistance fighters), and Syria also has tens of thousands. These forces can liberate Iraq with the support of the United States, with cooperation and coordination with American forces. This is all second, of course, with allowing the United States and facilitating any work that the United States wants to use our area until we stay there."

This makes the NY Times coverage of the war over the past couple months almost completely incomprehensible.

---

SUBSTANDARD :

Fool's Gold : The economy's in chaos. The world's a mess. So why are gold prices stagnant? (Mark Lewis, August 13, 2002, Slate)

Gold is supposed to be the ultimate hedge against financial disaster. As such, it tends to attract investors from the paranoid fringe, the sort who invested heavily in canned goods and bottled water before Y2K and who keep a few Krugerrands buried in the backyard to be bartered for food when the world goes to hell and "fiat money" becomes worthless. This doomsday cult aside, gold is the realm of the hardheaded pessimist, who studies the many ominous portents currently on display and concludes, not unreasonably, that things may get a lot worse before they get better. Many people are very nervous these days--yet gold thus far has failed to take off into the stratosphere. What gives?

A comforting answer would be that the long and painful decoupling process finally is complete, and the link between gold and money is now severed.

Isn't the real problem with gold that it is just like any other commodity and their prices have all been falling for decades, as the great Julian Simon most spectacularly demonstrated when he made his famous wager with that colossal quack Paul Ehrlich. As Ron Bailey tell's it in his book, Ecoscam: "In October 1980, Ehrilch and Simon drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Ehrlich the same quantities which could be purchased for $1,000 of five metals (copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten) ten years later as 1980 prices. If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990."

---

THE REAL THREAT :

Benizri reconvenes council to boost Jewish birth rate (Anat Cygielman, 14/08/2002, Ha'aretz)

The Public Demographic Council will convene next month, after four years of inactivity, to formulate its recommendations as to what the government can do to promote an increase in the Jewish birth rate. [...]

The council was established in 1966, after a government decision to "create an atmosphere in which large families were encouraged." That decision also called for "restraining artificial pregnancy terminations." The council has been criticized in the past for some of its recommendations, including anti-abortion propaganda.

How can you criticize them for anti-abortion propaganda? If Israel's Jews don't drastically boost their birth rates--which I believe are currently below replacement rate, as they are for Jews here in the U.S.--then they may as well just give the country to the Palestinians now, because the days of Judaism are numbered.

---

FED BASH :

Give Greenspan's Fed Its Share of the Blame (William Greider, August 13, 2002, Washington Post)

For most of the past 20 years, the central bank continued to fight the last war -- inflation -- and did so by restraining economic growth artificially. Its brake produced many years of higher unemployment than was necessary, thus ensuring stagnant or falling real wages for ordinary working people. [...]

In the run-up to the current debacle, Greenspan's first pivotal error occurred back in 1996, when he and other Fed governors first recognized a price bubble forming ominously in stock markets. Then-governor Lawrence Lindsey (now the president's economic adviser) urged the chairman to act promptly. Raising margin rates would tighten stock-market borrowing -- the easy credit investors use in a speculative binge -- and ring a loud warning bell for giddy investors. But Greenspan waved off Lindsey's prescient plea. A few months later, the chairman did speak once of "irrational exuberance," but the markets reacted badly. He dropped the subject. [...]

But Greenspan's second great error was joining the celebration himself. He suggested that rising productivity had opened a glorious new era of ever-upward prosperity. His ebullient remarks sounded very similar to the self-congratulations expressed by the Federal Reserve in the late 1920s. Then and now, the Fed's happy talk excited stock-market plungers, large and small.

The third error was the Fed's belated attempt in early 2000 to get some control over frenzied events -- an error because it did so by hammering the real economy with interest-rate increases, rather than restraining the financial system directly. Greenspan claimed to detect a phantom price inflation in goods and services. Actually, the only price inflation was in the stock market. The obvious injustice was punishing the many for the excesses of a relative few, driving the broad economy into recession in order to calm down the out-of-control financial system.

Greenspan overdid it and was compelled to reverse himself abruptly, cutting interest rates dramatically to revive economic activity. Having cut rates so deeply, the Fed is now dangerously close to zero -- that is, to running out of arrows. Yet Wall Street once again is clamoring for a big rate cut to salvage the deflating stock market. This time Greenspan should ignore the bankers and brokers and allow the stock market to find the "bottom" on its own. The Fed and the White House should prepare a substantial, well-timed package of monetary and fiscal stimulus designed to kick-start the real economy of goods and services. Financial markets will follow.

William Greider, whose Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country is the best popular book ever written about the Fed, gets more right than wrong here. The first error he speaks of is more technical than I'm capable of discussing intelligently. The second error he cites is actually probably true and may eventually be proven to be one of the main reasons (along with globalization/free trade) why there is no inflation. But the third error he cites is exactly right. The Fed kept raising interest rates as if inflation were right around the corner when in fact we were in a long deflationary cycle. In effect, the Fed caused this economic slowdown.

---

FORTY-SECOND BOYD :

How Col. John Boyd Beat The Generals (Martin Edwin Andersen, 08/13/2002, Insight)

Col. John Boyd, his biographer Robert Coram reports in his well-written book, had a speech he often gave to those who, like the fighter pilot himself, found that doing right did not always mean doing well. Known as the "To Be or To Do" speech, Boyd used it to rally flagging spirits of apprentices who, until they became involved as one of his Acolytes, had appeared fated to climb the highest rungs of conventional success. The tenets of this speech reflected both his spirit and values:

"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd] raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference." He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

A fascinating profile of the kind of guy who's all too rare in any bureaucracy but who truly matters in the military.

---

THE FRIGHTENING IRRELEVANCE OF THE ACADEMIC LEFT :

The Scary Relevance of William Randolph Hearts's "Gabriel Over the White House" (Deborah Carmichael, History News Network)

William Randolph Hearst...brought his political message to millions of moviegoers in 1933 with his Cosmopolitan Films' production of "Gabriel Over the White House." Collaborating with scriptwriter Carey Wilson, Hearst himself wrote some of the politically charged oratory of President Hammond (Walter Houston).

Opening archival footage lends a documentary character to the film, introducing the new president on inauguration day. It is quickly revealed that President Hammond, a pleasure-loving and pliable politician, has gained the presidency through the support of party leaders. These leaders remind him regularly of the many favors he owes them. He answers to political shysters and not the American people suffering through the Great Depression.

After a life-changing event--a nearly fatal auto accident caused by his own reckless driving--this fictional president experiences a spiritual and political epiphany guided by the archangel Gabriel (present in the form of a soft musical leit motif). A transformed President Hammond, who now resembles Abraham Lincoln physically and spiritually, acts rapidly to rid the nation of an unseen enemy--rum-running gangsters. Invoking his position as commander in chief, he adjourns Congress, disbands his Cabinet, institutes martial law, and after conviction by a military tribunal, orders death by firing squad in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty for the bootleggers who have threatened the stability of the country. Hammond further
eliminates domestic problems by forming a CCC-like program. He gets foreign debts repaid by bullying world leaders with a display of military might. The problem of returning to a constitutional government is neatly solved as Gabriel, an angel of both vengeance and mercy, kills off President Hammond, who returns to his former self after completing the rescue of his country. [...]

Both the United States Congress and American allies around the globe seem to have little choice but to agree to commander in chief Bush's requests. Loud disagreement would appear to be anti-American. Unlike the fade-out of a Hollywood film, the threats our nation faces cannot be so easily resolved. George W. Bush faces far-reaching decisions and may feel like President Taft who wrote, "the whole government is so identified in the minds of the people with [the president's] personality, that they make him responsible for all the sins of omission and of commission of society at large." We can hope that Gabriel continues to hover over the White House.

Setting aside the author's implicit message that George W. Bush should be killed when all this is over, one has to wonder if these people even live in the same country as the rest of us, as they decry our loss of fundamental civil liberties. Ms Carmichael's comparison of our current situation to a B-movie about a fascist takeover of the American government is spectacularly over the top. So much so that it makes anything serious she might have to say awfully hard to listen to--we're laughing too hard to hear her